House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
1. If he will bring forward legislative proposals on standardised packaging of tobacco products.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)
The Government’s policy remains unchanged. We are waiting to see how the legislation recently introduced in Australia pans out before deciding whether to follow.
Cathy Jamieson
Given some of the public health Minister’s previous pronouncements, some of us could be forgiven for thinking that the Government’s policy has changed. Will she advise the House, therefore, on who overruled her support for this policy? Was it the Prime Minister, the Health Secretary or Lynton Crosby?
Anna Soubry
Unfortunately, the hon. Lady has not listened to my last answer or, indeed, to my statement on Friday. The Government’s policy remains unchanged. We are waiting to see the evidence before making a decision. I take the very firm view that the best legislation is based on good evidence.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Of course, there are those of us who believe it is up to the individual to take personal responsibility for their own health and who entirely support the Government’s decision not to have any extension of the nanny state. Does the Minister agree that, before we introduce any new laws on tobacco, we ought to enforce more strictly the existing laws on not selling cigarettes to children?
Anna Soubry
My hon. Friend makes a number of excellent points with which I agree, save for one: with great respect, standardised packaging would not be an extension of the nanny state, because it would not impinge on anybody’s freedom or right not only to buy cigarettes, but to smoke them. It is all about ensuring that the package is not attractive, especially to young people, who are at risk of taking up smoking.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
18. Earlier this year, I met young people from Dudley who set up the Kick Ash project campaigning for plain packaging. They showed me evidence from research that plain packaging would stop young people smoking in the first place, which is something every MP ought to be committed to trying to do. If the Government reject plain packaging, will those young people be right to conclude that the Government take the advice of big tobacco companies and their wealthy lobbyists more seriously than the views of young people in Dudley?
Anna Soubry
First, I pay tribute to Kick Ash. I am more than happy to meet those youngsters; they seem to be doing a very good job. Secondly, we are not in anybody’s pocket. I am sure the hon. Gentleman can say he is not in the pocket of any trade unions either. This is an important decision, but we have not made it yet; we are waiting to see how things develop in Australia, and as I say, good laws are based on good, sound evidence. That is the way forward.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Is the high evidential threshold being set for the plain packaging proposals to be applied across Government legislation or only where lobbyists are involved?
Anna Soubry
I am rather disappointed at that question from my hon. Friend. I can assure him that the Government take all these issues very seriously. I am proud of our emerging record on public health, but as I say, we have yet to make a decision, because, quite properly, we want to see what happens in Australia, and of course we are also waiting to see what happens elsewhere, notably in Ireland, where the Irish Government intend to introduce this policy. It might or might not be successful.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The Minister says, quite correctly, that the best legislation is based on evidence, but should it not also be untainted by the activities of lobbyists? She will be aware that Department of Health officials met Philip Morris Ltd at the end of January this year, but although minutes of meetings with other tobacco companies that occurred at the same time have been released, the Department insists that the minutes of the meeting with Philip Morris have yet to be finalised. Is it not the truth that the Government are trying to cover their tracks over their relationship with Lynton Crosby and his clients and that when it comes to the decision effectively to drop plain packaging for this Parliament, all roads lead back to No. 10 and Lynton Crosby?
Anna Soubry
I have just seen a piece of straw flying over, which the hon. Lady attempts to clutch at. [Interruption.] “Clutching at straws”—it is a bit lost on the Opposition, but that is more a sign of their difficulties than ours. The minutes of the meeting with that tobacco company have been published this morning. The reason for the delay—I very much hope the hon. Lady is not suggesting for one moment that my officials have been in any way dishonest—is because unfortunately the tobacco company did not agree the minutes, and there was some to-ing and fro-ing. I really wish she would not subscribe to conspiracy theories where they do not exist.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
2. What recent assessment he has made of the effects on NHS services of changes in local authority spending on adult social care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
Data on delayed transfer of care suggest that the interface between health and social care has improved since this Government have been in office. In 2012-13, the number of bed days lost because of delays attributable to social care was nearly 50,000 lower than in the previous year.
Stephen Timms
In May, the King’s Fund report,“Paying for social care” warned that local authority spending is continuing to fall and that fewer people are getting help. It is my understanding that last month an internal NHS document recognised that pressure on social care budgets meant “more delayed discharges”, increasing the problem in accident and emergency. Therefore, cuts to care budgets are increasing delayed discharges. What will the Minister do to tackle that problem?
Dr Poulter
The right hon. Gentleman would have done well to listen to my answer before he read out a pre-prepared question. In 2012-13, the number of bed days lost because of social care delays was 50,000 fewer than the year before. However, he is absolutely right that we need to do more to ensure better integration and better joined-up care between the NHS and social care. That is what this Government are doing, and that is why we have allocated a £3.8 billion fund to do just that in the spending review.
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no solution to the economic challenges facing the health and care system—still less any solution to the quality challenges that are increasingly coming to light—that does not involve proper integration of health and care? Is not the decision announced by the Chancellor a couple of weeks ago the first tangible step of a Government delivering a policy that Governments have talked about for a generation?
Dr Poulter
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, as always. He is a tremendous advocate—and has been since his time in office—of integrated health and social care, and of the transformation in the delivery of care that we need to make if we are to better look after patients with long-term conditions and the frail elderly. This Government are the first Government who are committed to doing that. Compare that with the real-terms cut in funding for social care that happened under the last Government, according to the Dilnot report.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
17. Bolton hospital has told me that it needs a much greater concentration on social care. Indeed, a recent NHS Confederation survey of NHS chief executives and chairs said that two thirds said that a shortfall in local authority spending had impacted on their services over the past year. Will the Minister finally accept that the Government’s deep cuts to social care are having a serious effect on the ability of the NHS to deliver safe care?
Dr Poulter
I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is referring to the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services report that was published recently. It is important to look at that report in context and not misinterpret the figures. The report shows that spending has been roughly flat in social care, and the last survey also shows that councils are expecting a small increase in expenditure on social care next year. The 20% or £2.7 billion that is often touted by the Opposition in fact represents savings that councils have made through efficiencies, and that money is obviously being reinvested in front-line care.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give an indication of the long-term cost savings of integrating health and social care, as against the short-term cost of making the changes?
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that the figures show that last year alone 50,000 bed days that would otherwise have been wasted were saved by investing in social care and implementing the service transformation that we all require. However, this is about making all NHS and social care budgets go further, and recognising that if we are to improve the care of older people, particularly frail elderly people, we have to invest in more community prevention and community-based care, which is what this Government are doing.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
As we have heard, two thirds of NHS leaders have said that the shortfall in social care spending is having an impact on their services. The Minister can try to get rid of that and talk it away, but in week after week of taking evidence in our inquiry into emergency care, the Select Committee on Health has heard the same thing. We know that elderly patients now form a much larger proportion of admissions—40% of admissions to emergency units are people aged 65 to 85. Is not the £1.8 billion cut in spending now really hitting NHS services and making the emergency care crisis worse?
Dr Poulter
I am afraid that the Opposition are very confused about their figures. As I explained earlier, the £2.7 billion—or 20%—figure represents the savings that councils have made to meet demand, and real-terms spending next year is expected to go up. The point from the ADASS and other surveys is that integration works. This Government are investing in integration. According to the Dilnot report, it was the last Government who cut in real terms the amount of spending going to social care between 2005 and 2010—and the hon. Lady was a member of that Government.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
3. What steps he is taking to change negative perceptions of mental health issues.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)
I pay tribute to the work done on this issue by my hon. Friend, as well as by my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and many others. They have done a huge amount to remove the taboo associated with mental health. We are funding the “Time to Change” campaign, with up to £16 million being put in from 2011 to 2015. The programme works to support and empower people to talk about their mental health problems and to tackle the discrimination that so many of them face. It includes for the first time a tailored programme of work for children and young people.
Bob Stewart
How confident is my hon. Friend that general practitioners are able to make rapid assessments of potential mental health problems, particularly clinical depression, when patients present themselves perhaps for other non-related matters?
Anna Soubry
We know that a third of GP appointments are mental health-related, so GPs have a lot of experience in tackling mental illness. We also know, however, that it is not covered extensively in GP training, which is why the Royal College of General Practitioners has identified improved care for people with mental health problems as a training priority—this is to be welcomed—through its enhanced GP training programme.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Yet mental health spending has been cut over the last two years and we find ourselves in a position where four in 10 mental health trusts do not have safe levels of staffing. What is the Minister going to do about the funding and the staffing levels in our mental health services?
Anna Soubry
Of course, the overall health budget will be rising by some £12 billion by 2015, and in relation to mental health, I have to say that I am exceptionally proud of this Government for making mental health such a priority, notably through the mandate. I think we are to be congratulated on at last recognising how important mental health is. In our view, it underpins almost all public health matters and so many of the troubles and conditions that people present to GP surgeries. Therefore, I think we are doing an extremely good job on this subject.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
4. What plans he has to implement the recommendation of the Francis report on safe staffing levels.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
We agree with Robert Francis that there is a need for evidence-based guidance and tools to inform appropriate staffing levels. We have set out a number of recommended actions to support appropriate staffing levels in “Compassion in Practice”—the nursing, midwifery and care staff vision and strategy for England.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, but Robert Francis said in his report that minimum safe staffing levels lead to helping patient safety. If the Secretary of State agrees with Robert Francis, why does he not implement that recommendation now?
Mr Hunt
I do agree with Robert Francis, but as he said in Nursing Times, there is an apparent misunderstanding by many people about what his recommendations actually were. This is what he said:
“I did not recommend there should be a national minimum staffing standard for nursing. The government was criticised for not implementing one, which it is said I recommended, which I didn’t.”
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
As someone who worked in the public services before my election here, I well understand the pressure put on public servants to cover up bad news. I was contacted by a nurse yesterday who informed me that concerns that were raised at a training day were dismissed by a matron—people were told to put them in the bin. Can the Secretary of State assure us that he will do everything to ensure that nurses who are concerned about staffing levels feel free to speak out and will be protected?
Mr Hunt
What my hon. Friend says is incredibly important. We must have a culture of openness and transparency inside the NHS, which means that people at the front line feel empowered to speak up if they think there is a problem. That has not happened in the past, and we are going to put it right.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will make a statement shortly about the Keogh review. Two of the hospitals investigated are Basildon and Tameside. The previous Government left a warning in place on both trusts about patient safety. This Government have ignored those warnings and allowed both trusts to make severe cuts to front-line staff. Tameside has cut 128 nursing posts and Basildon an unbelievable 345. Given the warnings he inherited, why on earth has he allowed that to happen?
Mr Hunt
I am very surprised that the right hon. Gentleman wants to mention what happened at Tameside. Tameside had high death rates for eight years under Labour. The previous Government ignored a whistleblower in 2005, warnings to Parliament in 2006, a coroner’s report in 2006 and warnings from my predecessor in 2009. To cap it all, in 2009 the hospital was given a “good” rating by the Care Quality Commission. How bad is that?
Andy Burnham
I am afraid the Secretary of State is simply wrong. At the instigation of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), I ordered unannounced inspections into Tameside. The Secretary of State should get his facts straight before he comes to this Dispatch Box. He did not answer on staffing, and it gets worse, Mr Speaker. Seven of the 14 hospitals in the Keogh review have between them cut a shocking 1,117 nursing jobs on this Government’s watch. Unsurprisingly, A and E performance has plummeted at all seven. All 14 hospitals were meeting the A and E target in my time in office; none of them are meeting it under the Secretary of State. Is not the right response to the Keogh review to stop dithering and act now on safe staffing levels?
Mr Hunt
I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about the Keogh review before we have made our statement. I am particularly surprised because the Keogh review is the review that Labour never wanted to have, with high death rates in all those hospitals stretching back to 2005 and a record of inaction by Labour. As former—[Interruption.] I think the House might be interested to hear this. as former Labour councillor and Mid Staffs campaigner Ken Lownds said today:
“Can you imagine a Keogh review under Andy Burnham or any Labour Health Secretary? Not a chance.”
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
5. Whether the new review of children’s heart surgery units will cover adult as well as paediatric cardiac surgery.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)
I am informed by NHS England that it will include adult surgery in its review of care for people with congenital heart disease.
Jason McCartney
Can NHS England assure us that a clear link will be shown between the feedback from patients, the public and stakeholders and the final configuration of services in the review of the Leeds children’s heart surgery unit?
Anna Soubry
Let me first pay tribute to the work my hon. Friend continues to do in support of his hospital and his children’s heart unit. NHS England has told me that individuals and patient organisations have all been encouraged to engage with and contribute to the local review process. The feedback received will be used to help to inform the outcome of the review of children’s heart surgery at Leeds.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
6. What plans he has to meet the acting chief executive of the East of England ambulance trust to discuss that trust’s recovery plan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
The NHS Trust Development Authority is working with the trust to review its action plan and monitor progress in response to the findings of the recent governance review and the Marsh report. Ministers will keep the situation under review.
Mr Bellingham
Is the Minister aware that, in spite of the efforts and professionalism of front-line staff, the organisation has been badly led and has lurched from crisis to crisis? Does he have confidence in the new management team and the recovery plan? Does he not agree that the time might have come to break up this large organisation and move it into smaller units that are closer to the communities?
Dr Poulter
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and his diligent local campaigning on the issue. He is absolutely right that the Marsh review highlighted a failure of leadership at the trust and in the trust board as well as a disconnect between the front-line staff, who work effectively and well, and that leadership. We now have a new team at the top and we must give it time to respond to the Marsh report and put in place the right measures. I believe that efficiencies can be made at a back office and regional level, but there is a good case for ensuring that more localised data are presented about ambulance response times countywide.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
The East of England ambulance service is failing to meet the needs of patients on the Secretary of State’s watch. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) has said:
“This did not used to happen.”—[Official Report, 25 June 2013; Vol. 565, c. 19WH.]
The hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) has said:
“Lives are put at risk.”—[Official Report, 25 June 2013; Vol. 565, c. 2WH.]
Does the Minister agree with those Members, and does he believe that clinical outcomes for patients in the east of England have been affected by the collapsing service over which he has presided?
Dr Poulter
The hon. Gentleman would do well to heed the Marsh review before asking his questions, because it highlights a fundamental, systemic failure of leadership at the ambulance trust which dates back to the last Government’s time in office. As we know, the number of NHS managers in the east of England rose by 86.4% under the last Government, but there was a lack of connection between the managers of the trust and front-line staff. Government Members are promoting clinical leadership, and trusting clinicians and front-line paramedics to deliver a much better ambulance service. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should prepare his questions more thoroughly in future, and should read the Marsh review before he asks them.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
7. What recent assessment he has made of the joint service review on the future of health services in Worcestershire.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
The configuration of local health services is a matter for the local NHS. Commissioners in Worcestershire are working with local health care providers and stakeholders to develop proposals for the future provision of acute services across the county, which will be subject to public consultation later this year.
Karen Lumley
Does the Minister agree that the people of Redditch deserve to see the implementation of the two options that he promised in Westminster Hall in February, after 18 months of indecision and uncertainty in Worcestershire about the future of our hospitals, including Alexandra hospital, which he visited with me?
Dr Poulter
It was a great pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s local hospital, and I agree that it is time that consultation took place on firm proposals. The proposals that we discussed during the Westminster Hall debate appeared to me to have considerable merit, and I understand that local commissioners will present them in a timely manner later this year.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
8. What assessment he has made of recent improvements in services to patients at Kettering general hospital.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
Monitor, as the regulator of foundation trusts, is working with NHS England, the Care Quality Commission and local commissioners to ensure that the trust has robust plans to make the necessary improvements. The emergency care intensive support team has given the trust advice and support to help it to develop plans to improve its A and E performance.
Mr Hollobone
Will the Minister congratulate all those at Kettering general hospital who have been involved in various recent developments? For instance, urology patients are being given the anti-cancer drug mitomycin C, which halves the risk of a recurrence; a CT scanner that is 10 times more powerful than its predecessor is facilitating CT angiography; and 44% of colorectal operations—twice the national average—are being performed on a keyhole basis.
Dr Poulter
I am happy to commend Kettering general hospital for some of the improvements in care that have been made recently. My hon. Friend will, of course, want to ensure that that progress is sustained during the weeks and months ahead. As he will know, Monitor is still overseeing the trust to ensure that patient care and performance remain up to standard.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). Kettering general hospital also serves my constituents, and I look forward to meeting the Minister this week to discuss the pressures that are being imposed on it. One of the trust’s main problems is having to spend money from its acute budget on local care home beds. Does the Minister recognise that that should not be happening?
Dr Poulter
The approach that must be adopted to ensure that health and social care services are joined up in the way that we need will vary in different parts of the country, and in accordance with differing health care needs and demographic challenges. I look forward to discussing that and other issues further when I meet the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) tomorrow or on Thursday.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
9. What assessment he has made of the roll-out of the NHS 111 telephone service.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
NHS 111 is now available in more than 90% of England. Despite some problems with the sites where it was launched around Easter, performance has now stabilised significantly. NHS 111 is now the principal entry route for access to the urgent care system, and nearly 600,000 patients accessed the service in May.
Siobhain McDonagh
Let me take the opportunity to make a confession to the House. Six weeks ago on Friday, I rang 111 as I watched one of my best friends vomit. She had been vomiting for 10 days, had been to see her GP four times, and had telephoned 111 on two occasions, on each of which she was told to go away and take antibiotics.
I did what no Member of Parliament wants to do. I said to the operator, “I am an MP, and I will take this up in the House if you do not deal with it properly.” Forty minutes later an ambulance arrived, and my friend was saved from a massive heart attack. What happens to people who have no one to speak for them, and no one who can say “I am an MP”?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Lady makes a very important point and I do not want to defend that service in the instance she cited at all. It is completely unacceptable if that kind of thing has to happen. The principle of 111—which is for people to have an easy-to-remember number and to be able to be connected to a clinician directly if they need to be, which did not happen with NHS Direct—is a good one, but it is not happening in practice as much as it needs to be. We are broadly meeting our operational standards, but it is not good enough and she has given a very good example as to why.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
First, may I thank the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), for responding to the recent debate we held on this issue? When it was my own father in those circumstances, I did not say that I was an MP, as I felt that would be an abuse of the system. I am delighted that North Yorkshire has reported no problems since 111 was introduced, but there is the issue of the deficit for clinical commissioning groups, which we hope will not detract from the 111 service. Can the Secretary of State assure us that the review of funding will be brought forward at the earliest possible moment?
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Ministers were repeatedly warned about problems with their 111 roll-out by the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association, the Ambulance Service Network and private providers, but they ploughed on regardless. The result was patients left waiting hours for call-backs, more ambulances sent out and more pressure on already struggling A and Es. I am sure the Secretary of State is aware of the pattern of the seasons, so if he wants to avoid another A and E crisis this winter, can he explain why Bruce Keogh’s review of urgent and emergency care will not even report until next spring?
Mr Hunt
Actually, the hon. Lady is wrong, because Bruce Keogh’s review of urgent and emergency care with respect to vulnerable older people, and particularly with respect to the way the 111 service operates, will report this autumn, precisely so that we can make sure we learn any lessons we need to learn for this winter, and it is very important that we should do so.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
10. If he will take steps to ensure that people affected by muscle- wasting conditions in the South East Coast NHS area are adequately supported after September 2013; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)
NHS England commissions some elements of neurological services through specialist services commissioning arrangements, while clinical commissioning groups commission general neurological services. I am informed that the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign and the Surrey and Sussex area team are considering funding the care pathway adviser post for a further six months.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the Minister for her answer, but an exploration just for the potential of a mere six months’ reprieve is not good enough. As things stand, for people with muscular dystrophy and their families in the South East Coast region, from September, that is set to be the only part of the country without access to a local care and support advocate. Therefore, will the Minister agree to meet me as a matter of urgency to discuss what can be done to ensure long-term funding for that vital post, which sufferers and their families want to see continue?
Anna Soubry
The simple answer is absolutely yes. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) has also raised this matter through parliamentary questions and the like. I am more than happy to have that meeting.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
11. What steps he is taking to improve the care of vulnerable older people.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
We are taking a great deal of measures to improve services for vulnerable older people, who make up the bulk of the work the NHS does, and in particular to make sure they are always treated with dignity and respect.
Margot James
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Earlier this year the Care Quality Commission found that people with dementia end up in hospital more often, stay longer and are more likely to die there. What can he do to encourage greater provision of good-quality specialist care places for patients with dementia in the community?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Nearly 60% of people with dementia are in a care setting, but one of the tragedies is that many of them could continue to live healthily and happily at home for much longer if they were given the support that they needed. Often, however, that support does not arrive until it is too late, when the carer or family member is under too much pressure to be able to look after them. The dementia diagnosis rate at the beginning of this Parliament was less than 40%, but our objective is to get that up to two thirds by the end of the Parliament. Also, we want to ensure that a proper care plan is in place for the two thirds who are diagnosed, so that we can avoid the problems that my hon. Friend has highlighted.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Last week, the all-party parliamentary group on dementia published its report, “Dementia does not discriminate”, which deals particularly with the impact of dementia on people from black and minority ethnic communities. There are now 25,000 people from those communities living with dementia—far more than we expected—yet they often receive their diagnoses even later than people with dementia in the rest of the population. Will the Secretary of State fund an awareness campaign through Public Health England aimed at those communities to drive up the diagnosis rates? Will he also ensure that the clinical commissioning groups are commissioning appropriate support services in those communities so that we can provide proper services for everyone living with dementia?
Mr Hunt
I congratulate the right hon. Lady, who is a long-time campaigner on dementia issues. She has raised a really important issue, and I will certainly talk to Public Health England about raising awareness. For those groups, as for everyone, we need to ensure that there is a good care plan in place when they are diagnosed. There is some resistance in the GP community to giving a dementia diagnosis, partly because many GPs worry that not much will happen as a result. We need to ensure that there is a good plan in place, and that is particularly the case for ethnic minority communities.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that areas that are grappling with the highest burdens of chronic illness and disability should receive the highest NHS allocations? Does he have any idea why the NHS Commissioning Board has rejected the advice of the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation and decided instead to perpetuate the systematic underfunding of areas that serve older people?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that NHS resources must be allocated in a way that fairly reflects the need for the NHS in every area. Rurality and age are two important factors in that regard. I can reassure him that the current allocations are not set in aspic. The problem with the recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation that NHS England received before was that they would have meant increasing resources to the areas with the best health outcomes at the expense of those with the worst ones. NHS England thought that that would be inconsistent with its duty to reduce health inequalities, but it is looking at the issue this year and we all hope that it will make good progress.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
We all know that one of the most important drivers for improving the quality of care for vulnerable and elderly patients is to ensure the adequate training and regulation of health care assistants. That is something that Labour and Sir Robert Francis QC have called for, but that the Government have so far ducked. Will the Secretary of State now accept that crucial Francis recommendation to help to drive up care standards for the elderly and the vulnerable—yes or no?
Mr Hunt
The reasons that Robert Francis recommended statutory regulation of health care assistants were twofold. First, he wanted to ensure that people who had been involved in incidents of poor care could not pop up somewhere else in the system. Secondly, he wanted to ensure that everyone had proper training. We are going to solve both those problems, but I am not convinced that a big new national database of 300,000 people is the way to do it.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
12. What recent progress his Department has made on negotiations with acute providers on the capital and revenue costs of implementing the recommendations of the special administrator of the South London Healthcare NHS Trust.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)
Decisions on funding for each individual hospital are being worked through as part of the implementation planning process, in collaboration with the Department, to ensure value for money for the taxpayer. Decisions need to ensure that capacity is available in the right place and that quality and safety are maintained.
Heidi Alexander
Is it true that King’s College hospital wants £109 million in capital funding alone to cover changes at the Denmark Hill site and at the Princess Royal hospital, given that in January the Secretary of State announced £73 million of additional investment for all the other hospitals in south-east London to deal with displaced patients from Lewisham? Will the Minister explain where the money is coming from? Will she also tell us whether all this will be centrally funded, or whether local commissioners will be asked to pick up the tab?
Anna Soubry
What I can say is that it will be centrally funded, but as to the other detail in the hon. Lady’s question, I will have to write to her with those answers. As ever, my door is open and I am more than happy to meet her to discuss it further.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
13. What plans he has to increase the management capability of doctors elected to clinical commissioning groups.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
Clinical commissioning groups have the freedom and autonomy to determine the skills and expertise needed to enable them to deliver improved outcomes for their local communities, and NHS England is developing an assurance framework to ensure that they all have the capacity and capability to do that.
Mr Sheerman
Is the Secretary of State aware that a number of doctors, certainly the ones I have talked to, are deeply concerned about the inadequacy of their management capabilities to run these complex organisations? Is he worried that many of them are saying that they have to turn to private health care people to back them up and give them advice? Is that healthy in the NHS?
Mr Hunt
I am absolutely aware that there a lack of clinical leadership, and when we go on to the statement later today, I am sure that we will be discussing what needs to be done to improve the quality of leadership, particularly clinical leadership. Very often the best leadership in any hospital or any commissioning group comes from clinicians, and we have much work to do to make that happen. But I do not think that that means that we should duck the challenge; we just have to get on and make sure that people have the right training and can be supported to do the job we need them to do.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State seems to be answering a different question. The question was about management training for doctors who are being put in the position, without any training and with no consultation—many are doing this against their wishes—of having to manage in a way that they have never been trained to do and are not inclined to do. Would it not be better to put in place the assurance and the training he talks about before rushing into this madcap reorganisation, which the Government did?
Mr Hunt
May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, first, these people are not doing these jobs against their will, as they volunteered to do them? Secondly, the quality of CCGs is being assured very closely, and they are receiving a lot of support. But it is a big job because, generally speaking, we want more clinical leaders. They need support in learning management skills in order to do that job well, and across the whole NHS we need to be doing that better.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Will the training of clinical leaders include training in legal advice about mergers? I was shocked to see a response from Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust showing that they had already spent more than £1.5 million on legal advice about their merger, which has been prevented by the Competition Commission, and that in future they expect to spend £6 million on this scheme. Is it right that our health money should be going on legal advice?
Mr Hunt
No, and I am as concerned as the hon. Lady that it is difficult to push through the mergers that local commissioners want to happen. We have to operate within the framework of European law, but we are looking at what we can do to make it easier for these things to happen.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
14. What steps he is taking to tackle health tourism and ensure a fair system of contribution to the costs of the NHS.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
On 3 July, my Department and the Home Office launched co-ordinated consultations on a range of proposals on a new charging system for visitors and migrants in which everyone makes a fair contribution to health care. Those include making temporary migrants from outside the European economic area contribute to the cost of their health care, and introducing easier and more practical ways for the NHS to identify and charge those not entitled to free health care.
Henry Smith
I very much welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend and support the new visa fee proposal for non-EU foreign nationals who come here and receive NHS treatment. May we also have an assurance that the treatment of EU nationals will be properly audited in the NHS, so that those costs can be recovered through the European health insurance card scheme?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that we estimate that we collect less than half the money for which we invoice for “overseas operations” and we identify fewer than half the people who should be invoiced in the first place—that applies in respect of those from inside the EU as well as from outside the EU. We can get refunded for the care we give EU nationals if we are sensible about collecting this money and we put those systems in place. Given the pressures in the NHS, we are absolutely determined to make sure we do so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Last year health tourism cost the NHS £24 million—that was in one year alone. He has outlined the new system coming in, but will he say how it will be administered? Many of us feel that it might not be as easy to do in practice as it is on paper.
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If this is to work, we need a slick system that is easy for hospitals to operate. We have done this in another area, as the NHS successfully and seamlessly invoices insurance companies for the costs of coping with road traffic accidents. At the moment, however, if hospitals declare that someone is chargeable for their NHS care, they do not get paid by the NHS for that care, meaning that they have to collect the money themselves from overseas, so the incentives for hospitals are wrong and we need to sort them out.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
20. I welcome the Government’s initiatives to tackle health tourism, but what is being done to help hospitals on the front line, such as Bournemouth hospital, better to identify chargeable visitors?
Mr Hunt
We are considering whether something can be done with the NHS number. At the moment, people can visit any GP and, completely legally—whether or not they are entitled to NHS care—get an NHS number. That number can then become a passport that can be used throughout the system, so we are examining whether there is a way of giving people either a temporary NHS number, or a different NHS number, that can be tracked through the system so that if they undergo complex medical care that is chargeable, we are able to trace that and collect the money from them.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
If we are to make this work, do not we need a clearer idea about the real cost? Is it the £200 million that the Secretary of State has been quoted as using, the £10 million suggested by the Prime Minister, or the £33 million that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), has cited in a parliamentary written answer?
Mr Hunt
The truth is that we do not know the cost, which is why we are carrying out an independent audit this summer. The £12 million figure is the amount written off by the NHS each year because of unpaid overseas invoices, but many people think that the costs are much greater. We want an answer for the hon. Gentleman and everyone in the House, so we are carrying out that independent audit and we will publish the results later in the autumn.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
I know that the whole House will want to recognise the fact that this month marks the 65th anniversary of the NHS. This country blazed a trail by introducing universal health care coverage in 1948, and the NHS remains the single biggest reason why most people are proud to be British. The whole House will want to note that whatever failings are being exposed by a new era of transparency in NHS care, the overwhelming majority of doctors, nurses, health care assistants and managers do a remarkable job, working incredibly long hours for the benefit of us and our families, and we salute them for all they do.
Kate Green
When changes were made at Lewisham hospital, the Secretary of State refused to meet local campaigners. Following his announcement last week about changes to services at Trafford general hospital, local campaigners from Trafford would like to know if he is prepared to meet them.
Mr Hunt
That is not quite a fair representation of what happened in the case of Lewisham, or indeed for Trafford, because I agreed to meet all local MPs regarding Lewisham. These things are carefully constrained by what is legally possible so as to be fair to all sides, but I met all Lewisham MPs. As the hon. Lady knows, I have agreed to meet her—I think that we are meeting later this afternoon—and I am sure that she will express the concerns of campaigners in Trafford.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
T5. Integrating health and social care is an especially important priority in areas with the fastest-ageing populations. With that in mind, do Ministers agree that it is vital to support joined-up initiatives such as Caring Together in north-east Cheshire, which involves the local clinical commissioning group, council and NHS trust?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight such initiatives. That was why the Government, as part of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, set up health and wellbeing boards, which bring together housing providers, the NHS, the third sector and social care locally so that they can look at how to improve and better integrate personalised care, especially for the frail elderly.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
T2. In the 1960s and 1970s, the drug Primodos was given to pregnant women, resulting in serious birth defects in thousands of babies, who are now adults in their 40s. The then Committee on the Safety of Medicines failed to act in time, the scientist at Schering, the drug manufacturing company, accepted subsequently that he had made up his research, and the solicitor Peter Todd has described the events as the biggest medical and legal cover-up of the 20th century. Will the Secretary of State meet me and the victims of Primodos so that we can present our evidence on what has happened?
Dr Poulter
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the fact that when we have scientific and clinical data, they must be used responsibly, as the MMR scandal also indicated. Of course I would be delighted to meet her to talk through this matter further.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
T8. In advance of the publication of the Keogh report later today, and following the revelations that Basildon hospital had one of the highest standard mortality rates following catastrophic failures, will my right hon. Friend assure the House and my constituents that he will support the new management regime in its attempts to improve the quality of care? Will he also tell the House if he found any evidence of a systematic attempt by the previous Prime Minister and the previous Government to cover up figures—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman should not abuse topical questions to ask two questions, and he should be asking not about the policies of the previous Government, but about the policies of the present Government, on which I know the Secretary of State will briefly reply. We are grateful.
Mr Jeremy Hunt
We will, of course, give every support to the management at Basildon to turn around their hospitals. The wonders of modern technology have informed us that the shadow Health Secretary was wrong to say that there has been a decline in nursing numbers in Basildon: they have actually gone up by nearly 100 since the last election.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
T3. The Francis report recommended that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence draw up minimum safe staffing levels that would be policed by the Care Quality Commission. It stated that NICE should develop“evidence-based tools for establishing”the staffing needs of each service in the NHS which is likely to be required“as a minimum in terms of staff numbers and skill mix.”Will the Minister tell us when the Government will act on this and all the recommendations in the report?
Mr Hunt
If the hon. Lady heard the exchange earlier, she will know that what Robert Francis was recommending was evidence-based tools, not a national minimum staffing level. The reason for that is that the number of nurses needed varies from hospital to hospital and ward to ward. We need to make sure that that happens. In the best hospitals it already does. The system that we have—this was supported by the shadow Health Secretary in his evidence to the Francis review—is not one where the Secretary of State sits behind his desk and dictates the number of nurses required in every hospital. If we did that, we would not be able to run the NHS properly, but we need to make sure that there are proper standards in place, which is why we have a chief inspector of hospitals to make sure that that happens.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
T9. It is right that clinicians should speak out about safety in our hospitals, but does my right hon. Friend agree that now is probably not the right time for clinicians to be speculating in the national media about the safety at Leeds heart unit, given that the Department has yet to release the second phase of the review, as this endless speculation is causing great anxiety to already worried parents?
Mr Hunt
I agree with my hon. Friend. He has campaigned very honourably and sensibly for children’s heart services at Leeds. This is not a time for speculation. We will announce this month what the new process will be for resolving Safe and Sustainable. He and I both want this to happen as quickly as possible to remove that uncertainty. Also, we have to find a way of making sure that the data are solid and that we can trust them.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
T4. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Abbey primary school on becoming the first “silver star” school in Leicester for banning sugary drinks and for promoting healthy eating and exercise? Does he agree that this is the best way of preventing diabetes and obesity in later life?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)
Absolutely. I would be delighted to come along and visit the school. May I give full credit to the right hon. Gentleman for his campaign and to the Silver Star charity, which does great work? That is why it is so right that we put public health back in local authorities, where it should always have been and where it was, historically. This sort of local action is very much the way forward, so I congratulate the school and the right hon. Gentleman again.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Further to the question raised by the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), I have met the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) regarding safe staffing levels and I provided a substantial file of evidence on behalf of the Florence Nightingale Foundation in support of its 1:8 registered nurse to patient ratio. What part of that evidence are Ministers unconvinced by?
Mr Jeremy Hunt
I am sure the evidence to which the hon. Gentleman refers is very persuasive, but I am sure he would agree that a ratio such as 1:8 cannot be applied uniformly across his local hospital or across all local hospitals. It can vary from day to day, depending on the level of illness and the age of the people going into particular wards. The best hospitals have computer models that change the numbers of nurses operating in different wards on a daily basis. Other hospitals do not do that, except on a quarterly basis. That is the change that we need to make.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
T6. Does the Secretary of State believe that making data on individual consultants public is pointless if hospitals are using informal mechanisms to frustrate patient choice, such as having a team of specialist nurses decide which consultant a patient is referred to? Will he reinforce patient choice and dissuade hospitals from doing that?
Dr Poulter
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the fact that we need more transparency in data and that patients have a right to know about the quality of surgical care, but it is also right that we need to look at that carefully across the different surgical specialties, and particularly at the different criteria that might also impact upon good care and good health care outcomes, particularly in oncology.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Two-year-old Oliver Rushton in my constituency has cerebral palsy and needs a selective dorsal rhizotomy if he is to be able to walk or stand on his own. Unfortunately, after considerable delay, Oliver’s request for NHS treatment has been turned down. He is now getting the treatment, but only after an incredible fundraising effort from his parents, who have personally raised £40,000 to pay for it. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss the case?
Dr Poulter
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that case and the commissioning arrangements for the procedure, and indeed other treatment for patients with cerebral palsy.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
T7. The guidance that the Government have produced on transferring funds from the NHS to local authority social care makes it clear that the money can be used to plug gaps in social care caused by cuts. Does that not just mean that the local authorities that are under most pressure because they have had the biggest cuts will not be in a position to develop the integrated health and care services that we would all like to see?
Mr Jeremy Hunt
I hope that I can reassure the hon. Lady, because the conditions for accessing that £3.8 billion fund are absolutely clear. Local authorities will not be able to access it unless they can promise to maintain services at their current levels. They are allowed to make financial efficiencies, as is the NHS, and everyone needs to look at that, but not if it means a deterioration in services.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Being able to be visited frequently by one’s loved ones is a vital part of improving care for vulnerable older people in acute settings. How is closeness to home being taken into account in any service changes proposed by Monitor or the NHS Trust Development Authority?
Mr Hunt
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the admirable way he sticks up for his constituents in Stafford in incredibly difficult circumstances. I think that the whole House recognises what he has done. Secondly, in answer to his question, there is always a balance to be found, because we all recognise that, all things being equal, people would rather be treated nearer to where they live for exactly the reasons he gave. We also need to ensure that people get the best care when they arrive at hospital, which is why it is very important to go through these difficult processes to work out where that balance lies.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State aware of the increasing problems there are in A and E because of alcohol? If so, will he tell us what he is going to do about it?
Mr Hunt
There are problems, particularly in large cities and at weekends. In fact, in the case of the reorganisation of services at Trafford general hospital, one of the things that we can invest in as a result is mental health facilities in neighbouring A and Es so that people have better access to the services they need.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the case of Nadejah, the face of the Teenage Cancer Trust, who at the age of 23 has been refused the CyberKnife cancer treatment that could save her life. Her mother Michelle is here today. Will he intervene so that this young woman gets the treatment that her consultant, Professor Hochhauser, recommends, and will he meet Nadejah’s mother and me so that we can work together to unblock the funding so that she can get the treatment she so desperately needs?
Anna Soubry
I am more than happy to meet the hon. Lady and the family but, as she knows, this is a treatment that we have talked about endlessly, and we have had many meetings, which I am more than happy to continue to have with her.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Since 2010, thousands of NHS staff have left the NHS with big, fat redundancy cheques, only to go through the revolving door and get new jobs in the NHS, often months later. Will the Secretary of State tell us how much has been spent on redundancy payments and whether he regrets that waste of NHS money?
Mr Jeremy Hunt
The hon. Lady asks that question as if that kind of thing never happened under Labour. The answer is that it is not acceptable, which is why we are changing the rules to ensure that people cannot get payoffs and then walk straight into another NHS job. The other answer is that the reorganisation that she criticises means that we have put more money on the front line, including for 6,000 more doctors, which I think was the right thing to do.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree it is a scandal that those, such as Gary Walker, Amanda Pollard and Kim Holt, who have exposed the horrors buried in our NHS have either been fired or do not have jobs, but those who are heavily implicated in such cases, such as Barbara Hakin—about whom I have written to the Secretary of State—David Nicholson, and others, still do?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend has campaigned long and hard on issues of accountability, and I agree with her basic case, even if I do not agree with her about all the individuals she mentioned. One issue that will arise during today’s statement is that of how people are held accountable. That has been missing in our NHS, and we must put it right.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
There has been much talk about action plans and I am sorry that the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), is not in his place. Is the Health Secretary aware that Mencap has expressed concerns that the Government’s response to the “Six Lives” progress report by the Department of Health does not set goals or time scales for tackling the issues highlighted in that report?
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
At the end of this month, the East of England Multi-Professional Deanery will remove junior doctors in paediatric services from Bedford hospital. That will reduce paediatric services, which will obviously cause major concerns for families with children in Bedford and Kempston and north Bedfordshire. Will my right hon. Friend join me and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) in calling for an open and independent inquiry into why clinical supervisory failures continued at Bedford hospital and were not addressed, and into the terrible consequences that resulted from that?
Dr Poulter
I am sure my hon. Friend will be pleased that Health Education England, supported by the General Medical Council, took such rapid action to address concerns over patient safety and the supervision of junior doctors at his hospital. It is right that a rapid action plan has been brought in by local health care commissioners and Health Education England in order to support that, put in place the right supervision for medical staff, and ensure we put things right as quickly as possible.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Further to the question from the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), Ministers often—quite rightly—mention the importance of whistleblowers, so why have the Government weakened protection for whistleblowers through the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013?
Mr Jeremy Hunt
We are strengthening protection for whistleblowers and are going much further by creating a culture of openness and transparency in the NHS, where people are not bullied if they speak out about poor care.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
Torbay is often held up as a model for an integrated care service, but two important services are not fully integrated—mental health care and children’s services. Will the Government encourage the incorporation of all services into a fully integrated health care system?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend makes an important point and the heart of what he says is that integrated, joined-up care is most important for those who are regular users of the NHS. Children with complex needs or people with mental health conditions that can improve but not necessarily be cured can really benefit from an integrated approach. I salute what Torbay has done in blazing a trail. We are learning from that and hope that such a process will be rolled out in every part of the country as soon as possible.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues but we must now move on.
Isham By-pass (Northamptonshire)
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It gives me great pleasure to present a petition signed by 833 of my constituents. It reads as follows:
The Humble Petition of residents of Isham, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,
Sheweth,
That there is an urgent need to construct the A509 Isham by-pass, not only to relieve the current unacceptable number of traffic movements through the village, but also mindful of the extra proposed traffic movements which will occur due to:
The 5,500 houses that are being built at Cranford; the 3,500 houses that are being built at the station in Wellingborough; the proposed 3,000 house development off Niort Way in Wellingborough; the proposed industrial site development at Appleby Farm in Wellingborough with an estimated daily vehicle movement of 2,000, the majority of which will be lorries; the widening of the A14 road at the A509 Junction one mile from Isham.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Northamptonshire County Council and the Borough Council of Wellingborough work together to ensure that the Isham A509 bypass is constructed imminently.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
[P001199]
Territorial Army Centre (Caernarfon)
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
This petition was organised within a week of the announcement of the closure of the Territorial Army Centre in Caernarfon, which has a population of 9,600. It has already been signed by 2,204 people, which is a substantial proportion of that number. It reads as follows:
The Petition of the people of Caernarfon and the surrounding district,
Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the closure of the Territorial Army Centre at Caernarfon and draws the House's attention to the long and unique tradition of service in the forces by people from the community; further notes that the Caernarfon centre has an important role in recruitment given that it serves a very large rural area, that similar facilities will not easily be available elsewhere.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to retain the current usage of the site and explore complementary uses so that it can be further developed as an important and valued strategic resource.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001209]
Mr Speaker
Before I call the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) to present his petitions, let me give him some guidance. It is not necessary for him to perambulate back and forth between his seat and the Chair for the purposes of his presentation. He should remain in his place. Let me also advise him that, while he is at liberty to speak briefly about each of his three petitions, it would be a mistake for him to suppose that because he is speaking about three, he can speak for three times as long as he would have spoken if he were speaking to one. He should speak with the brevity of which I know he is periodically capable.
Signage of the Welsh Senedd Building
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I am immensely grateful for that guidance, Mr Speaker. I shall present three petitions from my constituent, Mr Gruffydd Meredith.
In this petition Mr Meredith calls for the Government of Wales Act 2006 to be amended to rename the National Assembly for Wales as the Parliament of Wales or Senedd Cymru, with appropriate signage being erected so that every visitor will know its significance.
The petition states:
The petition of Mr Gruffydd Meredith,
Declares that up to 12 million people from all over the world visit Cardiff bay and pass the Senedd building annually yet the majority of these must have no idea what the Senedd building actually is or does, as they have no way of knowing unless they enter the building and ask the staff; further that Wales must be one of the few countries in the world that is does not have a sign denoting its own national parliament and that the Senedd building is one of Wales’ most important institutions and belongs to the people of Wales; further that there is a need and duty for the Senedd building to therefore showcase and make itself known to all the citizens of Wales as well as to the rest of the world.
The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons makes the necessary amendment to the Government of Wales Act 2006 and any other relevant act in order to facilitate the renaming of the current National Assembly for Wales or Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru to Senedd Cymru (Parliament of Wales), placing a large sign on the main public entrance of the Senedd building overlooking Cardiff bay, with prominent lettering denoting ‘Senedd Cymru’ (Parliament of Wales), together with an impressive Welsh flag placed centrally at the front top of the sloping roofed entrance.
And the Petitioner remains etc.
[P001210]
A Unified Welsh Power Grid
Kevin Brennan
This petition calls for the Government of Wales Act 2006 to be amended to allow for the creation of a unified power grid.
The petition states:
The Petition of Gruffydd Meredith,
Declares that the current and historical energy map of Wales shows all the classic indicators of an extractive economy, with the extractive drainage lines either extending east out of Wales or to the ports; further that Wales is already greatly more than self sufficient in electricity generation, producing at least twice more electricity than what we use but most of this is given to the UK national grid and then sold back to us; further that future renewable energy projects for Wales show that we could be easily producing at least four times more than we use if we realised basic achievable renewable energy projects (including tidal lagoons and the Severn estuary instead of a barrage) and this without even mentioning the possibility of clean coal and methane gas extraction, which could make this figure higher again; further that joining the currently unconnected electricity lines could be done with specially designed pylons that blend in with the Welsh environment, by underground cables or by placing undersea cables in Cardigan Bay and this would mean that all of Wales’ energy production is quantifiable and our abundant excess energy can be exported and providing potentially thousands of new jobs.
The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons make the necessary amendment to the Government of Wales Act 2006 and any other relevant act in order to facilitate the development of an unified Welsh power grid, joining the currently unconnected electricity lines on North, Mid and South Wales.
And the Petitioner remains etc.
[P001211]
A Welsh Second Chamber
Kevin Brennan
This petition calls for the Government of Wales Act 2006 to be amended to establish a second, scrutinising Chamber in Wales to be called Ty’r bobol or Citizen House.
The petition declares:
The Petition of Gruffydd Meredith,
Declares that there is a need for a second scrutinising chamber—a ‘Ty’r bobol’/ ‘Citizen House’, made up of Welsh citizens chosen at random from all over Wales in the citizen jury style system; further declares there should also be representation by independent non party affiliated experts and spokespeople from all fields suggested by small to medium sized businesses, non charity community groups, schools and colleges; further declares that this system of demarchy would provide Welsh politics with a much needed opportunity for independent scrutiny by the people and would make sure that the Welsh legislative process and the Welsh Government in general is able to be challenged and truly held to account where necessary.
The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons make the necessary amendment of the Government of Wales Act 2006 and any other relevant act in order to facilitate the forming of a second scrutinising chamber in Wales made up of Welsh citizens chosen at random in the jury style system.
And the Petitioner remains etc.
[P001212]
Tougher legislation on dangerous dogs
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Since the tragic death of Jade Lomas Anderson in March of this year, I have been working with her mum and dad, Shirley and Michael Anderson, their family and the wider community to collect signatures on this petition. I commend in particular Michael and Shirley for their bravery, Sandra Lucas, Councillors Karen Aldred and Fred Walker and my staff team for their hard work in collecting 4,618 signatures, which were presented to Downing street today, as well as the businesses, schools and churches who have done so much to help, and the people of Bolton West who have shown their support in signing the petition.
The petition declares:
The Petition of residents of Bolton West,
Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government’s current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001200]
Tougher legislation on dangerous dogs
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
This petition is from several hundred of my constituents who want to see tougher legislation on dangerous dogs. I want to thank members of Jade Lomas Anderson’s family for all their work in collecting signatures, and in particular my constituent Mrs Kathleen Holden, who is Jade’s grandmother. The petition is in identical terms to that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling).
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Wythenshawe and Sale East,
Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government's current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001201]
Tougher legislation on dangerous dogs
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I am presenting a petition in identical terms to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling). I present it on behalf of a constituent, and I pay tribute to the grandmother who collected signatures after Abigail Boyd was attacked by dogs in Farnworth.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Bolton,
Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government's current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001202]
Tougher legislation on dangerous dogs
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, present a petition on behalf of residents of the UK on dangerous dogs laws. I was very proud to deliver the petition to No. 10 Downing street this afternoon with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), the parents of Jade Lomas Anderson and my constituent Angela McGlynn. Her son John Paul Massey was tragically mauled to death by a dog in 2009. The petition calls on the Government to take further action. We need to prevent these attacks from happening. Some 239 people have signed a petition in similar terms on my website.
This petition is in identical terms to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West.
The petition declares:
The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government's current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001203]
Northern Ireland
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about riots in Northern Ireland. I am sure the whole House will join me in condemning that shameful violence and in expressing our profound sympathy and support for police officers who have been injured. It is also a matter of the gravest concern that the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) was knocked unconscious as he tried to calm the situation on the streets of his constituency. I am certain that I speak for everyone here in wishing him well for a speedy recovery, and we all look forward to welcoming him back to his customary place very soon.
On Friday evening, following the annual 12 July parades, around 5,000 people gathered to protest against the Parades Commission determination not to allow three Orange lodges to return home past the nationalist Ardoyne area. This has been the scene of serious disorder in recent years, including shots fired at police by dissident republicans. Violence erupted as the crowd reached the police line on Woodvale road, preventing access to the route past the Ardoyne shop fronts. This has been followed by further disturbances and rioting on each night since then, mainly in the Woodvale parade/Twaddell avenue area, but also in the Newtownards road in east Belfast, Mount Vernon in north Belfast, Rathcoole in Newtownabbey, Portadown, and Ballyclare.
During these disturbances the police have come under attack from a variety of weapons, including fireworks, petrol bombs, bottles, stones, bits of masonry, iron bars and ceremonial swords. Last night, four blast bombs were thrown at police officers in east Belfast, as well as a pipe bomb improvised explosive device from Brompton park in the Ardoyne. Water cannon and AEP—attenuated energy projectile—plastic bullet rounds have been discharged on four successive nights, and 71 police officers have been injured. I am well aware of the anger felt by many people over the Parades Commission determination in relation to Ardoyne, but however strongly people feel, there can be absolutely no justification or excuse for the disgraceful behaviour we have seen in recent days. Attacks on the police are wholly unacceptable, and I condemn them without hesitation or reservation. It is also utterly disgraceful that the right hon. Member for Belfast North found himself, too, the victim of this violence.
There has been talk of attacks on British identity and culture in Northern Ireland. Well, the sort of behaviour that has been taking place in north Belfast does nothing to promote “Britishness” or the pro-Union cause; rather, it undermines it in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. In fact, it is hard to think of anything less British and less patriotic than wrapping yourself in a Union flag and going out to attack the people who are there to maintain the rule of law and protect the whole community.
So now it is the responsibility of everyone with influence, including the Orange Order, community leaders and politicians, to do all we can to defuse tensions and calm the situation. We need temperate language over the coming days. I am afraid that the Orange Order needs to reflect carefully on its role in encouraging mass protests on Friday in a highly volatile situation without the careful planning, stewarding and engagement with the police that is so important for keeping people safe when big crowds gather together. While the Orange Order’s announcement of the suspension of its protests was welcome, it is now time for it to call them off completely.
I would like to pay tribute to the outstanding work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland over recent days. The officers have demonstrated fortitude, determination and courage in defending the rule of law. They put their own safety on the line in the face of violent attacks, and they deserve our utmost praise, support and thanks, as do the police officers from Great Britain who provided mutual aid support. I would like to commend the leadership of Chief Constable Matt Baggott and Justice Minister David Ford. I know that meticulous planning took place to ensure that everything possible was done to try to keep people safe over the weekend of 12 July, including bringing approximately 1,000 mutual aid officers from Great Britain.
Of the 4,000 or so parades that take place annually in Northern Ireland, the vast majority pass off without major problems, including hundreds on 12 July. But any rioting is unacceptable, not least because it undermines efforts to secure economic recovery for Northern Ireland and because it makes competing in the global race for jobs and investment that much more difficult.
The way forward has to be through dialogue to find sustainable local solutions to contentious parades, as has been the case, for example, in Derry/Londonderry. I welcomed the talks that took place between members of the Orange Order and Ardoyne residents before the Parades Commission determination. I know how difficult this will be after what has happened, but I believe it is vital that that local dialogue continues. I also welcome the inclusion of parading in the remit of the Executive’s all-party working group and the appointment of the distinguished US former envoy to Northern Ireland, Richard Haass, to chair it. The Government have always made it clear that we are open to a devolved solution if one can be found, but in the meantime we will not tolerate lawlessness on the streets of Belfast any more than we would in any other UK city.
Last week in this Chamber, issues were raised regarding my powers in relation to Parades Commission determinations. Those powers are set out in the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. Section 9 states that I can review a determination made by the Parades Commission only following a request by the Chief Constable. The reason he has not made such a request is that at all times he has been confident that the officers under his command can police the situation. I fully share that confidence.
To those on the streets over recent days taking part in this violence, I say this: so far 60 arrests have been made and emergency courts were sitting at Laganside on Sunday to accelerate the criminal justice process, but that is just the start. No stone will be left unturned in building the case needed for more arrests and more criminal convictions. Those who engage in so-called recreational rioting and attacks on police officers can expect to face the full force of the law.
I am confident that for some that will mean that the next 12 July holiday will be spent not out in the sunshine following the parades, but locked up in prison living with the consequences of the crimes they have committed. I commend this statement to the House.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her usual courtesy in giving me advance sight of her statement. I also thank her and her officials for keeping me and my office updated over the course of the weekend. That was very much appreciated and in the best traditions of bipartisanship.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. It is right that the House has the opportunity to discuss these important matters.
I unequivocally condemn the violence that has taken place in Belfast over the past number of days and nights. There is no justification for it. The disgraceful attacks on the police have resulted in dozens of injuries, and the very deliberate attempt to murder officers by throwing blast bombs at them last night was shameful. It is also a matter of huge regret and concern that the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) was also hurt. We wish him well.
I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the PSNI and its colleagues from other UK forces for their bravery and determination in upholding the law. Will she update us on the status of injured officers? Are any still receiving treatment? How many have returned to duty? Will she also tell us how many are PSNI officers and how many are from other UK forces? Is she able to say how many mutual aid officers are still undertaking duties in Northern Ireland, and how long she expects that to continue?
We know that the costs of policing large-scale public order incidents can be high. Does the Secretary of State have an estimate of how much the policing operations have cost to date, and who will meet that cost? Will it be her Department, the Department of Justice or a combination of the two?
There is always concern at the involvement of paramilitaries in or on the margins of contentious parades and protests. Has the Secretary of State looked at who was involved and who is being arrested? Is there any indication that loyalist paramilitaries or dissident republicans have organised or taken part in any of the violence?
The origins of the appalling scenes we have witnessed lie in a dispute about parading. We have been here before. Does the Secretary of State agree that meaningful dialogue and working towards local agreement is the key to finding a solution? It has worked well in other places, as she has said. The Orange Order held a peaceful, enjoyable and colourful celebration of 12 July as part of the UK city of culture celebrations in Derry/Londonderry. That was able to happen because of dialogue and communication between neighbours in an atmosphere of mutual respect and good will.
Will the Secretary of State update the House on what discussions she has had with the First and Deputy First Ministers, the Orange Order, residents’ associations, and local political and civic representatives over the weekend? Does she agree that, as Secretary of State, she has an important role to play in having further discussions over the coming weeks in north and east Belfast? As well as condemning the violence that has already taken place, does the Secretary of State agree that we need to work together to ensure it ends and does not occur in the future and to address some of the causes of these problems?
My view is that the British and Irish Governments still have a hugely significant role to play in helping to resolve all these issues. Does the Secretary of State agree that they should both be involved in the talks convened by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, which are being facilitated by Richard Haass? Will she confirm that the Northern Ireland Office is working with the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on that, and has she discussed it, or will she discuss it, with the Tanaiste?
In conclusion, it is crucial to bring people together to look at what needs to happen now to prevent a repeat of what has happened over the weekend, when a disagreement that was not addressed led to significant tensions between communities and ended in unacceptable violence. What part can the Secretary of State play in the discussions that need to take place?
The main message that I and, I think, the House want to send is this: we encourage all those who are working to find a solution to these matters to keep going, to keep talking and not to give up. I say to those who are involved in parading and protesting, Unionist and nationalist, that respecting the law, respecting their neighbour and respecting the wishes of people right across the community to live in peace is the only way forward. That has been done in other places across Northern Ireland and it can be done in Belfast.
Mrs Villiers
I very much welcome the comments of the shadow Secretary of State and particularly his joining me in condemning the violence. He is right to identify some of the attacks as deliberate attempts to murder police officers, which is utterly unacceptable and shocking. I will run through his long list of questions.
On the gravity of the injuries, the last update that I received was that overall, the injuries were not serious, although some police officers have been hospitalised. All those who were hospitalised as a result of the riots on 12 July were released from hospital fairly soon afterwards. I am not quite sure of the position on all the injuries that occurred last night, but my impression from my conversation with the Chief Constable this morning is that, thankfully, the injuries are again not of a serious nature. On the distribution of the injuries between mutual aid officers and PSNI officers, the figure for mutual aid officers over the weekend was two. Again, it is not clear whether any mutual aid officers were among those who were injured last night.
On the number of mutual aid officers, about 1,000 have been deployed over the past few days. Some will be going home and fresh mutual aid officers will be coming to Northern Ireland to provide assistance, so the numbers are relatively flexible. The Chief Constable is ensuring that he has the necessary resources.
The cost of the policing operation falls on the Department of Justice. Another damaging consequence of the events of recent days is that they put more pressure on police budgets.
The PSNI will naturally investigate what evidence there is of the involvement of the paramilitaries and assess who needs to be arrested. There has been a claim of responsibility from Oglaigh na hEireann in relation to the pipe bomb improvised explosive device that was thrown from the Ardoyne at police officers.
I agree that meaningful dialogue is the way forward. I have had a range of conversations on parading matters over recent months with residents’ groups, the Orange Order, the First and Deputy First Ministers, and other leading members of Northern Ireland’s political establishment. The Northern Ireland Office also sponsored a conference at Cardiff to promote dialogue and to keep people in touch with the police and one another in an attempt to defuse tensions in such situations.
I have had a number of conversations with the Tanaiste about the current situation and about a way forward, for example through the Richard Haass working group. I look forward to supporting the Executive in respect of the work of that group in whatever way they request.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I condemn the violence of the past few nights, for which, as the Secretary of State has said, there can be no excuse. I pay tribute to the brave men and women of the PSNI who risk their lives every day to try to keep the peace. I extend my best wishes to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), whom I saw on the morning of 12 July at the Ardoyne. He was doing his best to maintain peace and calm in that area when there was something of a difficult situation, seemingly caused by the determination of the Parades Commission.
I was at several other places in Belfast on Thursday night and on Friday. With the exception of the Ardoyne in the morning, among the thousands of people I saw celebrating, there was not a single problem. Does the Secretary of State agree that the trouble has been caused by a very few people who were determined to cause trouble from the outset? Does she agree that those people in no way represent the good and decent people of Northern Ireland?
Mrs Villiers
I agree that we should in no way judge the people of Northern Ireland by the actions of the disgraceful minority who have brought violence to its streets. I acknowledge that many thousands of people on the streets on 12 July were there just to celebrate a cultural event. They caused no problems whatever and were not remotely involved in the violence that followed later in the evening.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before I call the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), I too wish a full and speedy recovery to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). I think I speak for colleagues in saying that we look forward to welcoming him back to his place before very long.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
Thank you for those kind words, Mr Speaker. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) will have heard them as he recovers this afternoon. I also thank the Secretary of State, the Opposition spokesman, the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), and all hon. Members who have spoken to me and my colleagues in recent days for their kind comments. I am confident that my right hon. Friend will be back with us before long.
We on this side of the House unequivocally condemn the violence that has occurred in recent days, and in the past, on the whole issue of parades. No violence can be justified in these circumstances. We stand firmly for the rule of law. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that the rule of law is applied fairly and impartially, and that whether it is a loyalist rioter or a Sinn Fein MLA obstructing the police in the course of their duty, the law must be applied equally, fairly and impartially?
We pay tribute to the police officers who have been injured and wish them a speedy recovery. We support the police, just as we support the rule of law. We do, however, have issues regarding the consistent lack of intervention by the police in the Short Strand area of east Belfast, where they have failed to protect people lawfully processing on the public highway. We need to examine why adequate protection is not afforded to those parading peacefully and lawfully. That is not, in any sense, to condone violence resulting from people being put under attack.
We have grave concerns about the operation of the Parades Commission. There is no doubt that the clear perception among many people in Northern Ireland is that the decision on the Ardoyne parade rewarded the violence of the previous year, to which the Secretary of State alluded in her remarks. That violence included dissident republicans opening fire on the police in the Ardoyne, and a huge of amount of petrol bombs and other devices being thrown at the police. We must not have a situation, in any circumstances, where violence is seen to be rewarded.
Finally, on the all-party working group, in which I have been asked to participate on behalf of my party, we are committed to finding ways forward on all of these contentious issues, including parades. However, may I say to the Secretary of State that if a shared future is to mean anything, it has to include shared space? If we have a situation in Northern Ireland where there are no-go areas, where one side of the community is not welcome, that is not a shared future and not shared space.
Mrs Villiers
I reiterate my sympathies to the right hon. Member for Belfast North, who was doing such brave work to try to look after his constituents and found himself the victim of unacceptable violence. Of course I agree with the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) that the rule of law should be applied impartially, and I am absolutely convinced that the PSNI does that. I note his comments on what he perceives as the handling of the Short Strand area. Again, I hope I can provide reassurance that proportionality and fairness is at the heart of everything the PSNI does, whether in Short Strand or elsewhere. I note his comments on the Parades Commission. As I said, I understand the concerns about its decision, and I know that the debate continues on the future of the Parades Commission. I think the way forward to resolve these problems is through local dialogue, but channelling efforts, enthusiasm and energy into looking at options for future reform through the Richard Haass working group is also an important way forward. I also agree that in a shared future we need shared space. We need to find a way to ensure that different traditions can be celebrated in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Obviously, and thankfully, the Army was not called in to support the PSNI. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether there remains an infantry unit in theatre that could do such a role if required?
Mrs Villiers
I believe that it is inconceivable that we would see the Army back on the streets of Northern Ireland dealing with public order issues.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s statement? Anybody who has done her job will know its difficulties. However, may I press her to be more directly engaged, despite the meetings she has had, with the different groups that are very sensitive on this issue: from the Orange Order to republican groups, dissident groups and loyalist groups? There is a feeling in Northern Ireland, fairly or unfairly, that she is not rolling up her sleeves enough and getting people around the table. Is the Parades Commission perhaps being too aloof and legalistic in the way it is proceeding? It, too, needs to get into the negotiation business and not simply make determinations.
Mrs Villiers
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have been engaged in a whole range of discussions with the Orange Order, residents’ associations and a long list of people involved in these matters. I got the Northern Ireland Justice Minister, the PSNI and the Parades Commission around the table to talk about these issues. As far I am aware, that has never happened before. All of that took place in the months running up to 12 July —there was not a last-minute series of meetings immediately before the parades that has sometimes happened in the past. I am always keen to roll up my sleeves to get involved and do whatever I can. The reality is that this remains an extremely difficult problem to resolve, but I will be doing my very best, working with Northern Ireland politicians.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I would also like to express my support and appreciation for the Secretary of State’s statement, and my party’s concern for the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). I would like to make two points. First, the police have been through a brutal time over the weekend. As usual, the PSNI has performed absolutely superbly and I wish to express my party’s support for the courage and behaviour of the police. Secondly—the Secretary of State alluded to this in her statement—have the Government made a formal point to the relevant Orange Order to ask whether it sincerely feels in its heart that it helped or hindered events over the weekend?
Mrs Villiers
I hope that the Orange Order is reflecting on the scenes of violence—they do not help any cause. They certainly do not assist the cause of cultural tolerance, and they certainly do not make it easy to resolve the matter next year in a way that is acceptable to all sides.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
In condemning the violence right across Belfast and in other parts of Northern Ireland, and in extending best wishes to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), may I ask the Secretary of State whether she agrees that the responsibility for the violence and disorder lies with the perpetrators rather than the lawful authority of the Parades Commission? Does she further agree that the violence stems from anger, and that that anger stems from rhetoric used by certain members of the loyal orders and certain members of the Unionist parties? Will she, along with me, urge them to desist from making such comments, so that a shared society can be built throughout Northern Ireland?
Mrs Villiers
I agree that the people responsible for the violence are the perpetrators: the people chucking petrol bombs and attacking the police in this disgraceful way. It is important that, in the coming days, all of us who care about Northern Ireland seek to calm the situation and that a lead be given by the Orange Order. Northern Ireland’s political leadership has made it clear that it wants the situation calmed and that it condemns the violence, so I hope that the people on the streets will heed that call and realise that the violence is hugely damaging to Northern Ireland and does not support any cause. It is time for the debate about parades to come off the streets and to be channelled into a political process.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State believe that the level of disorder and the number of injuries to police officers would have been greater had it not been for the effective deployment of water cannon? Given that hundreds of police officers from Great Britain have now seen how this equipment can be effectively deployed, will she share her assessment of its use with the Home Secretary, so that water cannon can be deployed in Great Britain to deal with future public order disturbances on the mainland?
Mrs Villiers
I am inclined to agree that without the ability to deploy water cannon, there could have been more injuries to police officers. I am certainly happy to share with the Home Secretary the experience in Northern Ireland of deploying water cannon, if she would like me to do that.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
I join the Secretary of State in condemning those engaged in violence, whether in seeking to breach a determination or in attacking lawful parades, thereby providing a further challenge to the rule of law and causing further damage to Northern Ireland’s reputation. I also extend my best wishes to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds).
My primary concern is both for my constituents living in the areas affected—on the Newtonards road and in the Short Strand—whose lives are put at risk, who are terrified in their homes and whose neighbourhoods are left like war zones in the aftermath of these riots, and for the police who must protect the public and uphold the law in difficult circumstances. Does the Secretary of State agree that until such time as an agreement on an alternative to the Parades Commission is agreed by all parties in Northern Ireland, that body remains the lawful authority in these matters and that its rulings must be upheld—no ifs, no buts—if law and order is not to be undermined more generally?
Mrs Villiers
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The Parades Commission is the lawfully constituted authority; its determinations must be obeyed and the rule of law must be respected. Visiting her constituency, I saw the devastating impact that disorder had during the flags protest, and I know that the continuation of violence over recent days is deeply depressing for her constituents, not least for the businesses whose trade is disrupted.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
While not condoning the violence over the weekend, does the Secretary of State not agree that there is a fear that the Parades Commission ruling placed the police in an impossible situation, having to police an unpoliceable order, and that with hindsight it might have been better to use the mechanism in place for exceptional circumstances to try to find a solution for the march that was acceptable to all sides?
Mrs Villiers
As I said in my statement, the PSNI was confident at all times that it could police whatever determination the Parades Commission made, and in those circumstances it was not appropriate and my powers to intervene were not triggered.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I thank you, Mr Speaker, and other hon. Members for their best wishes, which I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds).
The Secretary of State has indicated the reprehensible nature of the violence and the attacks on police and property, which we all condemn outright and without reservation. She must now ensure that comprehensive discussions take place immediately—not next May or June, but immediately—to resolve all outstanding parades involving protests and violence. She also needs to engage with the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to ensure that marginalised and embittered communities see more investment and jobs in their areas so that they do not get caught up in violence.
Mrs Villiers
I agree that comprehensive discussions are needed on issues such as parading, which is why I welcomed the establishment of the Haass group. As I said, I am happy to help in whatever way I can, and yes I am working closely with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on the kind of economic measures needed to boost the economy in Northern Ireland, including through our economic package, which I hope will help the people in those deprived communities.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it makes it more difficult for law enforcement agencies if parade routes are changed at short notice? We need the maximum possible notice.
Mrs Villiers
Certainly, for those organising big events, whether in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, advance planning is crucial to keeping people safe.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has made several references to the all-party talks under Richard Haass looking into a range of contentious issues, including parading. Will she take this opportunity to emphasise the importance of all those involved, including the Orange Order, engaging in a serious search for solutions, not simply blocking proposals, as happened after the Hillsborough Castle agreement?
Mrs Villiers
Yes, I will. It is important that the loyal orders, including the Orange Order and the Royal Black Institution, engage. As well as the Richard Haass process, the Cardiff process is continuing, following on from the conference sponsored by the Northern Ireland Office, as a way to try and defuse tensions and reduce the risk of violence occurring at individual parades.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
It is worth remembering, and respecting the fact, that in the main Orangemen and women do not come out to annoy Catholics and that the majority of parades over the weekend, including the one that I observed, passed without incident. It is clear, however, that parades remain the rawest of issues and that the scenes in Belfast were an utter disgrace. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that about 1,000 officers from England, Wales and Scotland were involved over the weekend. Can she confirm that the same number, and more, remain available to assist if trouble flares up again in the coming days?
Mrs Villiers
Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that conversations about our mutual aid presence in Northern Ireland are continuing, and the Chief Constable is confident that he can secure the mutual aid resources he will need over the coming days.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, which I regret she had to make, and commend the comments from the shadow Secretary of State.
Does the Secretary of State agree that if there is rent-a-rant leadership, people cannot escape responsibility for rent-a-mob violence? She referred, rightly, to the positive example on Friday of the Orange Order having its parade in the city of Derry, where it was accepted and respected, but does she understand that the dialogue model used there did not deliver immediately but took purpose and patience? Wider civic and commercial interests were able—and often required—to weigh in to ensure a wider perspective. Will she encourage the Haass dialogue to provide a channel for those wider civic and commercial interests as well?
Mrs Villiers
I am happy to do that. The business community made it clear that it wanted a peaceful 12 July weekend. I continue to encourage the business community to engage on these matters for the same reasons that the hon. Gentleman outlines: because they played such a positive role in Derry/Londonderry. I also agree that a sustainable local solution will not be found in just a few days, but will require further work. I hope that the Orange Order and the residents will continue the conversation they started; at the time, both sides said it was positive.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I join other right hon. and hon. Members in condemning the violence. The Secretary of State mentioned community engagement. She will know that in my constituency the Orange Order stages a weekly protest—and has done for 13 years —because the residents of the Garvaghy road will not engage on trying to resolve the issue. Community engagement is one of the big problems; that cannot be allowed to continue.
Mrs Villiers
It is important for both sides to engage, certainly in relation to the Ardoyne. I hope that the resident group and the loyal orders will be willing to continue the conversation.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will know that last year the Parades Commission allowed the Orange Lodges to return through the Ardoyne in buses, but that they were attacked and shots were fired. No statement was made in the House and the genuine perception was that the violence was rewarded, because this year the Orange Lodges were not allowed to follow the same route. Does she share my concern about the make-up and working of the Parades Commission? Is it not time to face reality—it is not working? There must be a different way of doing this; certainly, the Parades Commission is not the answer.
Mrs Villiers
As I have said, I am aware of the concern felt about the determination, but it has the force of law. Determinations have to be respected, regardless of people’s view of the Parades Commission and the way decisions are taken. However, I am also clear that I am open to reform of the way those decisions are taken if local consensus can be achieved. I look forward to working with the Executive on those matters when the Haass group starts its work.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
In many ways, it was appropriate that the conference was held in Cardiff, given that anyone who has visited Belfast and Cardiff will know the similarities, in terms of maritime history, architecture and the friendly nature of all the people in both cities. Will the Secretary of State recommit to the statement that came out of the conference, which said:
“We commit to resolve our differences through dialogue and non-violent means, underpinned by the principles of equality, inclusiveness, respect for difference, and non-discrimination”?
Mrs Villiers
Yes, I am entirely happy to associate myself with that statement, and I hope that we hear that message coming out clearly from across Northern Ireland’s political and civic leadership over the coming days.
Tougher legislation on dangerous dogs
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of citizens of the United Kingdom, including residents of my constituency, in identical terms to the petition presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), calling for tougher legislation on dangerous dogs.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Stretford and Urmston,
Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government’s current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001204]
Hospital Mortality Rates
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
I would like to make a statement about Professor Sir Bruce Keogh’s review of hospitals with high mortality rates, which is being published today.
Let me start by saying that in the health service’s 65th year, this Government are deeply proud of our NHS. We salute the doctors, nurses and other professionals, who have never worked harder to look after each and every one of us at our most vulnerable. We recognise that the problems identified today are not typical of the whole NHS or of the care given by many wonderful NHS staff; but those staff are the ones who are most betrayed when we ignore or pass over poor care. The last Government left the NHS with a system that covered up weak hospital leadership—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. As is the normal practice, right hon. and hon. Members can expect extensive questions—as can the Secretary of State—but the statement must be heard.
Mr Hunt
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The last Government also failed to prioritise compassionate care. The system’s reputation—[Interruption.] This is uncomfortable for hon. Members. The system’s reputation mattered more than individual patients; targets mattered more than people. We owe it to the 3 million people who use the NHS every week to tackle and confront abuse, incompetence and weak leadership head-on.
Following the Francis report into the tragedy at Mid Staffs, the Prime Minister asked Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS medical director, to conduct a series —Interruption.] I know they tried to shout down whistleblowers such as Julie Bailey, but we are not going to let that happen here. The Prime Minister asked Professor Keogh to conduct a series of “deep-dive” reviews of other hospitals with worrying mortality rates. No statistics are perfect, but mortality rates suggest that since 2005, thousands more people may have died than would normally be expected at the 14 trusts reviewed by Sir Bruce.
Worryingly, in half those trusts, the Care Quality Commission—the regulator specifically responsible for patient safety and care—failed to spot any real cause for concern, rating them as “compliant” with basic standards. Each of those trusts has seen substantial changes to its management since 2010, including a new chief executive or chair at nine of the 14. However, although some have improved, failure or mediocrity is so deeply entrenched at others that they have continued to decline, making the additional measures I am announcing today necessary.
This time, the process was thorough, expert-led and consisted of planned, unannounced and out-of-hours visits, placing particular weight on the views of staff and patients. Where failures were found that presented an immediate risk to patients, they were confronted straight away, rather than waiting until the report was finished. We will be publishing all the reports today, alongside unedited video footage of the review panel’s conclusions—all of which I am placing in the Library. Today I will also set out the actions the Government are taking to deal with the issues raised. I would also like to record my sincere thanks to Sir Bruce and his team for doing an extremely difficult job very thoroughly and rapidly.
Sir Bruce judged that none of the 14 hospitals is providing a consistently high quality of care to patients, with some very concerning examples of poor practice. He identified patterns across many of them, including professional and geographic isolation, failure to act on data or information that showed cause for concern, the absence of a culture of openness, a lack of willingness to learn from mistakes, a lack of ambition, and ineffectual governance and assurance processes. In some cases, trust boards were shockingly unaware of problems discovered by the review teams in their own hospitals. Today I can therefore announce that 11 of the 14 hospitals will be placed into special measures for fundamental breaches of care. In addition, the NHS Trust Development Authority and Monitor have today placed all 14 trusts on notice to fulfil all the recommendations made by the review. All will be inspected again within the next 12 months by the new chief inspector of hospitals, Professor Sir Mike Richards, who starts work today.
The hospitals in special measures are as follows: Tameside Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, where patients spoke of being left on unmonitored trolleys for excessive periods and where the panel found a general culture of “accepting sub-optimal care”; North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust, where the panel found evidence of poor maintenance in two operating theatres, which were closed immediately; Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, where the panel found evidence of staff working for 12 days in a row without a break; and North Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust, where the panel identified serious concerns in relation to out-of-hours stroke services at Diana, Princess of Wales hospital. The panel also witnessed a patient who was inappropriately exposed where both male and female patients were present. [Interruption.]
The list continues: United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust, where there were a staggering 12 “never events” in just three years and the panel had serious concerns about the way “Do not attempt resuscitation” forms were being completed; Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, where patients told of being unaware of who was caring for them, and of buzzers going unanswered and poor attention being paid to oral hygiene; East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. We cannot have a running commentary on the statement as it is delivered. I remind the House that last Wednesday—when there were scenes of grave disorder manifested by Members on both sides of the House—the public reaction to that exceptionally bad behaviour was understandably negative. I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber to show courtesy and restraint. They can rely upon me to protect their interests—if they were here on time for the statement—to question the Secretary of State, but the statement must be heard.
Mr Hunt
The panel also highlighted issues of poor governance, inadequate staffing levels and high mortality rates at weekends at East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust. Patients and their families complained of a lack of compassion and being talked down to by medical staff whenever they expressed concerns.
The remaining hospitals in special measures are as follows: Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, where there were seven “never events” in three years and concerns over infection control and overnight staffing levels; George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust, where the panel identified low levels of clinical cover, especially out of hours, a growing incidence of bed sores and too much unnecessary shifting of patients between wards; Medway NHS Foundation Trust, where a public consultation heard stories of poor communication with patients, poor management of deteriorating patients, inappropriate referrals and medical interventions, delayed discharges and long accident and emergency waiting times; and Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, where the panel found significant shortcomings in the quality of nursing care relating to patient medication, nutrition and observations, and heard complaints from families about the way patients with dementia were treated.
For those 11 trusts, special measures mean that each hospital will be required to implement the recommendations of the Keogh review, with external teams sent in to help them do this. Their progress will be tracked and made public. The TDA or Monitor will assess the quality of leadership at each hospital, requiring the removal of any senior managers unable to lead the improvements required. Each hospital will also be partnered with a high-performing NHS organisation to provide mentorship and guidance in improving the quality and safety of care.
Three of the 14 hospitals are not going into special measures. They are the Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust, the Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust and the Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Although there were still concerns about the quality of care provided, Monitor has confidence that the leadership teams in place can deliver the recommendations of the Keogh review and will hold them to account for doing so.
This is a proportionate response in line with the findings of the review. Inevitably, there will be widespread public concern not just about these hospitals but about any NHS hospital, and some have chosen to criticise me for pointing out where there are failures in care, but the best way to restore trust in our NHS is transparency and honesty about problems, followed by decisiveness in sorting them out. The public need to know that we will stop at nothing to give patients the high-quality care they deserve for themselves and their loved ones. Today’s review and the rigorous actions that we are taking demonstrate the progress this Government are making in response to the Francis report. I shall update the House in the autumn on all of the wide-ranging measures that we are implementing, when the House will be given a chance to debate them in Government time.
The NHS exists to provide patients with safe, compassionate and effective care. In the vast majority of places it does just this, and we should remember that there continues to be much good care even in the hospitals reviewed today. Just as we cannot tolerate mediocre or weak leadership, we must not tolerate any attempts to cover up such failings. It is never acceptable for Government Ministers to put pressure on the NHS to suppress bad news, because in doing so they make it less likely that poor care will be tackled.
We have today begun a journey to change this culture. These 14 failing hospital trusts are not the end of the story. Where there are other examples of unacceptable care, we will find them and we will root them out. Under the new rigorous inspection regime led by the chief inspector of hospitals, if a hospital is not performing as it should, the public will be told. If a hospital is failing, it will be put into special measures with a limited time period to sort out its problems. There will be accountability, too: failure in the NHS should never be a consequence-free zone, so we will stop unjustified pay-offs and ensure it will no longer be possible for failed managers to get new positions elsewhere in the system.
Hand in hand with greater accountability, there will be greater support. Drawing inspiration from education, where super-heads have helped to turn around failing schools, I have asked the NHS Leadership Academy to develop a programme that will identify, support and train outstanding leaders. We have many extraordinary leaders such as David Dalton in Salford Royal and Dame Julie Moore of University hospital Birmingham, but we need many more to provide the leadership required in our weaker hospitals.
At all times, this Government will stand up for hard-working NHS staff and patients who know that poor care and weak leadership have no place in our NHS. It was set up 65 years ago with a pledge to provide us all with the best available care, and I am determined that the NHS will stand by that pledge. We owe its patients nothing less. I commend this statement to the House.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
First, let me join the Secretary of State in thanking Sir Bruce Keogh and his team for this important review. Having worked closely with Sir Bruce, I know him well and have the utmost respect for him. His review presents a challenging but accurate picture of care standards and failings at the 14 trusts. As with both Francis reports, we accept the findings of this report in full.
The statement we have just heard, however—the partisan statement—was not worthy of the excellent report that Sir Bruce has delivered today. The Health Secretary claimed at Health questions that this was a historical report, all about the past and the last Government. Well, I have got news for him: it is not. Trusts were identified on the basis of mortality data for 2011 and 2012. This report is about the right hon. Gentleman’s Government and failings that are happening now on this Government’s watch.
Anyone who supports the NHS must always be prepared to shine a spotlight on its failings, so it can face up to them and improve. In so doing, we must be fair to staff and the NHS as a whole. I am pleased to say that Sir Bruce is fair in his report. He says early in the report that the failings of the 14 hospitals must be put in context, stating that mortality in “all NHS hospitals” has been falling over the last decade by about 30%. He rightly reminds us of
“decades of neglect in the NHS in the 1980s and 1990s”,
and he speaks of the challenge facing the last Government in their early days. The key issue, he said,
“was not whether people were dying in our hospitals avoidably, but that they were dying whilst waiting for treatment.”
The last Labour Government dealt with that issue; I am proud of it and we are proud of our record on the NHS.
The balanced picture presented in this report is not recognisable from the Government briefing appearing in the weekend newspapers. In fact, this report exposes one of the more cynical spin operations of recent times. Nowhere in this report does the claim of 13,000 avoidable deaths appear. Sir Bruce is clear, so let me quote him directly:
“However tempting it may be, it is clinically meaningless and academically reckless to use such statistical measures to quantify actual numbers of avoidable deaths”,
but that is precisely what this Government chose to do in advance of this report. They made unfounded claims, which will have alarmed people in the areas served by the 14 hospitals, and they have questioned the integrity of the staff working in those hospitals in difficult circumstances—and all for their own self-serving political ends. That is simply unworthy of any responsible Government. On reading this review, the diversionary spin operation now makes sense because it reveals evidence of deterioration at all 14 hospitals on their watch.
Let me turn to one of Sir Bruce’s central findings—unsafe staffing. One of the report’s major concerns is that trusts have allowed staffing levels to drop to dangerously low levels. It says:
“When the review teams visited the hospitals, they found frequent examples of inadequate numbers of nursing staff in some ward areas.”
Already, the review team has had to intervene on staffing levels in three trusts to protect patient safety.
The Secretary of State claimed in his comments that the Care Quality Commission had failed to spot any problems. Working with the CQC during the last Government, I left in place warnings about five of these hospitals. The Secretary of State claims that we were covering up, so let me answer on the question of Ministers’ integrity and cite the Francis report, which said that there was no evidence that any Minister received or ignored advice that would have led to safe outcomes. Let me quote to him from a letter sent by Baroness Young to the Prime Minister yesterday:
“CQC was not pressurised by the previous Government to tone down its regulatory judgments or to hide quality failures.”
It is outrageous for the Secretary of State to come to the House today and repeat those concerns without a shred of evidence to back them up.
Five of the trusts examined by Keogh had warnings in place, and it is shocking that they have been allowed to cut staff to unsafe levels on this Government’s watch. Overall, seven of the trusts in the review have cut front-line staff by a shocking 1,117. The great sadness is that it appears Ministers are in danger of forgetting the lessons of Stafford, where Robert Francis identified “dangerous cuts” to the front line as a primary cause of care failures. Like Robert Francis, Sir Bruce makes recommendations on appropriate staffing levels. Is it not the case that the Secretary of State can no longer ignore these authoritative calls, and will he take urgent action on safe staffing levels in these 14 trusts and across the NHS? Will he accept that the loss of over 4,000 nursing jobs that has now been laid bare under this Government is a monumental mistake, while £3 billion has been siphoned out of the NHS front line to pay for reorganisation that nobody wanted and nobody voted for?
Let me turn to A and E performance, the barometer of the health service and a wider indication of problems across hospitals. The report highlights major failings in A and E at many of the trusts and we know that the NHS has just come through the worst winter for a decade. At the end of last year, all 14 trusts were in breach of the Government’s A and E target—when, under the previous Government, all 14 were meeting the A and E target.
Sir Bruce is clear that urgent action is needed to improve A and E. Let me quote the report:
“We have established that one of the primary causes of high mortality in these hospitals are found primarily in urgent and emergency care, and particularly in care for frail and elderly patients…All trusts were functioning at high levels of capacity in the urgent care pathway. This frequently led to challenges in A&E and, as a consequence, cancellation of operations due to bed shortages and difficulty meeting waiting time targets.”
Will the Secretary of State now take immediate action, working with the whole health economy in these 14 areas, to bring each trust back up to the national standards on A and E that his Government have set? Will he accept that it is not fair to these hospitals to blame them alone, as the devastating cuts to social care are a major driver of pressure in hospitals?
Finally, on what happens next, the simple truth is that people watching will want solutions rather than point scoring. Surely the right response to the Keogh review is now to accept the Francis recommendations in full, particularly on minimum staffing. A duty of candour on individuals will help bring the culture change we need at local level and, of course, we need to see the regulation of health care assistants. Will the Secretary of State work with us now on early implementation of the Francis recommendations? He spoke earlier of a new era of transparency. If he means what he says, will he now publish the NHS risk register? For all we know, it might well have predicted some of the failings we are reading about today.
It is a sad fact that mistakes will be made in any walk of life, even in the NHS. What matters is how the NHS responds. Rather than pulling down the shutters and pushing people away, it is right that we should hold a mirror up to the NHS so that it can act on its failings. We must also be fair to people working in the NHS by ensuring that an accurate picture is presented. Sir Bruce has had to take the extraordinary step already of distancing himself from the Government briefings that appeared at the weekend. I hope the Government will learn a painful lesson from this: you should not play politics with people’s lives and you should not play politics with the NHS, on which all people depend.
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Irranca-Davies, you look as though you are about to explode. I am worried about you. I think you probably need to have a lie down or to take some sort of medicament—it might be of benefit to you. You must calm yourself.
Mr Hunt
The right hon. Gentleman talked about being partisan and party political. It is not party political to highlight poor care; it is doing the right thing for patients.
Let us look at what independent people have said about Labour’s time in office. Roger Davidson, the former head of media at the CQC, said that
“there were conversations between the CQC and Ministers to the effect that the CQC would not cause any trouble…The message that ‘we don’t want bad news’ infected the whole organisation”.
Professor Brian Jarman—[Interruption.] I think Opposition Members might want to listen to this, because it is what independent people are saying. Professor Jarman, who invented hospital standardised mortality indices, said that
“the problem was ministerial pressure, even from Number 10.”
This is most damaging: the right hon. Gentleman talked about what Barbara Young, Labour peer and head of the CQC, said under pressure from the Labour Whips, but what did she say under oath to the Francis inquiry? She said that
“the government hated the idea…the regulator would criticise it… We were under more pressure, I think, when Andy Burnham became minister, from the politics.”
That is what a Labour peer said. These people are not Government supporters—at least, not of this Government —but were trying to do their job in exposing poor care and the right hon. Gentleman stopped them.
The right hon. Gentleman talks of spin, but I will tell him who had to fight hardest against spin: the whistleblowers he tried to shut up. What do they say? James Titcombe, who tragically lost his son at Morecambe bay, tweeted that
“you made big mistakes Andy, it’s time you admitted it.”
Julie Bailey, who lost her mother at Mid Staffs, said that Labour crushed the culture of care from the NHS. [Interruption.] Deb Hazeldine, from Mid Staffs, who lost a relative, said that the shadow Secretary of State was trying to “defend the indefensible”—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. It is very difficult to imagine how anyone can hear these exchanges. The content of questions and answers is to be determined by Members, but I gently remind the House of the need for good order and that this is not a debate. There will be debates, but this is not a debate but a statement on which there is questioning, to which there is then a ministerial answer. This is not an opportunity for general speechifying but for responses to specific questions made with economy so that I can accommodate all interested colleagues.
Mr Hunt
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would have hoped that the Opposition would want to listen more respectfully to what whistleblowers said about their attempts to expose poor care.
Let me respond to what the right hon. Gentleman says. He says that Labour tackled the problems, but the evidence shows the opposite. We talked about Tameside earlier, but what about Basildon? There were high death rates for nine years under Labour—in every year since 2001. Half the staff said they would not want their own friends and family treated there. Ministers received 237 letters between 2005 and 2010, yet what did the CQC do? It rated the hospital as “good” and within four weeks Ministers were shamed into launching an investigation into high mortality rates—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I have tried to explain the position calmly—[Interruption.] Order. I shall do so once more. I think the Secretary of State will appreciate that he has been asked questions about present arrangements to which we need pithy replies, not a lengthy statement about events of the past that happened before he had responsibility. We cannot have that. If that is what he is planning to read out, we will simply move on. A brief conclusion to his answer is now required and sought by the House.
Mr Speaker
Order. My impression is that the Secretary of State is now seeking to treat of matters since May 2010 and he must be given the opportunity to do so, with colleagues and people outside being able to hear the answers.
Mr Hunt
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
What does the right hon. Gentleman do when I criticise the lack of rapid progress in tackling failure in our hospitals? He criticises me for making an unbelievable statement and states that there are no coasting hospitals, but today proves that he is wrong. What is unbelievable is his total refusal to admit that it is not just a question of coasting hospitals, but a Labour party that has coasted for too long on its reputation on the NHS.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman says that we are trying—[Interruption.] This is difficult for Labour Members to hear, so let us get to the point. He says that we are trying to run down the NHS. Let me say this: if we did not believe in the NHS, we would not be tackling these problems. The best way to support the NHS is not to ignore poor care, not to muzzle the CQC, not to ignore requests for public inquiries and not to ignore warnings constantly. If founding the NHS is considered Labour’s proudest achievement, today is its darkest moment as a Labour Government are exposed as caring more about their own reputation than about our most vulnerable citizens in the NHS—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Has the Secretary of State finished his answer? He has. We are grateful and I thank him for saying that he has finished.
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind the House of the long-established and generally adhered-to convention that Members who were not present at the start of a statement do not rise to question the relevant Minister. That has long been regarded as a discourtesy, and it should not happen. I have a list of Members who arrived late, but I hope that they will not render it necessary for me to draw attention to the fact. I ask those who arrived late, in all courtesy, not to rise to their feet.
We will now make progress as expeditiously as we can, led by the Chair of the Health Committee.
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
Those who want to make the case for change in an organisation—and, after the Francis review, who can doubt the need for change in parts of the national health service—must first demonstrate the need for change. Does this review not build on the distinguished record of both Bruce Keogh and Sir Brian Jarman in demonstrating the need for change in parts of our national health service?
Mr Hunt
My right hon. Friend speaks very wisely. As I know he agrees, identifying problems publicly is incredibly difficult, but the way to ensure that those problems are dealt with is to be totally honest and transparent about them in the knowledge that they will be sorted out as a result, and that is what is happening today.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Thankfully, the quality of Sir Bruce Keogh’s report is vastly superior to that of the statement that we heard from the Secretary of State. Is it not the case that Sir Bruce Keogh—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am very concerned about the fact that someone shouted something, and I think I heard a word that was unparliamentary. I did not see an individual who was responsible, and I do not know who was responsible, but I simply say to the House—[Interruption.] Order. It is no good people burbling on about whistleblowers from a sedentary position. Let us lower the temperature, and have orderly exchanges. [Interruption.] Order. I remind the House that I called the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) to ask a question. Let us do him the courtesy of hearing the conclusion of that question.
Alan Johnson
Is it not the case that Sir Bruce may have given us a blueprint for better regulation, provided that the Secretary of State faces up to his responsibility and ends the tawdry and squalid attempts by his party to denigrate his predecessors?
Mr Hunt
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, who is one of those predecessors, would accept at a quieter moment outside the Chamber that one of the biggest mistakes made during his time as Secretary of State—or at least it was initiated then—was the appalling change that was made to the regulation of hospitals. The CQC was stripped of expert inspectors, and hospitals began to be inspected by generalists. The same group of people would inspect a slimming clinic, a dental practice, a GP’s surgery, and a major London teaching hospital. That very significant mistake lies at the heart of the reason why the CQC approved and certified so many failing hospitals.
I am happy to work with the right hon. Gentleman, and to say that honest mistakes were made and we will put them right, but today there must be honesty about what those mistakes were.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Patients and their families outside this place will join me in congratulating the Secretary of State on his brave decision not to sweep NHS failures under the carpet.
You and I know, Mr. Speaker, that Buckinghamshire contains many areas of health care that are of high quality, but the report identifies some failings, one of which is the quality of out-of-hours and weekend nursing and medical cover for acute medical patients. That is clearly linked to difficulties relating to the recruitment, retention and availability of competent clinicians and nurses. What more can the Department do to help our trusts improve out-of-hours provision and, in particular, the quality of temporary staff, so that those problems can be eliminated?
Mr Hunt
My right hon. Friend is right. Serious problems were identified in Buckinghamshire relating to out-of-hours care and also to dementia patients, who themselves often need help out of hours. I raised the difficult issue of the GP contract because, in order to solve such problems, we need more joined-up care in the community. The Chancellor has announced an additional £2.8 billion for joint commissioning arrangements between local authorities and health care bodies, and I think that the combination of those two measures will secure a vastly improved out-of-hours service for my right hon. Friend’s constituents.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
I welcome the Keogh report and the action that the Secretary of State has announced, which, although it will be uncomfortable for my local health trust, I believe to be necessary. However, I hope that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that the comments that he has made demean his office. I sat in the Cabinet with my right hon. Friends the Members for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson). I saw how anxious they were to root out inefficiency and failings, and to cover nothing up, and I think it inappropriate for the Secretary of State to suggest that he and his party have a monopoly when it comes to concern about the transparency and effectiveness of the health service.
Last Thursday, the Secretary of State commended Royal Blackburn hospital for its vascular services and accepted the excellence of many of its staff. While we are navigating through this difficult period, is it not crucially important for us to echo the Keogh report and point out that, overwhelmingly, hospitals in areas such as mine employ high-quality staff who require better leadership?
Mr Hunt
Improving leadership is vital throughout the NHS. All Governments must take responsibility for what happens on their watch, and I have taken responsibility today for those 14 hospitals and all their serious problems. The right hon. Gentleman should accept that between 2005 and 2010 his Government received 142 letters about his hospital which they did nothing about, and introduced a regulatory system that did not expose poor care and ensure that it was addressed.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I welcome Sir Bruce Keogh’s important report. However, although I admire my right hon. Friend, I totally dissociate myself from his ill-judged attempt to drag this important issue into the gutter of partisan politics and petty point-scoring. I expect better of him than that.
It is clear from annex A of the report that in all but one of the 14 hospitals, problems relating to staffing levels and the staff mix need to be addressed, and ambition 6 recommends action to address them. As my right hon. Friend knows, I campaign on this issue. What will the Government do to ensure that staffing levels are adequate in our acute hospitals?
Mr Hunt
Tackling failure in our NHS is not an easy path to take, but it is the right thing to do for patients. If my hon. Friend believes that all the care problems in the NHS started in 2010, I think he is the only Member who does. [Interruption.] Opposition Members must bear their share of the responsibility for the failures that they did not sort out. Staffing is indeed a problem that needs to be sorted out in many trusts, which is why we commissioned the review and why we are sending in turnaround teams to do just that.
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has made an appalling attempt to smear my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). Will he now acknowledge that in 2009, my right hon. Friend sought a review of all the hospitals with high mortality rates, that 21 were registered with conditions, and that five had warnings placed on them, which he and he his predecessor inherited? Will he tell the House what he and his predecessor did in respect of those hospitals in 2010, 2011 and 2012?
Mr Hunt
As I said in my statement, in nine of these 14 trusts, the chief executive or chair has been either replaced or moved on. However, the most important thing that we are doing is setting up a transparent failure regime, so that when problems arise they will be made public, so the system will never know something that the public do not, and so that Ministers will be required to take action to sort out failing hospitals. That is what is happening under this Government, but I am afraid that it did not happen when the right hon. Lady’s party was in power.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The Keogh report, which must be welcomed, followed the Francis report. Despite my continuous attempts to have a full public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, successive Labour Secretaries of State refused. Can my right hon. Friend find out from the Department or in any other way how that happened? Will he be good enough to publish his findings, because the root of the real trouble is that they were not prepared to have an inquiry and it was a cover-up?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend knows that the Labour party refused 81 requests for a public inquiry into what happened at Mid Staffs—I repeat: 81 requests. He also knows that if it was not for that public inquiry, we would not be here now. That is the biggest lesson to learn about the benefits of a public inquiry, and that is why transparency matters. I hope he is also pleased that we will be having a debate on the Francis report in Government time later this year.
Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
If the teams going into Cumbria recommend increased staffing and resources, will the Secretary of State fund that?
Mr Hunt
If the issues are around staffing, we will sort those out. If the issues are around leadership, we will sort those out. If the issues are around clinical practice, we will sort that out. My commitment to the House is that we will do what it takes to sort out these failing hospitals.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
In 2006 the then Labour Government purchased 49% of Dr Foster, the intelligence unit from which a lot of these mortality data are emanating. Does the Secretary of State agree that for Secretaries of State from that point onwards to be claiming they were unaware of the data seems a bit rich?
Mr Hunt
There were repeatedly high mortality rates in all these 14 hospitals, and it took the public inquiry that Labour did not want to demonstrate to the world just how important hospital standardised mortality ratios are. They are the smoke alarm that was ignored in the case of Mid Staffs, and which could have led to the prevention of thousands of tragedies if we had taken action earlier. That is why we immediately insisted on this review by Sir Bruce.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I think there is widespread respect for Sir Bruce Keogh and his report and I certainly welcome it, but it is a cynical move by the Secretary of State to try to besmirch the reputation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). May I point out that on this Government’s watch clinical negligence claims are up 50%, A and E waits are at a nine-year high and “never events” have tripled? What is the Secretary of State going to do about them?
Mr Hunt
We spend more than £1 billion every year on clinical negligence because the hon. Gentleman’s Government changed the rules so that trusts suffer no financial penalty when they have to pay a clinical negligence claim. That is something we really need to look at, because it is removing one of the biggest possible incentives for trusts to treat people safely.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Is the Secretary of State aware that in Medway we were left with just three consultants to share cover of A and E, but we have now increased the number to six, and it will soon rise to eight?
Mr Hunt
These are precisely the problems that this review is designed to root out. There were problems with long A and E waits as well as with inappropriate medical interventions and poor communication with patients, but I hope my hon. Friend’s constituents will be reassured by the transparency of what is happening today, and the fact that I am making this Government accountable for sorting out those sorts of problems.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I suspect that in a quieter moment the Secretary of State will not think this statement was his proudest moment. [Interruption.] Well, it seems that he used to be run by Coulson and now he is run by Crosby.
Most voters will be more interested in the future and how we can make sure that people’s lives are protected, so what does the Secretary of State have to say about the fact that fewer people are coming from other countries to work in the NHS? Because of the Government’s immigration policy, there is a real danger that we will have a significant problem in A and E recruitment across the country.
Mr Hunt
I struggle to find the link between that question and Sir Bruce Keogh’s report on the 14 hospitals, but as the hon. Gentleman has asked about A and E, and as he is trying to take the moral high ground, perhaps he would explain why he has not been standing up in this House campaigning against Labour’s abysmal record, as it has missed its A and E targets in Wales since 2009.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
In 2005 and 2006 Medway Maritime hospital had the seventh worst mortality rate in the country, yet nothing was done. May I thank the Secretary of State for the actions he has put forward today, which will help improve the quality of care for my constituents and people from further afield?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is right. There were high mortality rates in his hospital in six of the nine years they were measured under the last Labour Government, and there were problems with A and E and with inappropriate medical interventions. He can say to his constituents today that the Government have identified the problem and have been transparent about it, and we will be accountable for sorting it out.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
How many health professional regulatory bodies has the Secretary of State met since the publication of the Francis report?
Mr Hunt
I think I have met most of them, but I have certainly met the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council, and I have talked to them about the reasons they are finding it difficult to remove doctors and nurses from their lists when there are questions about their poor performance.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
To complete the Medway Maritime hat trick, may I say I am very disappointed to hear from the Secretary of State that the hospital has gone into special measures? I have been assured that Sir Bruce Keogh’s recommendations are already being implemented, but will the Secretary of State say in what time frame he, and more importantly my constituents, should expect to see significant improvements at the Maritime?
Mr Hunt
We want these things to happen as quickly as possible, but all the hospitals Sir Bruce reviewed will be looked at again within the next year by the chief inspector of hospitals, Professor Sir Mike Richards, who starts work today, so we will be able to measure whether progress has been as swift as my hon. Friend and I would like.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
May I ask the Secretary of State to actually discharge one of the responsibilities of his office by answering a simple question? If he believes that managers should not be able to get another post if they fail, why was there a plan to transfer the chief nurse from the failed Morecambe Bay NHS Trust on secondment to Warrington and Halton on the Secretary of State’s watch, stopped only when my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) and I found out about it? Did he or his Ministers know about this plan, and if not, why not?
Mr Hunt
That is exactly the reason why we are introducing measures to make sure—[Interruption.] Well, the Francis report was introduced to this House on 6 February, and we have said we will change legislation this year. We have already appointed a chief inspector of hospitals. I do not think we could go much faster. The trouble for the Labour party is not that we are going too slowly but that we are going too fast and exposing all sorts of problems which it wishes did not happen.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for shining a light on to the health care provided by Queen’s hospital in Burton. Although Queen’s has a lower unexpected death rate than other hospitals, any unnecessary death is a tragedy for the family concerned. Given that since 2005 Queen’s hospital had a higher mortality rate than Stafford hospital, does he understand the anger of my constituents who have seen their loved ones die unnecessarily and these concerns ignored by Labour?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend’s hospital had excess mortality rates for five of the nine years leading up to 2010 and not enough action was taken, and that is what today is all about. I hope that what his constituents will take from today is that this Government are committed to turning around failing hospitals and putting in place the right leadership, and the reassurance that when their loved ones go to Queen’s hospital or anywhere else in the country, they can get the kind of care they would want for themselves.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
May I say to the Secretary of State that there is a tone and a language that we should choose to employ for candid conversations about failure and it saddens me that he did not find that language today, because it will not do us any good? The Francis report recommended a duty of candour. Will he update the House as to just how much progress he has made on that?
Mr Hunt
Yes, I can. We have accepted the recommendation that there should be a duty of candour on the boards of hospitals, with criminal sanctions if they fail to tell members of the public that they or their loved ones have been harmed by the hospital, and if they fail to tell the system that those incidents have happened. We have commissioned a review of safety by Sir Don Berwick, one of the greatest experts in the world, and we shall ask him whether we should extend that duty of candour to below board level. We shall wait to hear what he says. We understand the reasons why people might want to do that, but we are also aware that others have expressed the concern that it might destroy an atmosphere of trust in a hospital if people were worried about criminal consequences if they did not talk about any failures they saw in their daily work.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s break with the culture of cover-up that has been so prevalent in the past. I reject absolutely the shadow Health Secretary’s claim that the Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust’s performance has deteriorated since 2010—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady is asking a question, but I have distinctly heard Members—in some cases identifiable Members—trying to shout her down. That should not happen on either side of the House. If she wishes to continue with her question, she may do so.
Margot James
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I reject the shadow Health Secretary’s claim. The new leadership that was appointed to the trust in 2009 found deep-seated problems there. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State welcome, as I do, the positive notes in Sir Bruce Keogh’s report about that new leadership’s abilities, and Sir Bruce’s finding that the overall work force at our trust are
“committed, loyal, passionate, caring and motivated”?
Mr Hunt
I welcome that, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s trust was not one of the ones that it was necessary to put into special measures. We have learnt a lesson from the successful way in which the schools system is regulated. Ofsted distinguishes between failing schools that have in place good management who are able to turn the school round and those where a change of leadership is required, and I am pleased that the report found that Dudley had the right leadership in place.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
I welcome the report and I hope that the new chief executive at King’s Mill hospital in my constituency will provide the leadership that has been lacking in recent years. He assures me that he will implement all the report’s recommendations. The report mentions
“significant concerns around staffing levels at…King’s Mill Hospital”.
The trust has lost more than 200 nurses since 2010. Can we have them back?
Mr Hunt
Staffing levels are indeed one of the issues that contribute to poor care, if we get them wrong. That is why we are committed to implementing the Francis recommendations on safe staffing levels, and why, having protected and increased the NHS budget—contrary to what the shadow Secretary of State wanted—we now have 6,000 additional doctors working in the NHS. [Interruption.] In these individual cases, if staffing levels are the issue, they will be addressed.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Secretary of State has been absolutely right to highlight and pursue past failures for the benefit of future patients. That includes investigating why the regulatory system seems to have failed in these cases. Does he agree, however, that we must not allow the report to overshadow much of the good work that is being done in our hospitals, including Basildon hospital which now has new management and is instigating changes?
Mr Hunt
I agree with that. One reason why it is so important to reform the regulatory structures that we inherited is that they tried to identify only poor care—not terribly successfully—when we need a system that identifies outstanding care as well. We need such a system for the benefit of the general reputation of the NHS and the morale of the service. We also need one so that a failing hospital can have an organisation on which it can model itself, just as a failing school can model itself on a school that has received an outstanding Ofsted report. That provides a solution to the problem: we identify a problem transparently and we sort it out.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said that he was proud of the NHS, yet he and his Ministers have supported a top-down reorganisation of the national health service that will lead to 49% privatisation and cut 4,000 nurses. We know from the Francis report that staffing levels are key to the whole agenda, and the Secretary of State has just said he acknowledges that, so will he reinstate the 4,000 nurses he has cut from the NHS?
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Walter Coles died because he was forgotten. Edward Maitland died because he was fed solid food. I could name others; those are just two of the patients who have died unnecessarily. And yet high mortality rates made it on to the board’s agenda in Buckinghamshire only because of a trigger relating to concern for reputational risk. The board had no robust risk management practices in place, and there were no plans to introduce any. Furthermore, certain key elements relating to changes in urgent care were missing. In setting out to champion patients, will my right hon. Friend set out how it will be possible to remove an entire board, or any members of a board who are not performing well?
Mr Hunt
Absolutely. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his extraordinary campaigning on behalf of his constituents. It is very difficult for a local Member to take on his own hospital when he finds failings, but he does it with great bravery. Yes, we need to ensure that the way we judge hospitals is not just about meeting waiting time and A and E targets, important though they are; it must also be about safety, about compassionate care and about governance. Other things matter as well. That is what we are changing.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
In a new low for British politics, the Secretary of State today descended into the gutter. How can he begin to blame the last Government for the deterioration at the 14 hospitals concerned, which took place under this Government, especially as the Government were warned about unacceptable standards in five of them?
Mr Hunt
The low in British politics is that it took so long for a Government to be honest about failings in the NHS. Many of those hospitals have a culture that entrenched failure for years and years under the last Labour Government, yet Labour Members refuse to accept that even now. What does that say to the public about whether they can be trusted with the future of our NHS?
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I welcome the robust and determined approach that my right hon. Friend is taking. It is right that the mistakes of the past should be thoroughly investigated, but my constituents—some of whom are waiting to go into Grimsby and Scunthorpe hospitals—need an assurance that action will be taken to remedy the situation immediately. There are many dedicated staff in our area, but recruitment has always been a problem in northern Lincolnshire. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that if additional support is needed to recruit the best clinicians and managers, it will be made available?
Mr Hunt
We will quite simply do what it takes to ensure that we implement the recommendations of the Keogh review for north Lincolnshire hospitals. We owe my hon. Friend’s constituents nothing less. The first step is to be honest about the problems. The big difference between the two sides of the House is illustrated by the fact that we will restore morale not by pretending that the problems do not exist but by being honest about them and confronting them. That is what we will do in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I should like to start by offering my deepest sympathy to the patients and families. We are talking about mortality statistics, but these are actually loved ones who have been lost. For the second time today, I ask the Secretary of State whether he will accept, adopt and implement the recommendations in the Francis report.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Professor Brian Jarman observed that, until recently, the Department of Health seemed to be a “denial machine” and that there was suppression and spin. Will the Secretary of State and the whole House at least agree that there is no room for denial, suppression or spin in the NHS, and that what we need for the future are total transparency, accountability and a Care Quality Commission that performs properly and professionally?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend speaks wisely, because the first step towards sorting out these problems is to have a system that Ministers cannot interfere with so that when there is failure, regulators are able to speak out without any political pressure—without any Ministers leaning on them in the run-up to elections—in the interests of patients. That is why we are completely changing the CQC. We are introducing a chief inspector of hospitals, who will be the nation’s whistleblower and who will have the independence and freedom that the old CQC never had. I hope that will help the public feel more confident that where there are problems they are properly tackled and not swept under the carpet.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Several times the Secretary of State has admitted that staffing cut drastically on his watch is a major factor in deteriorating care in the NHS—an NHS that has been in the charge of the Conservative party for more than three years. What is he going to do about restoring staffing levels?
Mr Hunt
Clinical staff numbers have gone up by 8,000 since 2010: there are 6,000 more doctors, 1,000 more midwives and 1,000 more health visitors. The numbers have gone up since 2010. If we followed the shadow Secretary of State’s advice and cut the NHS budget from its current levels, that would not be possible.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
I am pleased that the Secretary of State has sought to take tough decisions to bring more openness and transparency to our NHS and not keep sweeping things under the carpet. Improving quality for patients is the immediate priority, and I support him in the decisive action he has taken, but will he also now seek to establish a sustainable future for the George Eliot hospital, which has suffered from a great deal of uncertainty since 2006?
Mr Hunt
I absolutely intend to do that. As my hon. Friend knows, I have been to the George Eliot hospital, working part of a shift in its accident and emergency department. I thought the staff there were working extremely hard, under great pressure. I noticed that the hospital did not have the systems in place that others have; I believe that hospital had 16 IT systems, which meant that if someone in the A and E department needed a blood test, all the details would have to be re-entered on a different system. That takes up a lot of clinical time, so making changes in these areas can make a big difference. But I do think it is important, as we expose these problems, that we recognise that even at the 14 hospitals mentioned today good care is being provided every day and the staff in those hospitals are working very hard. We need to back them, and the best way of doing so is to give them confidence that we are going to turn around their hospital.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Management systems that are run on a blame culture inevitably create cover-ups and lead to people disguising the facts. Will the Secretary of State now show some leadership by trying to eradicate that from the health service? Will he take the advice Professor Ashton gave on Radio 4 this morning, because he expressed a firm way forward for the NHS? Will the Secretary of State stop playing these silly political games and follow Professor Ashton’s advice?
Mr Hunt
It is not playing silly political games to expose poor care; it is doing my duty as Health Secretary, and that is what I will continue to do. Improving systems, such as making sure there is safe staffing, is very important. It is ridiculous in this day and age that someone can be admitted to A and E but that department cannot access their GP record, and cannot see whether they are a diabetic or whether they have mild dementia. Those are things we are determined to sort out.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
On 6 February, the Prime Minister asked Professor Sir Bruce Keogh to review the quality of hospital care. Although Colchester is only one hour from London, Sir Bruce did not make a single visit in the five months that elapsed. Although, obviously, I welcome the Secretary of State’s observation today that for Colchester general hospital this is more of a green light than a red light, will he do what Sir Bruce did not do and visit the hospital, so that he can, in the words of the panel, meet a large number of “committed and enthusiastic” staff?
Mr Hunt
I would be delighted to do that. I try to visit somewhere on the front line in the NHS every week, making sure I do not just visit the best places; I visit places that have problems and places like Colchester hospital which are improving—I am delighted that Sir Bruce’s report recognised that.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The Secretary of State began his statement with an alarming story about patients being left unmonitored on trolleys—I understand that took place at Tameside hospital. Does he agree that there may be a connection between that and the fact that there are 128 fewer nurses, midwives and health visitors in that hospital than there were in 2010? Given that the previous Government flagged up that hospital as one of particular concern, was he watching it to make sure that there were no cuts in nursing staff there?
Mr Hunt
As I have said many times, where there is not safe staffing we need to put that right. As I have also said, there are 8,000 more front-line staff under this Government than there were when the hon. Lady’s Government were in power. But those are not the only issues; we also need to address issues of leadership, of systems, which we talked about, and of clinical effectiveness. We need to sort out all those. On staffing numbers, I would just point out that plenty of hospitals under equivalent financial pressures are managing to deliver outstanding care, so a lot of this is about getting the right leadership in place at a board level.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
On 1 July, just over two weeks ago, my aunt died unexpectedly and alone at Queen’s hospital, Burton. The Keogh review has now shown that hospital to have had a higher mortality rate than Stafford since at least 2005. Will my right hon. Friend pledge to work tirelessly to heal our NHS, so that my constituents, my friends and my relatives do not continue to die unnecessarily because of the failed policies of the previous Labour Government? [Interruption.]
Mr Hunt
This is the problem. [Interruption.] This is the denial we are getting from the Labour party; it is denying any responsibility for these deep-seated problems in some of our hospitals. As Health Secretary, I intend to do exactly as my hon. Friend describes. In order to try to measure the progress we are making, we will this year for the first time be asking every NHS in-patient whether they would recommend the quality of care that they received to a friend or a member of their family, because in the end that is what this is all about.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
In May 2010, had mortality rates been falling in NHS hospitals?
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I welcome the fact that Colchester general hospital is not being put in special measures. That expresses Monitor’s confidence in the current leadership of the hospital, which is already implementing improvements in the areas that it told the Keogh report about, which are reported to be the matters of concern. I also welcome my right hon. Friend’s emphasis on leadership, and openness and trust of leadership, but does he accept what we are finding in the Public Administration Committee’s inquiry into complaints handling in public services that that lack of trust and openness is found not just at trust level, but goes right up the command chain of the health service and has historically existed in the Department of Health? How will he challenge that culture and define the right kind of leadership that should be taught by the leadership academy?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The simple way we can change that culture, which will not be easy and will not happen immediately, is by making sure that where there is failure, there is someone who is independent and able to speak up about that failure without fear or favour—someone to be the nation’s whistleblower-in-chief. That is what we must have with the new chief inspector of hospitals, modelled on the chief inspector of schools and how well the whole Ofsted regulation system has worked. That has to be the first step; there must be no hiding place when there is failure. From there, we will have the pressure on the whole system, right the way up to Ministers, to make sure that failure is sorted out.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Sir Bruce Keogh warns us in his report about the very reaction we have seen today, which is in danger of shaming this House by focusing on politics instead of people. He wrote in his first few paragraphs that
“this is not a time for hasty reactions and recriminations”.
I read those words at five past 8 this morning when the Department of Health finally opened up to allow Members of Parliament to read what was there. Will the Secretary of State assure me and my constituents, who use Scunthorpe general hospital, that he will work to support people and put people before politics, because this afternoon he has put politics before people?
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
Bereaved families in Thurrock have had their pain compounded by how the Basildon and Thurrock trust has investigated complaints and incidents. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way in which hospitals investigate such incidents is an important aspect of the transparency and accountability agenda?
Mr Hunt
It is, and this year we will be introducing in law a duty of candour that will make it a criminal offence for boards not to be honest, not only with families if patients have been harmed, but with the system, which is extremely important. Salford Royal hospital has one of the most successful safety records in the country, and it has achieved that by creating an atmosphere of trust so that front-line staff are not afraid to speak out about the problems that they encounter, however junior they are. It takes outstanding leadership to get that right, and part of the turning point that we require today is an understanding of what is involved in such leadership, which we need in many more places.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
High mortality rates are unacceptable and their effect on people’s confidence in, and satisfaction with, the NHS is a problem. We in Northern Ireland are fortunate that there have not been such disclosures, but it is important that lessons can be learned. Does the Secretary of State intend to share the data and findings with regions of the United Kingdom and the devolved Administration in the Northern Ireland Assembly?
Mr Hunt
When there are excess mortality rates, there is some controversy about exactly how many avoidable deaths they correspond to, which is why Professor Keogh has asked Professor Nick Black and Lord Darzi to carry out a further study to try better to understand the link between excess mortality and avoidable deaths. We will be happy to share that information with the devolved Administrations.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am keen to accommodate as many remaining colleagues as I can, but I point out to the House that I must have some regard to the Second Reading debate on the Defence Reform Bill, so economy in questions and answers is now of the essence.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
I welcome the Keogh report. Patients should come first and patient care should be at the centre of our health service. Over the past 10 years, sadly, there has been a clear lack of leadership and management at North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust, so I am not surprised by the report. However, there is a possible solution to improve health care in north Cumbria: the acquisition of the hospitals by Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust. Will the Secretary of State work with me, the regulators and Northumbria to ensure that the acquisition proceeds as quickly as possible so that the people of Cumbria and Carlisle get the best possible health care?
Mr Hunt
I very much hope that that acquisition can proceed and I agree with my hon. Friend that it is the way forward. Although we have to ensure that that happens properly, Northumbria can give North Cumbria the leadership that it badly needs, so the process would be positive.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Since the publication of the Francis report, it seems that we have been going round and round the question of safe staffing levels, which I have raised several times. Ratios of two nurses to 29 patients, or worse, have been reported to me—I do not think that they are uncommon—and the CQC tells us that one in 10 hospitals has unsafe staffing levels. It must be accepted that the number of nurses has reached unsafe levels in these 14 hospitals and many parts of the country. The Secretary of State cited Salford Royal hospital, but will he act now to ensure that all wards in all hospitals publicise their staffing ratios, because I would not want a relative on a ward with a ratio of 2:29?
Mr Hunt
The right ratio of patients to nurses depends on the type of patients in a ward, because different wards have different requirements. Salford Royal has a good model through which it ensures that it has the right number of nurses. As I said to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), I accept what Francis says about safe staffing, but he did not recommend the Labour party’s policy of minimum mandated national staffing levels. I am following the recommendation of the Francis report, which I think is the right way forward.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
My constituents in Glossop use Tameside hospital. For too long, people such as Liz Degnen have highlighted their worries about Tameside, and the recent departure of its chief executive was called for and welcomed by several hon. Members. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Keogh report is a vindication of many of my constituents’ long-held beliefs?
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I have welcomed the Keogh process from the beginning. Although the report on Tameside is hard hitting, I entirely welcome it—it is consistent with what has been in the public domain for two weeks—and the evidence that all Tameside MPs gave to Keogh to demand a change in leadership has been justified. Although I speak as an MP who has campaigned critically against his hospital, may I say that the tone and comments of the Secretary of State were neither helpful nor accurate with regard to Tameside? We need him to focus on implementing the reforms that are needed, one of which is clearly to deal with the inadequacy of the previous inspection regime. The extent of the scrutiny of these 14 trusts was great, but that is needed for all hospitals, so can he tell us what he will do to put that into effect?
Mr Hunt
I absolutely can. The new chief inspector of hospitals starts work today. We would like him to start the new inspection regime, adopting the same methodology as the Keogh review, as soon as possible, but it takes time to assemble a team of expert inspectors. He plans to start a pilot round of inspections this autumn before getting into full swing next year, and all the hospitals on today’s list will be inspected again within the next 12 months.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
My constituents use Burton trust, so it is a sad day when it is on the list. Will the Secretary of State help to ensure that no barrier is placed between MPs and hospital boards so that there is total transparency and local MPs can help the boards in the future?
Mr Hunt
That open relationship between hon. Members and their local NHS trusts is extremely important and useful. We all have to recognise that sometimes we have to speak up publicly when there are problems at our local NHS trust, because we have to represent our constituents, and that is part of the change due to this process. In the end, the most important thing is to give people confidence that, when there are problems, we are a Government who are committed to sorting them out.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Page 22 of the Keogh report clearly states:
“Contrary to the pre-visit data, when the review teams visited the hospitals, they found frequent examples of inadequate numbers of nursing staff in some ward areas. The reported data did not provide a true picture of the numbers of staff actually working on the wards.”
It goes on to say that that
“was compounded by an over-reliance on unregistered staff and temporary staff”.
Given that the Government have sacked more than 1,000 people in front-line nursing roles in seven of the trusts involved, what conclusion does the Secretary of State draw from that paragraph?
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend says, transparency is vital. Stafford hospital has improved substantially since the spotlight was shone on it, although we are not complacent at all. One of the real problems we face is that good clinicians avoid management positions. What plans does he have to encourage young clinicians to undertake professional management training so that they can move into senior management positions in the course of their careers?
Mr Hunt
As ever, my hon. Friend speaks wisely, because we know a key point is that we need more good clinicians to go into management positions throughout the NHS. I am in close discussions with the NHS leadership academy, which this Government set up, to determine what more can be done to guarantee that able clinicians who pass muster and go into management can get a job at the end of that process. In addition, we have to encourage people to go into challenging trusts, rather than always being attracted to the best trusts. Such a change has been managed in the schools system, so we need to achieve that in health as well.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
I supported the inquiry and worked hard to provide details from Russells Hall patients and relatives, and to arrange for them to meet Sir Bruce’s team. Although the hospital has not been put into special measures, there are clearly areas of concern because people are waiting longer for A and E than in 2010, infection rates have increased and staff morale has gone down. The report cites
“Inadequate qualified nurse staffing levels on some wards”.
The Secretary of State said that if staffing levels were the problem, he would sort that out, so what assurances can he give people in Dudley and the staff at Russells Hall that he is going to address those inadequate nurse staffing levels?
Mr Hunt
The same assurances I have given everyone else representing a hospital with troubles: we are totally committed to sorting out those problems—[Interruption.] Labour Front Benchers ask when, but we have said that these hospitals will be re-inspected in the next year. The structures that we are putting in place to sort them out are a million times tougher than anything that happened when they were in office.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I am proud of our local NHS, especially the examples of good practice highlighted at Goole hospital. However, as someone who works as a volunteer in the NHS every weekend, I meet patients who are frightened of going into local hospitals precisely because of the failings highlighted in the report on North Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals Foundation NHS Trust. Will the Secretary of State visit Goole and north Lincolnshire to meet my constituents and discuss such individuals as an 88-year-old whose nails were not cut for seven months, whose toilet calls went unanswered and who ultimately died after contracting E.coli in our local hospital?
Mr Hunt
Of course I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s local hospital. I am sure there will be a great deal that I can learn, and I hope I will be able to give encouragement to the staff there, who are working very hard in a very difficult situation. I hope today will give them encouragement that this is a Government who are determined to turn around their hospital.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
On the basis of the very good and welcome Keogh report and also the Francis recommendations on safe staffing levels, does the Secretary of State feel that the reduction of 4,000 nurses over the past two or three years is in any way contributing to the very issues that he has described today?
Mr Hunt
We welcome and accept the Francis report’s recommendations on safe staffing and we recognise that that involves having doctors. We recognise and are pleased that our protection of the NHS budget means that there are 6,000 more doctors than when the hon. Gentleman’s Government were in power. If he looks at what is happening in his own Wales, he might find that there are a few lessons that the NHS in Wales could learn.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Sadly, the problems at George Eliot hospital go back well over a decade, so these special measures will be very welcome, but is not one of my right hon. Friend’s fundamental problems dealing with a culture of secrecy, where in the past a board with a problem would talk to a strategic health authority board and nobody would know what was going on? Is not sunlight the best disinfectant?
Mr Hunt
It is, absolutely. That is the big change. My hon. Friend speaks wisely. That is the big change that we have to make in our NHS. When there is failure, we must be open about it. It has to be public—we have to keep the public in the picture, because that is the best way of putting pressure on the system and on the politicians to make sure that they sort it out. That is not what happened before; it is going to happen now.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State share my dismay that just as Julie Bailey was hounded out of Mid Staffs by the local Labour party for revealing the truth, some of the tone of this debate—accusations, sanctimoniousness and false victimhood—is a very tangible illustration of what whistleblowers have had to face for the past decade when they have tried to get the truth out? What a tangible demonstration, sadly, this has been.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Although proud of our local hospital, residents in Kettering will be pleased that Sir Bruce has managed to expose some dangerously run parts of the NHS, but they will be concerned to know what can be done to make the future far better than what has happened in the past.
Mr Hunt
Absolutely, and the big point about the changes that we are bringing in—I congratulate my hon. Friend, who is a huge supporter of Kettering hospital, which he and I have visited together—is that the NHS in many ways is no different from other parts of our public services: there are excellent bits and there are bits where there is poor leadership. What we have to do if we are to sort out the poor leadership is to expose it and to make sure that the public know about it and the politicians cannot duck sorting it out. My hon. Friend’s constituents will be thinking, as a result of tomorrow’s headlines, “What about Kettering hospital?” That is why we will have an independent chief inspector who will go round and tell them how good Kettering hospital is. However much they love it, he may well find things that need to be improved, and my hon. Friend and his constituents will welcome that.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
Last week it was the CQC. Now it turns out that between 2005 and 2010 there were 386 separate warnings that the last Labour Secretary of State claims never to have received, yet the trust in my area was given foundation status. Does my right hon. Friend agree that given the new revelation by Sir Brian Jarman on suppression of warnings, along with existing allegations of spin and cover-up levelled against a former Secretary of State for Health, it is now time for the right hon. Gentleman to resign?
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Those of my constituents who use King’s Mill hospital will understandably be concerned about their future treatment. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give me that this summer those patients will get the treatment that they rightly expect?
Mr Hunt
It is important to recognise that even at the hospitals that we are talking about this afternoon, there is good care happening every single day. The way that we will reassure my hon. Friend’s constituents is by having an independent inspection system which has not existed before, where regulators are not leaned on by Ministers to say the right thing in the run-up to elections. It is only when his constituents have confidence in that regulatory system that they will know the truth about their own hospital, and we want them to get there as soon as possible.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I welcome Sir Bruce’s report and the Secretary of State’s robust approach to it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we take away the right lessons from the statement and the questions on it, that will be the catalyst for a change of culture, enhancing transparency and accountability and introducing a new pace of response for the changes necessary to bring about higher standards in our hospitals?
Mr Hunt
We do need to draw those lessons, and the sad lesson from this afternoon is that that change in culture with respect to transparency and accountability does not extend to the Labour party. Voters will notice how unwilling Labour Members are to accept that things went wrong on their patch.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Given what today’s report says about capacity issues at Blackburn hospital, and that the hospital is struggling to deal with the number of patients, serious questions again have to be asked about the decision to downgrade Burnley hospital’s accident and emergency department under the previous Government in 2007, which was consistently supported by the shadow Secretary of State when he was in office. Will my right hon. Friend visit Pendle to meet some of the affected families to reassure them that lessons have been learned from the mistakes of the past?
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having put patients first in the whole process. As we move forward, we should approach the failures of the past more in sorrow than in anger, but we have to accept that that is a hard ask for my constituents who potentially have lost loved ones because of the catastrophic failures of the past inspection regime. That is why my constituents are impatient for change. If hospitals do not make the changes necessary in the required time, what sanctions will be imposed?
Mr Hunt
The entire system will be accountable for making sure that change is delivered. That is part of the change that we are making through the statement this afternoon. My hon. Friend’s hospital will be inspected again within the next 12 months and we will be able to see what progress has been made. There will be further independent inspections after that, so his constituents will have confidence that an independent expert is casting an eye over the health care that they are receiving and telling them the unvarnished truth about whether they can trust it or not.
Tougher legislation on dangerous dogs
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
Following the brutal and totally unprovoked attack on the 13-year-old Sunderland schoolgirl Meghan Reynolds, which left her requiring four hours of surgery and 48 stitches to horrific facial wounds, almost 100 of my constituents have signed petitions on this subject, and numerous petitions are still in circulation. I will present those to the House at a later date. I, too, am presenting a petition in identical terms to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), who has passionately led this campaign and pushed for tougher legislation on dangerous dogs.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Washington and Sunderland West,
Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government’s current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001205]
Points of Order
Mr Speaker
I hope it will be a point of order, rather than a point of mischief—I have known the hon. Gentleman for 30 years—but we will hear it.
Ian Austin
The Secretary of State has said repeatedly, and just a moment ago for the final time, that Members on the Opposition Benches had not supported a culture of transparency in the NHS, yet during these questions he has heard Member after Member, including myself, saying that we supported the inquiry, we provided details to it, we arranged meetings for our constituents—[Interruption.] What advice can you provide so that he does not come here and mislead the House in this way again? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] Order. I am perfectly capable of handling these matters without any sedentary interjections from hon. Members on either side of the Chamber. The first thing the hon. Gentleman must do is to withdraw the accusation of misleading the House, which is an unparliamentary accusation. If he wants to use another word, he may, but he must not accuse a Member of misleading the House. I ask him to withdraw.
Ian Austin
Yes. What the Secretary of State said is clearly not supported by the facts, but I am happy to withdraw the word that you have asked me to withdraw. I withdraw the word.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for withdrawing that word. Beyond that we need not go today. I thank him for that.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Prime Minister made very misleading statements about the impact of welfare reform—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sure that the hon. Lady is not suggesting that any misleading statements were made in this House. Can she just be clear that she is not saying that?
Mr Speaker
Right. If the hon. Lady has a point of order, let us hear it briefly.
Debbie Abrahams
Misleading statements were made, not in this House, but in relation to Government business. The Government have been rebuked on a number of occasions, for example by the chair of the UK Statistics Authority, for making misleading remarks. It is unparliamentary behaviour. What action can be taken?
Mr Speaker
Order. I simply say to the hon. Lady that, although I understand that emotions on these matters are extremely highly charged, where there are references to conduct outside the Chamber, by definition the matter is not parliamentary and, therefore, there can be no question of the Chair being expected properly to rule on the matter. She has made her wider point and it is on the record. I think that we must leave it there for today.
If there are no further points of order, we now come to the ten-minute rule motion, for which the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) has been exceptionally patiently waiting.
Tougher legislation on dangerous dogs
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I am proud to present this petition on behalf of citizens of the United Kingdom, including many residents of my Scunthorpe county constituency, in identical terms to that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling).
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Scunthorpe County,
Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government’s current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001206]
Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland)
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the definitions of victims and survivors for the purposes of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 and related legislation; and for connected purposes.
The current definition of a victim and survivor in Northern Ireland, and specifically the definition contained in the 2006 order, is a matter of controversy and is not accepted by the vast majority of innocent victims and survivors in Northern Ireland. Why is it unacceptable? In every conflict there are two sides, but in the case of Northern Ireland the previous Government determined that anyone affected by the troubles, either through the loss of a loved one or through psychological trauma or physical injury, would be defined as a victim and survivor. In effect, that means that innocent victims are equated with those who joined illegal terrorist organisations and went out to commit murder and destruction in Northern Ireland, and indeed in other parts of the United Kingdom, because I am minded that not all the victims of terrorist violence relating to Northern Ireland were in Northern Ireland. One thinks of the victims of outrages in Birmingham, Manchester, here in London, in Guildford and in Brighton, where the IRA sought to murder the Prime Minister of the day and members of her Cabinet. That was an act not only of terrorism, but of treason under the law of the United Kingdom.
The reality is that today in Northern Ireland the people who perpetrated those acts of terrorism, whether republican or loyalist, or of any other affiliation, if they were injured during the troubles, or if through an act of their own commission they were subjected to psychological trauma or physical injury, are regarded as a victim and survivor for the purposes of the current legislation. I believe that is simply morally indefensible. It is deeply hurtful to the innocent victims on both sides in Northern Ireland, because we are talking about not only IRA atrocities, but those committed by loyalists. The notion that those who went out with guns and bombs to take innocent life are defined under the current legislation as victims and survivors is just plain wrong.
I will give one example. The notorious Shankill bomb was exploded by the provisional IRA outside a butcher’s shop in the heart of Belfast on a busy Saturday afternoon. Many innocent people lost their lives that day as a result, but the bomber, Thomas Begley, was also killed. Yet under the definition of a victim and survivor, Thomas Begley, who murdered nine innocent people that day, is regarded as a victim. I believe that is unacceptable.
Imagine the outcry there would be if the Government were to introduce legislation determining that those who planted bombs on the London underground and on buses here in our capital city, murdering innocent people, are the same as those they murdered and should be regarded as such under the law. Imagine the outcry there would be in this city. Yet in Belfast and in my home city of Lisburn the victims have to put up with that reality.
That has significant consequences, for example in dealing with the past in Northern Ireland. A few years ago the Eames-Bradley report put forward proposals for dealing with the legacy of the past, one of which was that there should be a recognition payment for the families of those who were killed during the troubles. Under the definition of a victim and survivor, the same recognition payment would go to the families of IRA and loyalist terrorists as would go to the families of the innocent victims. Consequently, on that issue alone the Eames-Bradley report fell. This has significant consequences for how we deal with the past in Northern Ireland.
Therefore, given that primary legislation is involved, not least the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which sets the broad parameters of the peace process and implementing agreements, we in this House ought to deal with this situation by amending the Act. We ought to address the hurt felt by innocent victims in Northern Ireland who feel that it is wrong that someone who pulled a trigger or planted a bomb is treated in the same way by the definition as their innocent victims.
To support that contention, let me quote from an e-mail I received yesterday from one of those innocent victims, Ann Travers, who has become quite prominent recently by speaking out on victims issues and who happened to become aware that I would be asking for leave to bring in a Bill today. She wrote:
“On the 8th April 1984 the IRA murdered my 23 year old sister Mary and attempted to murder my father”—
he was a judge—
“shooting him 6 times and attempted to murder my mother by holding a gun to her head, only for it to jam twice, while my family were walking home from mass. I was 14 at the time and this evil incident has affected my whole life. The men and woman who woke up that Sunday and chose to go out to murder can not be considered victims in the same sense as my sister, my parents, my brothers and myself. It is bizarre that we equate the perpetrators of murder along with their victims in Northern Ireland. After our sister’s murder, neither my brothers nor myself chose to get revenge by joining an illegal organisation. To put it in the simplest terms, imagine the following scenario: my family is attacked by the IRA, the gunman shoots Mary in the back, an RUC land rover pulls up and a policeman shoots the IRA gunman in the back. Is he a victim in the same sense as my unarmed sister? In my opinion, he is not. By his own free will and choice he created victims in both my family and his own. It is time, in my opinion, that all innocent victims are given the consideration and respect that they deserve.”
I can put it no more eloquently.
I believe that it is a travesty that in Northern Ireland those who went out with murder in their hearts to destroy innocent life are regarded as victims for the purposes of legislation and equated with those innocent people who were cut down in cold blood on our streets, and I include in that the courageous men and women who served in our armed forces, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the emergency services, and put their lives at risk. They, too, are innocent victims along with the many civilians murdered in the course of the troubles.
In presenting this Bill, I ask the House to give careful consideration to these issues, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will give leave for the Bill to proceed. This is an injustice that needs to be addressed. I recognise that there must be input from others on this matter, but we cannot allow this travesty to continue unchecked.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Jeffrey M Donaldson, Mr Nigel Dodds, Bob Stewart, Kate Hoey, Lady Hermon, Dr William McCrea, Mr Gregory Campbell, Philip Davies, David Simpson, Mr David Nuttall, Jim Shannon and Sammy Wilson present the Bill.
Mr Jeffrey M Donaldson accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 November, and to be printed (Bill 92).
Tougher legislation on dangerous dogs
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I, too, would like to present a petition in identical terms to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), calling for tougher legislation on dangerous dogs. I present it on behalf of my constituents of Lewisham East.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Lewisham East,
Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government’s current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001207]
Defence Reform Bill
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The defence of the United Kingdom and the protection of our national interests must be the priority of any Government. The brave men and women of our armed forces do an exceptional job, and I am sure all Members of the House will wish to pay tribute to their dedication, and to the sacrifices they make not only on operations but, as the tragic events in the Brecon Beacons at the weekend reminded us, on a daily basis.
The armed forces can perform their vital role only if we provide them with the capabilities they need to operate effectively and safely. We have a duty to them to ensure they have the tools they need in terms of manpower, training, equipment and logistical support. At the same time, we must deal with the black hole we inherited in the defence budget, and the Ministry of Defence has had to contribute its share to the broader challenge of correcting the public sector structural deficit.
Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
I wish to respond not to the Secretary of State’s discordant point but to address his earlier comment and say that Her Majesty’s Opposition wholeheartedly share the expression of sympathy offered by the Secretary of State about events in Brecon. I know there are limits to what he can say at this early stage because it is subject to a police inquiry, but can he share any more details with the House about his understanding of those tragic events? In particular, there have been suggestions that training regimes may recently have been altered as part of efforts to boost the number of reservists, but I suspect that they are unfounded. Will he say what he feels he can say at this early stage?
Mr Hammond
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman desires to get to the bottom of this matter—as do we all—but he is right that there is little I can say. An inquiry by Dyfed-Powys police is under way, and when it is complete there will be a service inquiry into the events of last weekend. We will get to the bottom of what happened, and if there are systemic lessons to be learned, we will learn them. I give the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking that once the inquiry is complete, I will report to the House in an appropriate way.
The need to address the public sector structural deficit and the deficit in the defence budget has meant tough decisions and a relentless focus on squeezing more capability out of what remains the world’s fourth largest defence budget.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
My right hon. Friend talked, quite rightly, about the first duty of government, but he will be aware that some of us on the Government Benches are concerned that misguided Army reserve plans will throw up false economies and unacceptable capability gaps. Given that the present Territorial Army mobilisation rate is 40%, will he explain how we are trying to plug a gap from the loss of 20,000 regular troops with only 30,000 reservists? A 40% figure would suggest that we need nearer 50,000.
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend’s view on this matter is well known. Two weeks ago the Government set out robust proposals in a White Paper, “Future Reserves 2020”. I am confident we will be able to deliver the force we have set out, and that that force will support the level of ambition for deployment set out in the strategic defence and security review 2010.
Mr Hammond
I will take one more intervention and then I must make some progress.
Nick Smith
Will the Secretary of State tell the House the annual recruitment targets for reservists for each remaining year of this Parliament?
Mr Hammond
I suspect the hon. Gentleman is referring to figures that were put in the public domain last year before this process was fully under way. I have said to the House that I will be transparent about recruitment and trained-strength targets. Later this year we intend to begin publishing quarterly figures, and we will set out the expected forward trajectory at the same time. As I said the week before last, and will say again now, the path will not be smooth and there will be some lumpiness in it. The structural changes we are making in the regular Army and the Army Reserve will have an impact at the front end, but in the long run it will support the growth of reserves that we all seek.
Eliminating waste and inefficiency in our procurement systems, and making best use of the skills available, whether they are in the public or private sector, or indeed in the regular or reserve forces, are at the heart of our plan for sustainable and effective defence in times of austerity. The Government have set about transforming the way that defence is managed and delivered. Starting with the strategic defence and security review in 2010, we have looked hard at how we can carry out our activity to see whether it can be improved. As part of that process, my predecessor asked Lord Levene of Portsoken to conduct an in-depth review into every aspect of how we manage defence, and we are well advanced in implementing the changes he recommended.
Ensuring our forces have the right equipment, delivered on time, is essential if we are to maintain our capabilities in the future, and ensuring we do that cost-effectively is critical if we are to sustain them. Making full use of the expertise and skills of our reserve forces is crucial if we are to meet the security challenges that we face with smaller regular forces. In most areas, we are able to deliver defence transformation through changing the way we are organised and the way we do things in the Ministry of Defence. In two areas—procurement and the use of reserves—primary legislation is required to complete the programme.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am glad that the Secretary of State is about to expand on procurement. Will he confirm that in securing a reliable and cost-effective supply of equipment, there will be open competition for a wide range of suppliers—including those such as Joseph Gleave & Son in my constituency, which has supplied the Department for many years—and that the Government procurement model will not squeeze out smaller businesses that have been supplying in the past.
Mr Hammond
The Government have a focused initiative to increase participation of small and medium-sized enterprises in the defence supply chain. Such businesses provide a tremendously important part of our defence resilience. Because they are often buried in complex supply chains led by a large prime contractor, their contribution is not always noticed as much as it should be, but they are an important part of the equation. I will come later to the balance between open competitive procurement and single-source procurement, which is at the heart of part 2.
The Bill has three main parts. Parts 1 and 2 deal with defence procurement and part 3 deals with our reserve forces. Turning first to procurement, I think that few in this House would not agree that the way in which we develop, specify, procure and support defence equipment can and must be improved. We have already made significant progress, but we recognise that fundamental change is needed if we are to sustain that progress and to deliver the equipment that the armed forces need and the value for money that the public are entitled to expect. Now is the time to make those changes.
For decades, our defence equipment programme has suffered from poor time and cost forecasting and poor project and programme management, leading to delays, cost overruns and specification failures. We have to address these issues by challenging the pattern of incentives and behaviours once and for all. That is why, after success on military operations, my priority as Defence Secretary has been to establish, for the first time, a fully costed and deliverable 10-year equipment plan. This has now been achieved and published. Our armed forces now have the certainty that the equipment they are expecting has been both planned for and is properly funded. However, if we are to deliver this programme consistently and to entrench a better method of working to provide a better service to the front line in future, we need fundamentally to reform our defence acquisition processes and structures.
The previous Government were of course aware of this problem. Towards the end of their time in office, they commissioned the independent report by Bernard Gray into the acquisition process. That report found serious structural and cultural problems in the way in which we procure defence equipment. We have considered carefully its analysis and the options available for reform of Defence Equipment and Support. My predecessor appointed its author as Chief of Defence Matériel, with a remit to take the reform agenda forward. The results of that work are set out in the White Paper, “Better defence acquisition”, which I published on 10 June this year.
Our preference is to transform the existing Defence Equipment and Support organisation into a Government-owned, contractor-operated organisation—a GoCo. We believe that this model is the one most likely to embed and sustain the significant behavioural change required to transform defence acquisition. However, belief alone is not enough, and we will test this proposition through a commercial competition and against a public sector comparator. If, at the end of this rigorous evaluation process, a GoCo is assessed to be the best-value-for-money option, a private sector partner will be appointed to manage DE&S on behalf of the Secretary of State. This will be a radical change, but not quite as radical as some of the more lurid headlines have suggested.
Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his compelling speech and for giving way. May I ask him about the timetable for the process he has outlined? When will these things actually happen?
Mr Hammond
We expect to reach a decision point in the commercial process next spring. If we go down the route of appointing a GoCo, we expect the GoCo operator to be appointed late in 2014 or at the very beginning of 2015.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for explaining what is happening with the GoCo. A number of international companies would be interested in applying to run it. Is there any requirement that it needs to be run by a British company, or would it be open to tenders from across the world?
Mr Hammond
The proposition is that a GoCo would be a UK-registered and domiciled company paying its taxes in the UK, but we expect that its shareholders will include international partner firms. The GoCo that runs the Atomic Weapons Establishment includes three non-UK companies in its shareholder register, and I see no reason to expect that the result of this competition would be different. We would expect British and non-British companies to be involved in the ownership, but the GoCo itself will be a British company.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware that there are concerns among those in industry that their intellectual property may not be protected. Given that there is a very high degree of competition between the United States and the United Kingdom, the admission of a US company into the inner workings of the British Ministry of Defence across a wide range of areas would not be the same as the co-operation on the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, where the United States and the United Kingdom are completely in agreement.
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will have thought very carefully about these matters. Of course, this goes to the heart of the deliberations that we have been having. We are confident that we can put in place a model that will protect intellectual property—an issue to which I shall return.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
On a similar theme, what have been the discussions with the United States about the transfer of classified information in this context?
Mr Hammond
I shall talk about confidential information later in my speech. DE&S has access to certain confidential information at the moment. The arrangements will provide for the GoCo to have access to that confidential information under a regime that retains its confidentiality and ensures that it will be maintained. If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I shall address that very shortly.
If, at the end of the evaluation process that I have described, a GoCo is assessed to be the best value-for-money option, a private sector partner will be appointed to manage DE&S on behalf of the Secretary of State. As I said, this will be a radical change, but not quite as radical as some have suggested. The GoCo will always act as the Secretary of State’s agent. All contracts entered into will continue to be in the Secretary of State’s name, and strategic governance will be provided by a governance function that will remain within the MOD. The GoCo’s customers will be the front-line commands and the MOD itself; it will work to their agenda and their priorities. I can therefore assure the House that this is absolutely not about handing over billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to a private company and leaving it to decide what kit to buy for our armed forces.
The commercial competition is under way, and we expect it to be completed by spring next year. In parallel, we are developing a robust public sector comparator, which we call DE&S-plus, that will explore how far it is possible to go in reforming the organisation, making the maximum use of freedoms and flexibilities that we can negotiate within the public sector. If, at the end of this process, the GoCo model is indeed the chosen option, legislation needs to be in place so that we can move quickly to sign a contract with the successful bidder once a final decision is made.
Mr Hammond
The Secretary of State will remain accountable to Parliament, but we expect that the GoCo will have an accounting officer, probably its chief executive officer, who will therefore be liable to be called before the Public Accounts Committee.
Part 1 of the Bill sets out the provisions and safeguards necessary to underpin the operation of a GoCo. The most important element of almost any organisation is its people, and the smooth transfer of the DE&S work force to the GoCo operating company will be vital to its future success. The Bill confirms that the initial transfer of civil servants would be covered by the TUPE regulations. By virtue of being a contractor-operated entity, the GoCo would have considerable freedoms, particularly relating to its ability to recruit and reward its staff at market rates—freedoms that are not usually available to public sector bodies. The Bill confirms that in its activities on behalf of the Secretary of State it will enjoy certain statutory immunities and exemptions that are currently enjoyed by the Crown—for example, in relation to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Nuclear Installations Act 1965.
In addition to those freedoms, we also need to put in place a number of safeguards to protect Government and taxpayer interests. Therefore, the Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to create a scheme to transfer the business to another contractor or, in extremis, back to the MOD, should that prove necessary. The Bill also provides for the Ministry of Defence police to have clear jurisdiction to investigate any offences that may relate to defence work carried out by contractors. It also makes provision to allow the Secretary of State to disclose information that he has received in confidence to a contractor, and to authorise the use of intellectual property. Clause 7 and schedule 2 put in place appropriate safeguards to prevent the unauthorised use or disclosure of confidential information by either the GoCo or its employees.
I am determined to drive a step change in the way in which the MOD carries out its defence procurement business, and to do so rapidly. The gradual erosion of skills and capability in the organisation over recent years cannot be allowed to continue if we are to ensure the MOD’s ability to deliver equipment to the front line. The measures in part 1 of the Bill will allow us to make the transition to a GoCo at the conclusion of the commercial competition, subject, of course, to the bids representing value for money for the taxpayer.
Part 2 relates to single-source procurement. Open competition remains the best way of ensuring value for taxpayers’ money. However, sometimes there is only a single provider of a capability we require, such as nuclear propulsion units. Sometimes the need to maintain critical national industrial capabilities or sovereign control of the intellectual property in equipment programmes requires us to place contracts with UK companies without a competitive process. European Union public procurement regulations specifically allow this for military equipment.
This so-called single-source procurement typically accounts for about 45%—about £6 billion a year—of the total that the MOD spends on Defence Equipment and Support, and it is likely to remain at that level for at least the next decade or so. Clearly, in the absence of the disciplines of the marketplace there needs to be a set of rules governing single-source procurement in order to ensure proper protection for the taxpayers’ interest.
The MOD currently uses a framework for single-source procurement that has remained largely unchanged for the past 45 years—the so-called yellow book. Under this system, which is voluntary, the profit that contractors can earn is fixed, but there are few if any incentives for them to reduce costs. Clearly, this does not serve the best interests of the taxpayer and neither does it help industry to maintain a competitive focus that will allow it to succeed in export markets. It is therefore in the interests of both the MOD customer and its industrial suppliers to create a framework with incentives for efficient and competitive behaviour.
In 2011 the Government commissioned Lord Currie of Marylebone to undertake an independent review of the yellow book. He recommended a new framework based on transparency, with much stronger supplier efficiency incentives and underpinned by more robust governance arrangements. Based on his recommendations and following extensive consultations with our major single-source suppliers, we have developed a framework that will be introduced through regulations provided for in part 2 of the Bill. At its core is the principle that industry gets a fair profit in exchange for providing the MOD with transparency on costs and the protections we need to ensure value for money. It will align the MOD and industry by allowing additional profit to be earned through delivery of defined efficiencies, sharing the benefits between industry and the taxpayer. A statutory basis for the regime will ensure widespread coverage across our single-source supply base and allow application of the regime throughout the single-source supply chain.
To police the new framework we will create a small, arm’s length body, to be known as the single source regulations office, with approximately 30 staff. Its role will be to keep the statutory framework under review and to monitor adherence to it. It will replace an existing non-departmental public body that has little power other than to oversee a voluntary framework that can be amended only by consensus. The existing regime has failed to evolve to reflect changing circumstances, largely because either party can block any change that it regards as contrary to its own interests.
The single source regulations office will ensure that we do not have to wait another 45 years to update the regime. It will be a source of expert advice to the Secretary of State and it will also act as expert adjudicator in disputes between the MOD and our single-source suppliers. Crucially, it will advise the Secretary of State on the setting of key profit rates for single-source contracts.
Critical to ensuring that the MOD is able to negotiate prices that are fair and reasonable to both suppliers and taxpayers is the generation of better quality and more standardised cost data. Therefore, regulations enabled by this Bill will introduce a requirement for standard reports throughout the life of single-source contracts worth more than £5 million, allowing the MOD to build up a database against which future pricing assumptions can be judged and on the basis of which more robust, long-term cost forecasts can be made.
On contracts above £50 million, suppliers will also have to provide quarterly contract reports to support effective contract management, report any relevant events and deliver information about their overhead costs, allowing us better to align the industrial capacity the MOD is paying for with our long-term capability requirements. Clause 25 also creates a power for the MOD to gain access to suppliers’ records.
In order to ensure that suppliers fulfil their reporting and transparency obligations, the Bill includes a compliance regime. Failure to provide the required information on a timely basis will result in a penalty being applied under a civil penalty regime. Penalties will vary with the value of the contract and the single source regulations office will act as the appeal body for the compliance regime.
We recognise that we are requiring our suppliers to provide unprecedented levels of sensitive commercial information that would be of great value to their competitors or to market analysts. We need this information to ensure we get value for money on what is a significant proportion of defence spending, but obtaining proprietary information by statute imposes on Government a duty to secure its proper protection. In order to ensure that the increased level of transparency and reporting we require is not subject to abuse, the Bill creates a new criminal offence of unauthorised disclosure of sensitive information obtained under the new single source framework, such as forecast financial performance and investment or rationalisation plans.
Given that confidential and commercially sensitive information is already exempt from freedom of information requests, we do not think it will be necessary to bar release under the Freedom of Information Act in order to protect the information. However, I am clear about our obligation to our suppliers in respect of their sensitive information and the Bill creates an order-making power to allow the Secretary of State to invoke a full statutory bar on disclosure under FOI if the routine exemptions prove inadequate to protect the exceptional level of information that we are requiring to be disclosed to us.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
The framework being described by my right hon. Friend is largely welcome, but it seems odd that it is being applied to only part 2 and the 45% spent on single-source procurement. Many of us support in principle the idea of the GoCo, but introducing more commercial entities to the organisation that buys the other 55% of the kit could expose more commercial-in-confidence material to outside bodies than would be the case under a single-source supplier.
Mr Hammond
I assure my hon. Friend that the arrangements for our relationship with the GoCo, which will be largely contractual but partly regulatory, will also protect confidential information and make appropriate arrangements for the use of intellectual property held by the Secretary of State. I am dealing with the specific regime that will apply to part 2 contracts with single-source suppliers.
The new single-source regime will incentivise efficiency in operating costs and the minimisation of overheads. It will align the interests of the MOD and its suppliers, and support the competitiveness of the UK defence industry in both domestic and foreign markets.
Finally, I turn to the third part of the Bill, which relates to our reserve forces.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I am grateful to the Secretary of State because he has given way many times. Before he turns to the reserves, may I ask him about defence research? As he will know, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) and I feel strongly that we are not spending enough on defence research in this country. How does he see the protection of that important base being secured? Will it be handed over to the GoCo? What will be the regime to govern research?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend knows well, because he was a Minister at the time, that we made a commitment that a fixed minimum percentage of the defence budget will be spent on research and development. That is a matter of policy and such matters will remain for the MOD to determine. If a GoCo is appointed, it will execute policy, not make policy. I am happy to give him that reassurance.
Our reserves make an essential contribution to delivering the nation’s security at home and overseas. They are a valuable and highly valued part of our armed forces who work alongside their regular counterparts to deliver our military capability. Earlier this month, I published a White Paper that signalled a step change in the offer that we make to individual reservists and their employers. It set out a range of measures to revitalise the reserve forces and reverse the decline of the recent past, including paid annual leave and pension entitlements in respect of training days, access to key defence health services, greater predictability of reservists’ liability for call-out and a £500 per month per reservist award to small and medium-sized enterprises when their reservist employees are mobilised. There will also be substantially improved equipment and training opportunities.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I asked the Secretary of State a parliamentary written question because the centre in Bishop Auckland in my constituency is to close. I asked what that will save the Government. Instead of answering the question, I received the information that the Government are investing £8 million in the reserve estate. I would like to give him another opportunity to answer the question. How much is being saved? Quite honestly, if nothing is being saved, do not close it.
Mr Hammond
I do not know whether the hon. Lady was in the House for my statement on the reserves. If she thinks that closing Army Reserve bases is about saving money, she has the wrong end of the stick. It is about delivering the commitments that we have made to the Army Reserve about training, equipment and proper organisation. It is about reflecting the changes in the regular Army and our commitment that reserve units will be paired with regular Army units.
I cannot answer the hon. Lady’s specific question at the Dispatch Box, but I will write to her. The vast majority of sites from which we are withdrawing Territorial Army or Army Reserve activity will remain because they house cadet units that will continue, so that is likely to be the case. This is not about saving money; it is about organising the reserve forces in a way that allows them to make their vital contribution to Future Force 2020.
The White Paper details a comprehensive package of changes that will allow us to create the integrated regular reserve force of the future. A small number of the planned changes require primary legislation. The first of those is the renaming of the Territorial Army. The TA was founded in 1908 and has served this country superbly in peace and in war. However, today’s TA soldiers have a function that is far wider and more important than the original home defence role envisaged by Haldane. As we reshape the Army—regulars and reserves—for the 21st century, it is right that we change the name of the TA to the “Army Reserve” better to reflect its future role. The Bill also provides for the consequential renaming of the Army’s ex-regular reserve force as the “Regular Reserve”.
Reflecting the integral role that reservists will play in almost all future military operations, the Bill extends the powers to mobilise reservists across all three services. Under the Reserve Forces Act 1996, reservists can be mobilised only under specific circumstances. The Bill will enable reservists to be mobilised for the full range of tasks that the armed forces may be asked to undertake.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
This is just a small point, but I recall that the Territorial Army was deployed to the 1st British Corps of the British Army of the Rhine, so it has not dealt just with home defence.
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The role of the Territorial Army has evolved and it will evolve further. My point was that when Haldane introduced it in 1908 by consolidating the county militias, he had in mind a home or territorial defence role, which the name reflects. I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend that the role that the TA has played over the years has been substantially greater than the role envisaged for it originally.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised concerns over the possibility of employment discrimination against reservists. The Bill provides improved employment protection by allowing a right of access to the employment tribunal without a qualifying employment period for an unfair dismissal claim where the dismissal relates to the employee’s reserve service. Separately, there is already a criminal offence of dismissal because of call-out for reserve service.
However, we recognise that there is a perception among many reservists that they are disadvantaged in the workplace by their reserve service. We believe that the changes that we have set out in the White Paper will greatly improve relations between reservists and their employers, but we take the issue of discrimination against reservists very seriously. We have established a webpage through which reservists can report incidents of perceived discrimination and we will investigate them. If we find that there is a case for further action, we will take it. We will consider whether further measures may be taken in the next quinquennial Armed Forces Bill, which is due to be introduced in this House in 2015.
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)
I am delighted with what my right hon. Friend has just said. Will he consider, among the further measures that might be taken, action to help reservists who find that their promotion is held back by their being in the reserve forces?
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. That example fits exactly into the category of discrimination in the workplace. We must look objectively at the examples that we are given to establish whether they constitute actual and systemic discrimination against reservists, rather than mere perceptions. The time scale that we have set out is appropriate. We have set up the webpage and are starting the process now. In 2015, when the next quinquennial Armed Forces Bill is introduced, the time will be right to analyse the information that we have received and to consider what action is appropriate.
The support of employers is crucial to delivering our future reserve forces, and we seek to strengthen the reservists and the MOD’s relationship with them. The White Paper set out a range of measures to deliver a sea change in those relationships. While small and medium-sized enterprises will benefit from all of the measures, I have acknowledged previously that reserve service can have a particular impact on them as a result of their scale. Therefore, by amending clause 44 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to allow the introduction of a financial award of £500 per month per reservist for SMEs when any of their reservist employees is mobilised, we will target additional resources at this sector and explicitly recognise the additional impact SMEs may have to absorb when a reservist employee is mobilised.
The measures in part 3 support the package of proposals set out in the White Paper. They will ensure that we have the well-trained, well-equipped and integrated reserve forces we need, which are able to deploy with their regular counterparts as part of Future Force 2020.
The driver for change running through the Bill is the requirement to deliver the capabilities our armed forces need while ensuring value for money for taxpayers, whether that is through better procurement or more efficient and effective use of the reserves. The measures contained within it allow fundamental change to how we procure our military equipment, and ensure that we will be able to make full use of our reserve forces in the future.
Whatever else we may disagree on, all of us in this House place the utmost importance on properly equipping and supporting our armed forces. The Bill will ensure that we can be confident of our ability to do so in the future. I hope the measures will command widespread support, and that we will be able to take them forward through this House and the other place on a consensual basis. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Like the whole House, I listened intently to the Secretary of State’s necessarily detailed analysis of the specific points he announced in advocating the Bill. At the start of his speech he reflected on the tragedy in Brecon, and I associate the Opposition with his comments. After the controversy relating to today’s Health statement, I wish—I suspect to your satisfaction, Mr Deputy Speaker—to seek a more consensual approach to the tone of our debate. The principles driving the reforms in the Bill have the potential to unite all parts of the House.
Reform to defence procurement is vital to ensuring value for money, while upholding the highest possible standards and timely delivery of world-class equipment to our personnel. It is essential that increasing the number and enhancing the role of the reserve force be a success, in order to strengthen our front-line Army capability at a time when it has been subject to cutbacks. The Opposition’s aim is to ensure that these objectives are met through effective delivery, scrutinising the military as well as the financial implications of the Government’s proposals.
On Government-owned contractor-operated procurement, it is crucial that defence procurement practices be modernised to serve both the front-line overseas and the bottom line back home. Both parties agree that some of the issues that have plagued defence procurement have been insufficiently tackled by successive Administrations. In all Governments, momentum on modernisation has been lost. Major projects such as Eurofighter-Typhoon have grown greatly in cost and have been delivered years late. The roots of that lay in the late Baroness Thatcher’s Administration, showing just how far back some of these issues go.
Shared blame, however, is not as important as shared resolve, which is necessary to achieve meaningful reform. Such reform will come from greater professional project and programme management within Defence Equipment and Support, faster decision making, fuller accountability for outcomes, and longer-term integration of military expertise.
The Opposition are genuinely open-minded about the management structure that will deliver this change, which is why we accept the proposed legislation that will enable a GoCo model to be established. Supporting assessment of GoCo’s feasibility, however, is not the same as supporting its creation. The comparison between a GoCo and DE&S-plus, as it is inelegantly named, should, we believe, be based on the following principles.
First, reform must strengthen value for money within programmes, with industry adhering to targets on time and on cost. Secondly, the chosen procurement management model must retain parliamentary accountability for decision making—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart)—so that oversight and scrutiny of multi-billion pound contracts is not hampered, but if possible enhanced. Thirdly, any change in management model must protect the rights of staff and engage with their trade union representatives, and finally, the procurement process should be characterised by talent and skill, with clear lines of responsibility, proper reward and career structures and a culture of consequences for those tasked with project management. Within that, military expertise has to be maximised without a single-service interest dominating decision making. The Opposition welcome a rigorous examination of all the options for achieving that and wish to see a genuine comparison made between the two options of GoCo and DE&S-plus.
Mr Arbuthnot
I am delighted with the right hon. Gentleman’s tone. I do not want to put words in his mouth, but can I take it that he has no objection, in principle, to a GoCo, but that he wishes to see how it works out in practice?
Mr Murphy
The right hon. Gentleman anticipates my point entirely. We wish to see reform. It is difficult to defend the status quo, which, despite the many efforts of the professionals involved, has ill suited successive Governments and has not delivered value for money. In addition to testing the logic of GoCo and DE&S-plus against the three principles I mentioned, we will consider the points the Defence Committee raised.
Further to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, it is important that the comparison be genuine and be seen to be genuine. I say gently to the Secretary of State, however, that so far he has failed to guarantee that the Government will publish the findings of the two value-for-money studies. I hope they will take the opportunity, today or in Committee, to commit to doing so. It is essential that Parliament, industry and our armed forces have full confidence that affordability is a determining factor in this process, but that can be achieved only if we have public transparency in the findings prior to a final decision being made and Members being asked to vote in favour.
I hope, too, that we will receive reassurances about the role of Parliament and the National Audit Office in scrutinising the internal decision-making process of a GoCo. It is understood that the Secretary of State is ultimately accountable—to be fair, he said the same again today—but the decisions taken by the contractor in the handling of multi-billion pound projects should not be free from public oversight. It will also interest the House to know how reform will impact on one of the centrepieces of the 2011 Levene review, which was for service chiefs to
“take responsibility (and ultimately own the budget) for detailed capability planning”.
Any enhanced power for a contractor could contradict the increased control over budgetary management and planning given to the service chiefs.
Mr Philip Hammond
I am happy to clarify that point. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are in the process of devolving budget responsibility to the front-line commands, including responsibility for equipment procurement and support, starting with the smaller equipment procurement projects, but eventually including all but the very largest and most strategic. They will be the customers for the GoCo, just as in the current model they are the customers for DE&S. One of the disciplines that the proposed change will introduce is a harder boundary between the customer and the provider. At the moment, we suffer from a permeable boundary that allows decision making sometimes to be a bit woollier than it should be.
Mr Murphy
I thank the Secretary of State for that genuinely helpful intervention. In Committee, we will have to interrogate the expertise of the civil servants operating at that interface. I mean no disrespect to anyone, but they are up against remarkably talented negotiators with an entirely legitimate commercial interest, so we have to get that interface right. The simplicity the Secretary of State spoke about is important.
Mr Hammond
I apologise for intervening on the right hon. Gentleman again, but that is exactly the point: the civil servants and the military people in the front-line commands—who are the customers—will interface with DE&S-plus or GoCo, which is their service provider. It is the service provider that will have to deal with the hard-nosed negotiators of the multi-billion pound international defence companies, and which will need to hire and fire in the marketplace at market rates in order to face them across the table on a level playing field—if I may mix my metaphors.
Mr Murphy
We are looking for a level playing field and a level negotiating table—if a metaphor it is—because this issue is so significant. I welcome what the Secretary of State said about hopefully simplifying and strengthening the process. However, procurement might have become a little more complicated as a consequence of a speech given today by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in another place—which would normally mean the second Chamber, but which on this occasion appears to mean the Royal United Services Institute. We are pretty clear: Labour have always said that we are committed to the minimum credible independent nuclear deterrent. Actually, I should correct myself: we have not always said that.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I think it has always been the case for you, Mr Murphy.
Mr Murphy
You know me well, Mr Deputy Speaker. Since we were serious, we have always said—[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] Sorry: since we are being serious about our nation’s defence and have a passing affection for the public’s opinion, we have always said that we are committed to the minimum credible independent nuclear deterrent, which we believe is best delivered through a continuous at-sea deterrent. It would require a substantial body of evidence for us to change that view, but the review published today does not appear to offer such evidence. We will continue to scrutinise today’s report on the grounds of capability, cost and disarmament. Labour will also continue to look at ways in which a minimum, credible, independent nuclear deterrent can be delivered most efficiently, based on protecting our capability, delivering value for money and advancing disarmament objectives.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
If you will permit me for a moment to continue straying off the topic slightly, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I put on the record the fact that the shadow Defence team deserves a great deal of credit for keeping both sides of the House on the right path, both for the thousands of jobs in my constituency and for our future defence for generations ahead?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should try to hold back his speech for tomorrow? I would not want him to use it all up today, and I think he got the point across.
Mr Murphy
I take your strictures about our not using the speeches we intend to give tomorrow, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am not making a speech tomorrow—my hon. Friends will be speaking then—so I thought I would say it today.
The point I am making is about procurement, GoCo and DE&S-plus, and the complexity of the deterrent programme in that process. However, what we have learnt today is that the Lib Dem part of the Government has taken two years to review a policy and spent thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money, only to conclude that the Lib Dems’ past policy was unachievable. Today they appear to have managed to advocate both a Trident-based system and part-time unilateralism simultaneously. That is a real achievement. The British people will marvel at the incompetence of suggesting that we should pay tens of billions of pounds to send boats to sea, while the media are now being briefed that on occasion they will not even carry missiles. That is like someone having a new, expensive burglar alarm at their home with no batteries and a sign above the door saying, “Come on in—no one’s at home”.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman must understand and be accurate in his descriptions. This was not a Liberal Democrat review; it was a review by the Government, insisted on by the Liberal Democrats, which says:
“The analysis has shown that there are alternatives to Trident that would enable the UK to be capable of inflicting significant damage such that most potential adversaries around the world would be deterred.”
Credibility—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. We are in danger of running tomorrow’s debate today. I do not want to do that; I want to get back to the Bill. [Interruption.] No, you are taking the bait, Mr Horwood. It is no use looking to Mr Murphy; we know he is not here tomorrow, but you will be.
Mr Murphy
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. To be fair to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), it was impossible for him not to take the bait. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State sensibly says, “He’s the only Lib Dem here.” There is no audience, as it were, from his party for him to perform for, although the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will make the Lib Dems’ policy clear tomorrow in the Chamber—I hope. However, there is an issue—I will finish on this matter after this point, Mr Deputy Speaker—about how taxpayers’ money has been used to inform a Lib Dem process. I accept that the Government will say that the review is a Government document, but it was intended to inform the Lib Dem manifesto.
One of the primary arguments for a GoCo is its supposed ability to attract and retain higher skills and prevent a loss of talent from DE&S. The Opposition are clear about the need to increase the skill levels in our armed forces, but we recognise that this requirement limits itself to those in uniform. Those at the front line of defence procurement within government should be the equal in experience of those within industry—a point to which the Secretary of State has alluded. We will carefully scrutinise the procedures in place to ensure that the assessment phase is fair and transparent, and that sufficient controls are in place to ensure that those involved in the possible preparation of a GoCo cannot immediately go and work in that GoCo, a point to which we will return.
While we are on this theme, it seems unacceptable that the Government have not yet fully published their findings on The Sunday Times revelations on cash for access within the Ministry of Defence. The Secretary of State, of course, wrote to me on the matter, explaining the outcomes, but this was a private letter and I was not at liberty to disclose its contents and have chosen not to do so. I think it important, however, for the Secretary of State to provide the full details to the House.
Mr Philip Hammond
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman but I was not aware that I had not explained the situation publicly. If he would care to ask me a written parliamentary question, I will publish in the public domain the full information I have provided to him.
Mr Murphy
That is a kind offer from the Secretary of State, although he could have done so off his own back, and the problem is that we are running out of time for named day questions and replies. The alternative, with his permission, would be for me simply to tweet his letter. That would be quicker and I would be happy to do so if he so wishes. [Interruption.] With the Secretary of State’s permission, I will now tweet the letter I received some months ago detailing the Government’s response to The Sunday Times revelations.
These issues, alongside the impact of any reform of our strategic and working relationships with major international partners, particularly the US, and providing clarity on the ownership of risk, will be priorities for the Opposition. The restructuring of DE&S, however, should also be seen as part of a wider structural reform of defence procurement.
There is much else that I could have said, but time is against us today and my colleagues will raise in Committee additional points about sovereign capabilities, long-term planning and predictability for British industry, so I shall now turn briefly to reform of the reserves.
The Opposition want to ensure that reservist recruitment is successful so that the reserves can work alongside regulars to project force globally. Our reservists make an enormous contribution here at home in many ways. About 2,000 of them, some of whom I saw for myself when I went to see the Greco-Roman wrestling, helped to protect the London Olympics. Many serve overseas in far-away terrain in the name of national security. We should pay tribute to each one of those who have served, and above all to those who have lost their lives serving our nation.
While we champion the reserve force, we recognise the need to modernise. The name change to “Army Reserve” will reflect a modern composition and hopefully help to attract a new generation of recruits. The task ahead is, however, enormous and we should not pretend otherwise. The plan to double the size of the reserve forces to 30,000 by 2018 is now central to the Government’s ability to deliver their planning assumptions—originally, of course, designed for an Army of 95,000, but after further cuts now reliant on a regular force of just 82,000.
The scale of this task is underlined if we consider that the reserve forces of the US, Canada and Australia make up between 40% and 50% of their armies, as opposed to 20% here in the UK. Many analysts worry that, rather than reform of the Army being synchronised with that of the reserves, both are disjointed and the reserve uplift will not complement the regular Army but supplement lost capacity. Cuts in the regular Army are happening regardless of the success of any uplift in the reserves, rather than the one being contingent on the other.
This development comes as Army reserve recruitment has hit real trouble. The figures are publicly available—that recruitment targets were missed by more than 4,000 last year. Great care has to be taken to ensure that the loss of 26 Territorial Army centres does not make civilian communities in certain areas more disconnected from the military and disinclined to volunteer for the reserves.
Mr Ellwood
I echo the tone adopted by the shadow Secretary of State, but I am concerned by his direction of travel. Will he not take some responsibility for what happened to the TA during the previous Government’s tenure? The size of the TA fell by 40% and recruitment was down by tens of thousands. As a member of the TA, I remember an announcement from this place that training was to be cut and that no funding would be provided. He must acknowledge that the previous Government have some responsibility for where things are today.
Mr Murphy
That would be a very fair point if it was based on a fact. I suspect that our conversation today will be less productive if we repeat some of the debates of recent times, but the fact is that we increased the size of the Regular Army, whereas this uplift in the reserve forces is happening at a time of reductions in the Regular Army—that is the significant difference.
Mr Ellwood
I did not mention the Regular Army, but the TA. When Labour came to power in 1997, TA numbers were 62,000. When Labour left power in 2010, they were 37,000. It does not take a maths degree to realise that that is a massive reduction in TA capability.
Mr Murphy
My point is that in the same context, Regular Army numbers increased. I do not want us to bat each other about the head on this; I am assessing how we can make a success of the boost in reservist numbers. The comparison the hon. Gentleman invites me to draw, however, is with the Labour Government, and we boosted the size of the Regular Army. His party said that it was not big enough; it wanted an even bigger Army and was elected on a manifesto of going in that direction. The comparison is clear: we boosted the number of regulars. Of course, there is always pressure when it comes to reservists, who were under-recruited for about nine decades, so this is not a short-term problem for us or the current Government to grapple with.
Mr Philip Hammond
Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify two points? Does he accept that the six-month cancellation of TA training announced by the previous Government in October 2009 was not the way to stimulate TA recruitment and confidence? Also, as he is talking about Regular Army numbers, does he now accept a Regular Army of 82,000 as the basis for Future Force 2020, or does he still hanker after a reversal of that reduction?
Mr Murphy
As the Secretary of State knows, the previous decision on training was based on the recommendation of the Regular Army and the best available military advice. It was the type of situation that he faces whenever it comes to considering the best available military advice. We will make the detailed shape of the formation of our forces clear in our strategic defence review and in advance of the election.
The Opposition support moves to improve the training for reservists and ease their deeper integration with regular forces. We also support moves to use niche civilian skills, for example on cyber, in a military setting as well as to expand occupational health services. There are, however, areas where we believe the Government could go further. It is essential that the changes, particularly the extended periods of training and deployment, be compatible with employment patterns and that the reforms be designed in collaboration with employers.
It is worth noting the huge impact the changes could have on employers, particularly small employers. More than 600,000 businesses in the UK employ between two and four people. I suspect that we Members all employ a similar number of people in our parliamentary offices. We should ask how we would cope with losing a staff member for up to a year. Although I am sure that each and every one of us would be enormously supportive of a staff member’s military ambition, we might struggle to fill that space. Once we reflect on how we would feel about that, it gives us a better understanding of what many within that core group of 600,000 businesses will be confronted with.
Our view is that the reservists in those businesses will be a remarkable bonus and asset for them, but we must do more together to make that argument. A survey by the Federation of Small Businesses found that for one in three businesses, nothing would encourage them to employ a reservist, whereas almost 40% of those who had employed or would consider employing a reservist said that they believed that the Government’s proposed reforms would have a negative impact on their business. I do not agree with that; nevertheless, it is a sentiment felt by all too many businesses.
I welcome the announcement about access to unfair dismissal tribunals, but, as we have said before—and the Secretary of State referred to this—we believe that Ministers could go further. Current legislation clearly states that an employer has a duty to re-employ a returning reservist in the occupation in which he was employed before his service, on the same terms and conditions. There is, however, no legislation to prevent employers from discriminating against reservists in their hiring procedures on grounds of military affiliation.
We hope that, rather than embarking on a new consultation, the Government will work with employers on new legislation to provide further protection against discrimination in the hiring of reservists, which would need to be coupled with an obligation for reservists to make a transparent declaration at the interview stage. We believe that that should be part of a wider collaborative approach, and that a permanent employer engagement committee should be established to enable Governments to take the lead in advocating the employment of reservists.
There has been some debate about whether £1.8 billion is the right amount to invest, but we should also consider whether it will provide value for money. We hope that Ministers will be able to shed light on that in Committee. We shall want to know what proportion of the money is intended to fund financial incentives for employers and the “reservist award”, which tops up reservists’ salaries to match their civilian salaries. We shall also want to know whether the £1.8 billion covers reservists’ training, medical costs and pension payments, or whether those will come from another part of the MOD’s core budget. We are keen to establish what elements of the Reserves 2020 plan have clear funding streams, and where there may be unknown liabilities in a budget that involves competing interests.
The Bill has the potential to help the United Kingdom develop world-class procurement procedures that will be the envy of every nation. It gives us an opportunity to make a success of the enormous challenge of doubling the reserve force. The Opposition will support and scrutinise its proposals in Committee, and will give it a fair passage today.
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)
I echo what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the quality of our armed forces and the amount that we demand of them. We are putting them through a lot at the moment.
Once upon a time, before most Members were born, I was a Defence Procurement Minister, and I was delighted by the publication of the Bernard Gray report under the last Government. Sadly, the then Prime Minister tried to suppress it, although he should have recognised that it covered not just the period of a Labour Government, but the period during which I was in charge of defence procurement. The report revealed a great many failings in the procurement process. It showed, for instance, that the programme was overheated, that a weak interface between the MOD and DE&S was resulting in poor discipline and very little change control, and that there were insufficient skills in the DE&S. Subsequently, I was both delighted and highly amused when Bernard Gray was put in charge of sorting out the mess that he had identified.
The Bill was designed to achieve that. Like Gaul, it is divided into three parts—although, according to its drafting, there are four—dealing with defence procurement, single-source contracts and reserves. Each of those issues, but particularly procurement, raises a great many questions. I shall ask some of them now, because in the case of a change as fundamental as this, the devil is in the detail. The change is fundamental and it is being made against a background of fundamental change at the MOD as a result of the Levene reforms, severe reductions in funding and huge redundancies, not to mention the fighting in Afghanistan and the withdrawals from Afghanistan and Germany. As I have said, we are asking a lot of the Ministry of Defence, and it will need help to achieve the major changes set out in this Bill. It will need help from Parliament and from industry, and from academia and the country, and it should be willing to ask for and accept help, and everyone else should be willing to give it.
I shall start with the defence procurement process set out in the Bill. In December 2011 the Chief of Defence Matériel set out four options: first, the status quo; secondly, a trading fund; thirdly, an executive non-departmental public body with a private sector partner; and fourthly, the GoCo. We are now down to two options: a value-for-money comparison between the GoCo and what we hear is called DE&S-plus. Most unusually, there is no option to stay as we are. It is perhaps surprising that the MOD non-executive directors have not insisted on there being a stay-as-you-are option.
The GoCo option is reasonably clear, and I will come on to it in a moment, but DE&S-plus is not at all clear. The White Paper devotes a massive four lines to it and does not define it. In fact, so far as I understand it, DE&S-plus is designed to be unclear in order to be the basis for a negotiation between the MOD and the Treasury as to the freedoms the Treasury can offer. In other words, if DE&S-plus can pay more for its personnel and so attract much needed skills—more than current civil service terms and conditions allow for—the GoCo will become less attractive. But how, in practice, can the Treasury loosen the rules for the MOD without loosening those same rules for other Departments with similar problems? If the answer is that in practice it cannot, does that mean that in practice this decision has already been made—so it is GoCo or nothing, and there is no public sector comparator? Has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made up his mind? How will the private sector companies bidding for a GoCo be confident that their bids are being fairly compared with DE&S-plus, whatever that may be?
ADS, the organisation of defence companies, suggests that the proper metrics might be better value for money for the taxpayer; shorter and cheaper bidding processes; improved skills and expertise; and greater stability in the funding of the defence budget. That is a potential set of metrics, but what does my right hon. Friend say are the proper comparators, and how will he avoid this being a wholly subjective guess about future behaviour?
This brings me to the GoCo itself. I am not instinctively opposed to this idea—in fact, I am rather attracted by it—but the Defence Committee has asked lots of questions, some of which remain unanswered. No other country has gone down this route, so this is courageous, Minister. That does not mean it is wrong, but there are some questions. First, if a foreign company is the lead partner within a GoCo, how will the MOD deal with any conflicts of loyalty that arise? The Atomic Weapons Establishment does not create such conflicts and is not as widespread in its coverage. Secondly, there are concerns about the issue of intellectual property, as some of my colleagues have said. That is covered in the single sourcing part of the Bill, but it is not covered in the defence procurement part.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is about to mention how the GoCo will affect current alliances and agreements for joint contracting between the UK and our partners. I was in the USA last week for the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and I spoke to many alliance partners in NATO and to Congress members in Washington. The best that they could say was that Britain was very brave, that they would like to see whether we succeeded and that they would leave us to get on with it. Concern was also expressed, however, about whether they would be willing to share confidential contracting and technological information. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is a concern?
Mr Arbuthnot
As I have said before, the hon. Lady performs a valuable service on the Defence Select Committee. She has put her finger on an extremely important point, which was also raised by the Select Committee in our report on defence acquisition. She is right; this matter has to be covered. I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a question about how the United States and France were reacting to the proposal, and he was able to say that he had received a supportive letter from the United States that very morning. I also know that there is a working party in operation with the United States to try to ensure that any problems are ironed out. It is true that other countries think we are being very brave. If we are indeed being so courageous, and if this works, we may well forge the way for other countries to follow us. It may well be that whichever company succeeds with the GoCo in this country could find vast new opportunities opening up for it. For example, it could take over the defence procurement of the United States, which would make somebody extremely rich.
The next question, which has been raised by ADS and by the Federation of Small Businesses, relates to how the GoCo proposition would affect small and medium-sized enterprises. The FSB has said that it is broadly supportive of the Government’s proposal, as contained in the Bill, but that it is vital that the needs of SMEs be considered when the reforms are implemented. I echo that, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will do so as well.
The time line involved is ambitious. I understand that there is a suggestion that we might reach a final conclusion in April 2015. That must remind us all of another fixture in our diaries for May 2015—the general election. Surely the risk of this project running up against the next election is huge.
Mr Philip Hammond
Perhaps I can help my right hon. Friend. The expectation is that the competitive process will be completed by the spring of next year, with the contract award in the late summer and with the GoCo standing up, if that is the solution we choose, towards the end of next year or at the very beginning of 2015—around December or January.
Mr Arbuthnot
Oh, good. One problem is that the date for the invitations to negotiate has already slipped. That was meant to take place this month, but it is now taking place in August. Let us hope there is no further slippage. We have not heard that any is expected; let us just hope.
Peter Luff
My right hon. Friend is making an important point. I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate, he will provide some clarity about the invitations to negotiate. They must not be allowed to slip beyond August, as any further slippage would put at risk the rather challenging timetable that the Secretary of State has outlined.
Mr Arbuthnot
My hon. Friend, as a former Minister responsible for defence procurement, has a great deal of expertise. Despite the enormous qualities of his successor, I was very sad to see him leave his job. He has got this point absolutely right.
I am going to divide the final question on this defence procurement issue into three. We understand that the process of moving towards a GoCo, if a GoCo is accepted, will be taken in two stages, with perhaps one domain paving the way to be followed by the rest of defence procurement. My questions are: first, what will be included in the first domain? Secondly, how long will it take for the Government to work out whether it has succeeded, so that the remainder of defence procurement joins the first domain? Thirdly, how will anybody work out, within a period of less than 10 years—many of these defence contracts run for so long—whether this approach has succeeded? My suspicion is that the success of this entire process will be able to be judged only in about 2020. I wish it well and, as I said at the beginning, I am attracted to the idea.
On single-source contracts, the House will be relieved to hear that I have not got very much more to say. I am not sure why this matter requires legislation, because for many decades we have been spending 40% of the defence budget without legislation. It may be that there is a tearing and pressing need for legislation or that the setting up of the regulator is what requires legislation, but no doubt that can be explained. It is startling that the MOD will be able to challenge a contract price already agreed between the parties up to two years after the completion of that contract. I would have thought that would make it a bit difficult for industry to decide how to invest, but, again, no doubt the Minister will deal with that in his wind-up. Will these new rules apply to overseas contractors? Apparently they will not. Does that not create an incentive for UK defence contractors to move abroad? That would be a shame.
Part 3 of the Bill deals with the reserves—once again, I declare an interest because my daughter is one of them. I keep asking this, but I am told that repetition is no shame in a politician: what plan does the Prime Minister have to form an alliance with the Leader of the Opposition and to go out and make it absolutely plain that this reserve forces project must succeed, in the national interest. It must succeed because there is no plan B. Much of the plan has already been welcomed by industry. I think there is a greater job to be done by industry in saying that this must succeed in the national interest, and by the FSB, which, as I say, supports it. Some measures in the Bill—for example, the extra notice for the deployment of reservists—will certainly make things easier for employers. The £500 extra payment has been welcomed by the British Medical Association, as well as by the FSB and others. Perhaps there is more to be done in order to sell this, but the success of the entire process is essential. I welcome this Bill and this part of it as being in the national interest, and I hope that the Prime Minister will be able to get out there and say so himself.
Mr Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Obviously, I have spent some time on the Defence Committee, along with the Chairman and others. We have spent a number of years studying some of these things, from Governments who have come and gone. Clearly the Bill is central to our discussion about how we make our MOD efficient, so I do not approach it from the point of view of opposing change and reform. This is a debate about how we get the correct reform. On the question of GoCo or no-GoCo—or “NoCo” or whatever it is or is likely to be—or “NDPB-plus”, I am not going to go into great detail, because the previous speech raised many of the concerns. As for the freedoms required in the individual terms and conditions given to a chief executive of an organisation, who can pick and choose people and so on, I am a little worried that we should build structures around individuals, as they also come and go. That cannot be the only reason for reform, however; there must be broader reasons for making such a change.
Let me deal with the organisation in the context of the rest of the Ministry of Defence, because the remainder of the Levene reforms must be considered. The heads of individual services and joint services will be procurers. They will not sit on the central board, but they will buy things from various parts of the organisation, as there will be single contracts in addition to DE&S requirements. We can make DE&S as efficient as we like, but we must consider the broader context of whether changing DE&S will make the whole process more efficient, so a lot more work needs to be done on that.
My personal prejudice—I was glad that the Secretary of State spoke about where risk will be retained—is that if we are not careful, a further risk is created by moving things too far away from the political organisation. It will never abdicate responsibility, so if anything goes wrong, it might lack the strategic capacity to direct in such a way as to change the process. Care needs to be taken about the extent to which things are pushed out into a private contracting organisation.
Let me turn to the organisation of the reserves. It is a shame that the Secretary of State has left the Chamber, because I have written to him about this and received something of a reply. I was concerned by the weekend’s events because my constituents were involved, in the sense that my local mountain rescue and search team—Central Beacons mountain rescue team—effectively became the initial primary support for the rescue activity. I do not want to get this wrong, because there will be police and coroner inquiries, but if the Secretary of State were in the Chamber, I would ask him at least to thank the team publicly and to acknowledge its activities on that day.
The team was subsequently supported by Rescue 169 from Chivenor and various other highly professional people to help with the co-ordination of the activity, and they did their best in the circumstances. I thank the rescue team publicly, and my local community expresses its sympathy to those affected during the exercise and the families and friends of those who died. There are lessons to be learned from the weekend, so when that happens, I hope that the exercise will include those people involved. I saw volunteers rescuing volunteers. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but if the support process is going to work, those volunteers should participate properly in that lessons-learned exercise, because they have much to contribute.
I am not a shrinking violet who wishes to downgrade the rigorous nature of training, but an exercise such as the Fan dance must be managed well, and monitored and supported correctly, or it should not be done. The sun had not been out in Wales for about nine months, but local people were expected to run around in the heat at the weekend. Perhaps certain exercises should be graded and there is something to be said for considering how a number are conducted, but the weekend’s activity was a selection exercise, not a training exercise. While many lessons could be learned from what happened, we must be careful, because there is a constituency that will want to downgrade the exercise. There is no need to do so, however, because with proper management, monitoring and support, such a downgrade can be avoided, and the legitimacy of the process will be unaffected.
Wales provides something like 7% to 8% of armed forces personnel, yet our population represents 3% of the UK. Hon. Members may draw their own conclusions about why that is the case, but it is due to many things, such as commitment and history. However, people will look at the proposals and say, “What is this new reserve force we’re being offered? How will we relate to the regular forces? Do I want to play this game and get involved or not?” Others will ask, “Do I want my son, daughter or godson to go into this?” It is not just about money. There are important changes, giving people extra rights, but it will not be possible to make the numbers unless the legitimacy of joining is recognised within the community where recruitment is to take place.
Mrs Moon
I recognise my hon. Friend’s expertise in this area. The exercise has been carried out in the beacons over many years, yet two people died and a third person is seriously ill. That is sending shock waves of concern throughout the families and friends of those seeking to join the reserves. Is it not crucial that, if mistakes are found to have occurred, the Ministry of Defence is clear about what those mistakes were and how they will be rectified, so that people may volunteer without anxiety, and families can feel confident that the reserves is a safe and credible option for their family members?
Mr Havard
I agree entirely. There is also the question of what people are required to do. There is some description in the White Paper about what reserves will and will not be required to do and how those are linked, but there is a broader question about the type of organisation and the support provided.
I shall come on to the duty of care, which is related to that. The call-out of reservists will be the same as that of regulars. That suggests that they are the same, but they are not necessarily going to do the same things. There may be legal issues involved that we need to explore. I understand why the present narrative is the way it is. It is trying to make things clearer, but at some point we may not be achieving that, and we may need to look to the White Paper to help us do so. The title includes the words “valuable and valued”. The reserves are both; that is absolutely correct, but they will be called out on the same legal basis as regulars. The training is to be the same, but it is not really the same. A lot more work needs to be done.
The Defence Committee is undertaking some work on one aspect. As in the case of the accident at the weekend, about which I will not go into detail, there is a duty of care to people when they are put in certain circumstances. We all know that and we see the latest decisions by the Supreme Court and so on. There is the potential for lawfare, when people might seek to use domestic legislation as a weapons system, all the way through to the development of universal jurisdiction. That is the background to the way that people might operate, and in the Defence Committee we are going to look at these things. We have an inquiry offer out now and people should put evidence to us to try to clarify how the system will work.
Regulars may not be the same as reservists in certain circumstances. The law will not necessarily provide the architectural background to some of the decisions that people think they have made. We are concerned about that and we need to inquire into the position and make sure that the law does that. Money is supremely important, as we all know. For some years we have been trying to drive more efficiency into the Ministry of Defence, yes, but it is not just about the money. The MOD should not degrade the quality of the response that it will get, by talking only in those terms.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I follow the Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State and others in paying tribute to those brave young men who have just lost their lives in the hills of the Brecon Beacons. My thoughts and prayers are with their families, as I am sure are those of the whole House. I remember some uncomfortable times there many years ago.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard). He and I work together closely on the Select Committee. I associate myself with his tribute to the mountain rescue service in his constituency. We must not prejudge the inquiry, but I hope its role in averting a much worse problem will be fully acknowledged.
Let me be very clear that I strongly support the Bill and I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), will be taking it through Committee—if I am very lucky, perhaps I will be allowed to serve on it. I support almost all the Bill’s provisions. I just want to say a few words on procurement before focusing mostly on part 3.
I am happy that we are evaluating the possibility of a GoCo. There are a number of very successful GoCos in our current set-up, including Aldermaston and the special arrangements that Babcock has with the Royal Navy. However, to echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) said, there is one feature of the GoCo that I am very concerned about: the possibility that there might be a substantial foreign element in its running. My reason for saying that is not xenophobic at all. There are two main reasons why there should be a serious concern about foreign companies or foreign employees being involved in the management company: one relates to intellectual property rights—state secrets—and the other relates to reasons of commercial confidentiality.
Many years ago, just before I was elected to Parliament, I did a consulting project in Aldermaston for the management of a small Swedish firm that I was working for at the time. I cannot see how the commercially in confidence question could possibly arise in Aldermaston with regard to the American companies involved in the management. It simply is not an issue. The point about IPR is that we are already collaborating with the Americans and, arguably, they are pretty uniformly ahead of us; so the IPR reason does not arise, because there is no parallel.
The plain fact is that if we were to employ foreigners in a management company, whether or not they work for foreign companies, there is a danger that they might then be cherry-picked. Even if we put the clear criminal sanctions set out in part 2 of the Bill into part 1—slightly oddly, they are in part 2 but not in part 1—there would be no way of enforcing them if, for example, an American employee of an American company was then head-hunted by one of the big American defence contractors so that it could pick his brains on commercially confidential material.
Peter Luff
I think that I can reassure my hon. Friend on that point. The risk he identifies exists already. The risk of people being head-hunted from Defence Equipment and Support because they cannot be paid the right sum of money means that intellectual property can already transfer out of the organisation too readily. I think that those risks, whatever the nationality of the companies that have an interest in the contract, will be reduced significantly by the change to GoCo status.
Mr Brazier
My hon. Friend’s point is well taken, and I support the concept of the GoCo, but the plain fact is that, however strong the protections we try to put in place, there is no way of enforcing them in relation to foreign employees. It is that straightforward.
Mr Brazier
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will move on to the main burden of what I want to say today, which relates to reserve forces. I strongly support the measures set out in part 3. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend is clearly agitated, so I will take his intervention before moving on.
Peter Luff
I think that I can offer further reassurance. All employees in sensitive areas of DE&S will be required to be “UK eyes only” personnel, so no foreigners would be working on the sensitive stuff that worries my hon. Friend.
Mr Brazier
If the sensitive areas were for UK eyes only, that is a protection normally for intellectual property rights. The problem for the defence industry is what is commercially in confidence—increasingly being called “soft IPR”—which is in no way covered by the provision my hon. Friend mentions, as he knows. The problem is that knowing how a particular contractor has structured a particular contract, which the management company must know—otherwise, there is no point in having it—means that that kind of information must be known to it, and it is extremely valuable material. He was quite right to say in his previous intervention that the danger already exists. However, the only way to produce an enforceable mechanism that deals with it cannot cover foreign employees who go back to America, or indeed anywhere else, although I think that we would be unlikely to take employees from another country.
My main point concerns reserve forces. I strongly support part 3 of the Bill and the Government’s measures on reserves, and I was delighted to hear the shadow Defence Secretary give a broad welcome from the Opposition Benches to those measures. I will not go into the provisions in the Bill except to say that one or two—special support for SMEs, for example—are especially welcome, as is greater protection for employees who are reservists. Instead, I suggest that the Bill could provide a vehicle for reforms in the governance of reserves. Such reforms were highlighted in the report by the independent commission to review the United Kingdom’s reserve forces, on which I was privileged to serve, as we are a long way out of line with arrangements in other English-speaking countries.
Our report looked at three areas of governance, one of which was for transition. The other two areas were senior appointments, and the role of the reserve forces and cadets associations and, when considering those two matters, it is important to ask what is happening abroad. I have focused on English-speaking countries because there is little point in looking at countries that have recently given up conscription. The most obvious example of a country that gave up conscription a long time ago—France—has gone down a route that Britain will never follow in having an armed gendarmerie trained effectively as an army reserve, including a big reserve component of its own. Therefore, the US, Canada and Australia seemed to the commission, and seem to me today, to be the best comparators.
In truth, those countries—I say this with no pride at all as somebody who has extensively visited their armed forces—have consistently had, year after year, much lower personnel turnover than our reserve forces, and they often get better turnouts for periodic training. The National Guard units that I visited in Afghanistan had a staggering 98% turnout for that operation, and the officer recruiting level of all those other countries is much higher than in the UK. Reserve forces in those countries have a larger place in society than our Army Reserve, and I fully endorse and totally support everything the Government are doing to expand that role in society. Above all, reserves in other countries have much more experience than us of deploying formed capability rather than simply being used as a part-time personnel service, as has been forced on the reserves over the past few years.
Bob Stewart
I totally understand and accept the majority of what my hon. Friend is saying, but to compare us with the National Guard is somewhat misleading. National Guard units are often mobilised and deployed for long periods of time, whereas our system will bring someone in for six months’ operations, presumably with three months of training before and three months afterwards. That is not as long as National Guard units serve, which obviously makes them almost regular, at least in spirit.
Mr Brazier
My hon. Friend has been misinformed about that. An impressive airborne cavalry unit that I visited in Kabul was one of a small number of units that had had the misfortune a few years ago of being part of the only experiment by the Americans in recent memory of trying to call people out for more than 12 months. The US has the same limit as us in the UK and has agreed never to repeat that experiment because of the painful experience. Such units operate on the same 12-month cycle as we do.
I do not say this to run down our reserve forces in any way, but when those forces were used as formed bodies, they served extremely well despite the handicaps they faced. One thinks of a company of reservists from the London Regiment, who in their time in Afghanistan were reputed to have killed 45 members of the Taliban. They got an incredible endorsement, which I quoted in the House, from their Brigade Commander, Brigadier—now General—Lorimer. I also think of my own former unit, which deployed a squadron that got three military crosses. However, I want to make the point that, in terms of yardsticks, we are behind the curve. I welcome all the Government’s efforts to move us up the curve, but we have to recognise that governance is an important part of this.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I am slightly confused by the excellent answer that the hon. Gentleman gave to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). When he says that reserves in the US deploy on a 12-month basis, does he mean that their total call-out is 12 months and they are not doing 12 months in theatre?
Mr Brazier
They have almost exactly the same total span as us—basically, 12 months. Unlike us, they typically do three months’ work-up and nine months’ deployment—this is for formed bodies up to brigade level—whereas we do six months and six months, but it is still a 12-month limit. The Australians, who have sent a number of formed bodies to Afghanistan, do three months and three months.
I am explaining these points because it is worth looking at the difference in governance arrangements, some of which we set out in our commission report. In all three of these countries, the vast majority of reserve units are commanded by reservists, and the vast majority of those units are in brigades, also commanded by reservists. The National Guard has a whole mass of legislation protecting its special status. Australia and Canada do not have the same legal arrangements, but both countries have a set of widely accepted customs and practices that work in lieu.
That brings me to the main point that I want to put to the House. I suggest that there are four things—two pairs of things—we can do to redress the balance a little, all of which build on the spirit of what the Government are doing. The first two are about people. Sir Peter Wall anticipated our commission report with a very good move that has been pivotal in delivering progress when he announced overnight that he was creating a new post that has existed since time immemorial in Australia and Canada and in the National Guard in every state in America—a de facto commander of the TA in the shape of the Deputy Commander Land Forces. The Duke of Westminster was the first incumbent and General Ranald Munro is now doing the job. They are both fine reserve officers.
Sir Peter Wall said that that was a tied post, but there is nothing laid down anywhere to say that some future, less enlightened Chief of the General Staff, with a selection committee entirely composed of senior regular officers, and one token civil servant, should not at some future stage retire an existing two-star general and say “Here we have a reservist who can do the job.” That is the current arrangement with the reserves in the RAF. I propose that a list should be laid down of certain jobs that are tied to people, many of whom may be ex-regulars, who have for a number of years earned their living in the civilian world and served as reservists at the same time. The selection committee should include an outside element, perhaps the chairman of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations or the outgoing incumbent.
My second recommendation on people is that we must address the issue of reserve primacy for unit-level command. I am not asking that we have reservist brigade commanders, like all these other countries, although we do already have reservist deputy brigade commanders. In 2011, a week before we published our report, the military secretary’s department broke completely new ground by announcing, unbelievably, that whereas other countries have 80% to 90% reservist commanders, and historically we have had 40% to 50%, 24 out of 30 of the reserve commands were to go to regular officers. I have to say that I was so angry about this that my fellow members of the commission had more or less to tie me down.
The subsequent year—2012—the department did something that was arguably even worse. Although it put the word out that it wanted more reservists, it applied a de facto reverse quality filter and made such an unreasonable demand with regard to man training days for TA commanding officers that most of the people with the best jobs said, “I’m not putting in for that.” The result was a great deal of unhappiness with some of the command awards. The generation who will take on those units—the two years between recruits mean that this relates to almost every Territorial Army unit—are not necessarily the kind of people who would have been selected if the process had been similar to that which is used abroad.
The good news is that the new military secretary is working very hard on this and trying to sort it out. A strenuous effort is being made to encourage and develop good-quality people to be the next generation of TA commanding officers. None of this, however, is laid down anywhere. I think that TA primacy—which, incidentally, exists in the Royal Naval Reserve—should be formally laid down.
That brings me to my last two points, which are on the RFCAs. I was delighted that the Government adopted in their Green Paper our report’s recommendation for an annual report from the RFCA Council on the state of the reserve forces. It was right that the Secretary of State saw that first and I was glad when he published the Green Paper for Parliament. Unfortunately, it was then suddenly announced in the White Paper that, rather than having a wider remit, the report should focus on progress with integration and that it should stop when integration is completed in 2018. That was not our recommendation. It is after the political spotlight has moved on that the role of this independent report will be most important.
It is worth remembering that when Haldane set up the reserves, who served so bravely six years later in the first world war, he gave to the County Associations—the forerunners of the RFCAs—a large part of the budget as well as the responsibility for managing recruitment, basic training and property. Today the only responsibility left to the RFCAs is the control of property, which they do vastly more effectively than the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, with less than a third of the percentage overhead. They also make use of all the free expertise available from the people on the individual regional councils, including estate agents, lawyers and entrepreneurs.
For the past 10 or 15 years, the RFCAs have been handicapped in that work because, despite the fact that they own most of the estate, they are no longer allowed a free hand to manage it properly. They are constantly subject to trying to drive deals. For example, in Yorkshire an excellent deal with a local supermarket that would enable essential renovation work to take place has been on hold for several years. Now that the basing plans are sorted out, I think we should put in legislation the role of the RFCA as owners of most of the property.
In summary, the word “integration” is at the heart of this. The Government are committed—in a welcome plan that I strongly support—to the integration of regular and reserve components. We have tried assimilation and it failed. The findings of our commission’s report on an assimilated structure with no separate chain of command for Army Reserve—in fact, the structure did not even include a reserve branch at Land Command; it just had a few people scattered around—were dismal. Integration is about recognising that each service has a separate ethos. Someone who serves as a reservist and does something else for their main living has a different ethos. The White Paper says a great deal about moving from being service personnel to providing capability—I strongly support that—but in order to make it work we have to hardwire certain structures into the system, and I believe that this welcome Bill offers us that opportunity.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who is respected in all parts of the House for his vast knowledge of defence matters. I associate myself with the thoughtful and heartfelt tribute that he paid to the two men who tragically died in the past couple of days in the Brecon Beacons.
I will concentrate on part 1 and, to some extent, part 2 of the Bill. The provisions in part 1 are fraught with risk. I agree with the Chair of the Defence Committee that the devil is in the detail and that no other country in the world has attempted to outsource the means by which it equips its armed forces. The notion that a GoCo—the Government’s preferred option—will act as the agent of the Ministry of Defence and negotiate and sign new contracts on behalf of the Secretary of State is an inherently risky one that needs to be explored during the passage of the Bill.
A defence procurement strategy should have three objectives. First and foremost, it should provide the equipment that is necessary to ensure that this country has the protection and security that it needs. Secondly, it should provide value for money for the taxpayer in the pursuit of the first objective. I also believe that it should have the third objective of supporting and enhancing our manufacturing and innovation capability. I am concerned that the Bill, particularly part 1, does not provide for all three objectives.
I heartily agree with the Defence Committee report on defence acquisition that was published earlier this year, which stated:
“We believe that the absence of a defence industrial strategy which supports appropriate national sovereignty puts the UK at a disadvantage against competitor countries.”
In evidence to the Select Committee’s inquiry, the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company stated that the Government’s
“feeble support to British Industry is in striking contrast to the model in continental Europe, where for major projects a cross-Departmental approach focuses on cost and value to the nation as a whole. There appears to be no mechanism in the UK to measure the cross-government impact of a contract going overseas, where short-term redundancies and long-term loss of skills shift the problem from MOD to the DHSS and other Departments: good value for money for MOD perhaps, but poor value for the nation.”
I agree with that analysis.
Why do the Government not add defence to their sectoral industrial strategies for aerospace, automotives and the life sciences? The defence industry is economically vital as well as strategically critical to this country. It has annual revenues of more than £22 billion and directly employs more than 100,000 highly skilled workers. The defence growth partnership, which is chaired jointly by the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) and the managing director of MBDA, which was an excellent appointment, is a good, tentative start, but it needs to be translated into an active strategy that maintains for the long term our operational capability and our economic and industrial competitive advantage.
The Bill, if anything, takes us further away from that objective by creating additional pressure to focus on the narrow definitions of cost, value for money and off-the-shelf solutions. It fails to take account of the long-term impact that procurement decisions have on manufacturing, industry and innovation in this country. In the long run, overemphasising price and purchasing defence equipment off the shelf at the expense of value and national capability may cost us more in terms of our defence flexibility and our defence manufacturing base, and may cause a reduction in the levels of research, investment, intellectual property and design capability in the UK.
Mrs Moon
I agree with every point that my hon. Friend has made so far. One area that he has not addressed is accountability. For example, will we be able to call the chief executive of the GoCo before the Defence Committee to be challenged on the spending of public money? Is accountability of concern to my hon. Friend and will he address it in his speech?
Mr Wright
The question of accountability is important, and I seem to remember that my hon. Friend mentioned it in a telling intervention on the Secretary of State. The House needs assurance that we are getting the best value possible for public money. There is a risk that we will focus too much on price without thinking about value. My hon. Friend raises another important point on accountability. As I understand it—the Minister might contradict me, as he will have far more of an understanding on this than I do—GoCo contracts will be up to nine years long, subject to performance. However, there is no opportunity for contract extension. After nine years, a full review of a GoCo contract will be carried out and put back out to the market.
I have some concerns about that. First and foremost, the project lead-in time for defence projects is often decades. If a project is at least 10 years long, how can a nine-year contract provide any degree of certainty? If a project—whether the development and roll-out of a new ship or a new fighter—takes 15 years to develop and is in operation for a further 30 years, where is the inbuilt institutional memory and stability that allows for truly effective project management if the contract changes three or four times? Will that not make a project more expensive and prone to risk?
The overriding consideration of business, especially in such a vital sector, is certainty. A lack of certainty, and a correspondent increase in risk, increases costs within the main contractor and throughout the supply chain. As ADS has said:
“Industry needs both transparency of future intent and stability of intent to enable essential strategic business planning. Since SDSR there has not been the necessary clarity.”
The manner in which the GoCo might be set up makes that instability even worse.
I mentioned that a nine-year GoCo contract cannot be re-awarded. I fail to see how the re-awarding of a contract can be inherently negative. I hope the Minister can explain some of the thinking behind that. Surely the notion that a contractor is up for a contract again would at least keep them on their toes when it comes to performance.
On part 2, I share the understanding and concerns of the Chair of the Defence Committee about how the single source regulations office might put UK companies at a disadvantage. My understanding is that clause 14(7) allows the Secretary of State to waive the new regulations from any single-source contract he wishes, but that overseas suppliers will be outside the jurisdiction of the new single-source contract regulation. Does that not create an unlevel playing field, where only UK companies will be subject to the new pricing and reporting requirements? If we are to have a true industrial strategy—long-term stability, with co-operation across Government —how will this help to provide UK companies and their supply chains with a level playing field?
The UK brand is strong when it comes to defence capability: we are the envy of the world. Our defence capability is part of a strong, modern and innovative manufacturing offer. While I strongly believe that the overriding consideration has to be whether a piece of equipment is compatible with the objectives of our armed forces in theatre, we undermine our economic competitive advantage if we fail to recognise how strong that offer is in the global market. A quarter of annual revenues in the UK defence sector, some £5.4 billion, is derived from exports. However, defence manufacturers tell me that export opportunities are being lost because some countries are saying in response to the narrow off-the-shelf approach, “If it is not good enough for the British armed forces, why should it be good enough for us?” How will the Bill deal with that, and will the GoCo system have an explicit remit to promote defence exports across the world?
Clauses 7 and 8, which are concerned with intellectual property, have been mentioned by other hon. Members. The provisions allow the contractor access to confidential and commercially sensitive information. Our intellectual property regime is one of this country’s competitive advantages, with knowledge-based firms feeling that their invention and creation will be protected in law, yet clause 7 reduces the restrictions on the disclosure to, and use by, the contractor of confidential information. A defence firm, highly protective of its technological knowledge, which might be its unique selling point and give it its advantage in the marketplace, might be happy to share IP directly with the Government, especially if it was trying to establish a long-term relationship. Indeed, I would encourage that. It would also aid the MOD by providing it with sector intelligence on the pipeline of technological innovation over the next few years, which might aid operational planning, and I know the Minister has put in place other things in that regard. However, a company might be less happy about sharing such knowledge with a competitor. A small company in the supply chain might feel particularly vulnerable to the takeover of IP by a huge contractor conglomerate, so what safeguards will the Minister put in place to ensure that suppliers’ IP is adequately protected?
I welcome the commitment on the procurement of equipment for our armed forces. Our servicemen and women fight for our country and deserve the best-possible equipment. In order to fulfil its objectives in theatre, this country deserves the highest-possible level of sophisticated, innovative military equipment. As part of that, consideration should be given to value for money for the taxpayer, but we should also be thinking about our defence industrial capability. So I finish where I began. The provisions in the Bill are fraught with risk and uncertainty and might undermine Britain’s defence industrial capability. I hope that these issues will be resolved appropriately during the Bill’s passage through the House.
Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
I am provoked by the speech from the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and tempted to tear up my speech and demolish his instead. I shall resist that temptation, however, save for one thing: we should be careful what we say about exports, because often, by acquiring a capability overseas, we can build a defensive strategic relationship with another country that brings much greater long-term benefits to the UK. The classic example of that was the acquisition of the military afloat reach and sustainability—MARS—tankers for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary in South Korea, which led to a family of tankers being developed in consultation with BMT, the excellent British design house, and a range of equipment being fitted on to those tankers, not just by the British Navy but by other navies too. More importantly, however, that deal led to the South Korean Government deciding that they would like a strategic relationship with the UK, as a result of which, Rolls-Royce got into the marine market there with its propulsion systems, and now AugustaWestland is sending AW159 helicopters there. Sometimes a short-term decision to buy overseas—such decisions are often deplored by the Daily Mail, which does not understand defence acquisition at all—can actually be the right decision for Britain’s strategic interests globally and for British jobs, so I advise caution about that. The South Korean example is a model of how to acquire capability in the best interests of the country, economically and strategically.
Returning to the Bill, it is a Bill I feel rather nostalgic about and that I would like to be supporting from the Front Bench, rather than the Back Benches, but I am delighted by the challenging yet consensual nature of the debate. It has been conducted in exactly the right spirit for something so important. I was particularly heartened by the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State. I genuinely believe that the Bill will help to secure the improvements made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) when he was Secretary of State, and now by my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), the current Secretary of State. Big changes have happened. The armed forces are now well equipped, and we want to keep it that way. I remember hearing Brigadier Bob Bruce speaking to the media when he took 4th Mechanized Brigade to Helmand last year. He described the taskforce as
“the best prepared and best equipped task force the United Kingdom has ever put into the field”.
That is a big step forward from what we are used to in this country and one the whole House should welcome. That process began under the last Government. It is an example of where improvements have been made and sustained, and we are now in a much better place than we were.
The taxpayer’s interests are better protected too. The equipment black hole has been closed. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is not in his place, so I cannot provoke him on that point, but there certainly was an overheated equipment programme. How big it was is a matter for debate. If anything, I think the £38 billion figure is an underestimate, but it was a black hole and it has been closed.
Thomas Docherty
Standing in for my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), let me challenge this point yet again. The National Audit Office report, which the hon. Gentleman referred to in a roundabout way, said that if there had been no uplift in spend, over a decade there would be a £38 billion black hole. Therefore, it was not that big in 2010, when he was in post. Does he accept that point?
Peter Luff
I do not want to get bogged down, but I agree that the £38 billion figure depends on the assumptions made. Those assumptions were too generous, actually, to the last Government and the true size of the black hole was nearer £60 billion or £70 billion, but that is another debate. That is my sincerely held view.
On the whole, I do not think it right for ex-Ministers to boast about their achievements, particularly as anything achieved in a Department is always shared with many other players. However, I was pleased that the National Audit Office’s major projects report for 2011, dealing with the 16 major biggest defence acquisition programmes, said—among some words of criticism, of course, for how things were being managed; it was not a totally clean bill of health—the following:
“In recent years we have reported several times that the Department has had to slip projects or cut equipment numbers to bridge the gap between estimated funding and the forecast cost of the defence budget. These decisions were not value for money and meant that new capabilities were not available on time. There are no such instances recorded this year”.
That is the way we need to keep it. I believe that this Bill is the way to achieve that massive step forward.
Mr Brazier
I do not make interventions like this very often, but my hon. Friend is being too bloody modest—excuse my language, Mr Deputy Speaker. He must take some of the credit for that extraordinary achievement.
Peter Luff
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I am very proud indeed to have been part of the team that achieved that. In fact, the only change being made to the budget now is to put new bits of equipment into it, which is a huge sea change from the world that all of us involved in defence have known over many years.
The Government have set out a clear policy to sustain those improvements. I say to the hon. Member for Hartlepool that if I were publishing now the White Paper that I published last January or February, I would call it “Defence-Industrial Strategy”, because that is what it is. At that stage, there was a degree of nervousness in the Government about the phrase “industrial strategy”, but the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has now won that argument. I see what we have now as an effective defence-industrial strategy that will drive up the competitiveness and effectiveness of British industry, particularly by protecting investment in science and technology—again, that is a debate for another day. My argument with the hon. Gentleman is this: it is broken and it does need fixing. I agree that there are risks with any change, but this is a change that needs to be made. I am conservative by nature, and one of my favourite quotations is from Viscount Falkland, who said in 1641:
“When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.”
On this occasion, I believe it is genuinely necessary to change.
I will quickly work through the Bill in reverse, if I may. On reserves, I will not add to the excellent remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), to whose work in this area I pay mutual tribute. He really has done a first-rate job on our reserves, and the whole House—indeed, the whole armed forces—owes him a great debt of gratitude. Concerns have been expressed about the number of reserves we need to fulfil the Government’s aspirations. I always divide numbers by parliamentary constituencies to get a sense of their scale, and in this case we are talking about an average of about 50 for each constituency. That is not a huge number. I genuinely believe that what the Government are doing will help us to recruit some of the specialists we need, as the White Paper says, particularly in the area of cyber-security. Keeping skills up to date is important in the real world as well. The reserves have a hugely important role, and I am sure the Minister will respond to my hon. Friend’s comments when he winds up.
Let me turn to the single-source pricing regulations. It was time for a radical review. I commend page 20 of the impact assessment to the House, which lists the major structural changes to have taken place since 1968, when the yellow book was first introduced. Let me emphasise the point—this cannot be said too often—that this is not an attack on the profit of the defence industries; it is an attack on their cost base. A reasonable rate of return is what the defence industries need to sustain their activity in the UK. This is not an attack on their rate of return for their shareholders, but, as I say, on their cost base. Frankly, I have seen past examples of the cost base being—shall we say?—artificially inflated in a way I found totally unacceptable. There has been abuse.
We in this House also ought to say a big thank you to Lord Currie of Marylebone, who did so much hard work to produce the “Review of Single Source Pricing Regulations”, the document published in, I think, October 2011. I will quote my own words—because I said them better then than I could today—from the foreword to that report:
“Tackling industry’s cost-base and improving the MOD’s procurement process are at the heart of this Government’s transformation agenda for Defence.”
Importantly, I also said:
“Making industry more efficient should not only achieve value for money to the taxpayer, but also lead to a more competitive role for the UK industry in the export market.”
I was particularly pleased by the emphasis that Lord Currie put in his report on small and medium-sized enterprises. Again, I said in my introduction:
“Small and Medium Enterprises…would have fewer data reporting requirements and a simplified profit rate process. Larger contractors would be expected to provide an annual statement on how they have engaged SMEs in their supply chain.”
It is a hugely important development in the single-source pricing regulations review that we will now ask contractors to say what they are doing to help SMEs in their supply chains, because so much of the innovation in modern defence comes from SMEs. We want to know that they are being helped and encouraged by the primes—the big contractors—and I am sure the report will be important in ensuring that that happens.
I agree with the hon. Member for Hartlepool and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), the Defence Committee Chairman, about single-source pricing regulations and possible exemptions for foreign companies. In fact, the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to exempt individual qualifying contracts from the process, but I agree that it could be used to exempt foreign companies. I cannot think at present of many examples of a non-competitive contract going to an overseas contractor, and this would not affect FMS—foreign military sales—as I understand it, so the Tomahawk missiles, for example, would not be covered by the regulations.
There is a powerful point here about the risk of creating a perverse incentive, should foreign companies be exempt, for British contractors to move more of their operations overseas to escape the new regulations. I hope there will be a truly level playing field and that the American defence contractors—who typically will be affected by the regulations—will genuinely be affected and not exempted from them. I also obviously expect the Single Source Regulations Office to be truly independent and sympathetic to the needs of small and medium-sized contractors, as the industry suggests.
Turning to Defence Equipment and Support itself, potentially the most controversial part of the Bill, getting the budget balanced was the easy bit. It did not seem so at the time—certainly not for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—but keeping the budget balanced is going to prove a lot harder. Acquisition reform is going to be central to achieving that.
I am delighted about the bipartisan process that has been adopted, and I have a bit of an apology for the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) who is on the Opposition Front Bench. Last year, we worked through the complex issues associated with this development but did not keep her properly informed about how things were developing. I am grateful for the sympathetic meeting we had in my office some time last year, when we brought her up to date on our thinking. I apologise, in that we got too obsessed with the internal processes of government and did not do enough to communicate how our thinking was developing.
Bernard Gray was a special adviser to the last Labour Government and is Chief of Defence Matériel for this Government. His report of 2009 called for a GoCo. That was not the initial view of Ministers in this Government, but we changed our minds as we listened to the argument. I was rather amused by the response of officials to his report. When I took on the ministerial portfolio it was all, “Well, we all knew it was like that; we don’t need Bernard Gray to tell us this. It will all be absolutely fine. He told us nothing new at all”. Actually, he did tell us something new. He put it all together in a powerful and punchy way, and I am sure the issues had never been analysed as coherently and consistently as they were by Bernard Gray.
I was presented with the document entitled, “The Defence Strategy for Acquisition Reform”, which was a product of the last Government. It was a classic piece of Sir Humphrey-like bureaucratic obfuscation and box-ticking, with apparent action being the substitute for effective change. It provided a mass of detailed actions that gave the appearance of doing something while doing absolutely nothing whatever. Now, we all speak with unanimity about the dangers of an overheated equipment programme, about the conspiracy of optimism on programme costs, about the high price of requirement creep—huge steps forward—and about the lack of key commercial and engineering skills at DE&S.
I was struck by some of Bernard Gray’s comments in an interview in Civil Service World—a publication I like to read every week or month when it comes out. He said:
“If industry wants to go out and hire the best lawyers, the best programme managers, they can; and all the choices they make create costs that we bear. So we’re paying them to upgrade their side of the equation, but we don’t pay to have those skills available to our own side.”
That is a very important point indeed. I think we now understand that we have to keep the equipment programme balanced, to create proper boundaries between DE&S and the customers and to ensure that DE&S has the skills, processes and incentives to keep costs down.
DE&S does most of its work extremely well, and its staff deserve a pat on the back and to be congratulated more often than they are. The phenomenal work done recently on urgent operational requirements and operations should be a cause for deep and warm congratulations. Sometimes the staff are unfairly pilloried by some members of the national media, and there are nowhere as many of them as is sometimes said. The current headcount—I look to the Minister for reassurance here—is some 14,000 or 15,000 after a series of very steep reductions in recent years. I believe that only some 8,000 civilians would transfer to the new GoCo if such a transfer were to take place, with around 2,000 military secondees—some 10,000 people, which is much smaller than the 29,000 figure one often hears quoted by cynics.
I have three specific concerns about the GoCo. First, could we write the contract? I have been reassured on that and believe that the suggested phased approach addresses the issue sensibly. Secondly, would it offer value for money? I believe it will, and we will know very soon. It is right for the House to be exposed to this argument in as much detail as possible, consistent with commercial confidentiality and not prejudicing the Department’s commercial position.
Finally, would our allies be happy, especially about the security question? I have seen some alarmist reports in the specialist media about the American view and I am confident that that can be addressed. We have a GoCo already for the most secret thing we do—that is, nuclear warheads—and there is no reason why we cannot address those concerns. Our nuclear propulsion plants and our submarines are already built by the private sector and there is no reason why we cannot write the kind of guarantees our foreign allies would seek.
I have a number of questions, some of which echo points that have already been made. First, on the point made by the hon. Member for Hartlepool, will DE&S be incentivised to support exports? That is an important question and we need to know how that will be achieved. Secondly, will the system have enough flexibility to cope with sudden surges caused by operations? Will there be sudden meetings of lawyers and specialists to discuss contract amendments, or will we be able to deal with sudden and rapid surges in demand? Industry is right to worry about intellectual property protection, and clause 7 and schedule 2 will need particularly careful scrutiny in Committee.
Above all, I am worried about the speed of progress. I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Defence Committee about the invitation to negotiate. Time is slipping through our fingers and—call me cynical—I still fear there might be people in the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and the higher echelons of the MOD who do not like the idea and might like to kill it by civil servants’ favourite device of time-wasting. I hope there are no such processes under way and that my hon. Friend the Minister can reassure me that after the rapid progress we have made, there will be no slippage in the invitation to negotiate, as urgency is needed.
I believe that only radical change will secure the behavioural changes we need in defence. It is not just about numbers on a bit of paper but changing people’s mindset. We need to ask what the taxpayer’s relationship is with the armed forces and what we need to do to improve the way we operate. Even if the value for money case is finely balanced, the behavioural changes a GoCo would introduce would make it worth deciding to go for a GoCo. I hope a modest, finely balanced judgment will not be used as an excuse for not proceeding. Only if the value for money case was clearly negative would there be grounds to pause and think again.
In the preface to his 2011 report, Lord Currie of Marylebone summed up my attitude to the procurement aspects of the Bill:
“The reward is a more stable environment for the single source defence sector, where industry is more cost competitive in export markets, and the MOD maintains a balanced budget. That balance will avoid the need to cut or delay programmes and greatly reduce the level of waste that results, with benefit to the MOD and industry, including SMEs. This is a much healthier position for both parties, and one that should help to take them out of the spotlight. The real prize…will be better value for money for taxpayers and a better equipped front-line.”
That is what the Bill will deliver.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Let me begin by following up on the point made by the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who said that ex-Ministers probably should not boast about their achievements. I say gently to the ex-Minister that if they do not do the boasting, there is probably no one else who will do it on their behalf.
I think we have been greatly served over the past two decades by a succession of good, generous and genuine procurement Ministers, not least Lord Gilbert who so sadly passed away just a few short weeks ago. The spirit of the debate on both sides of the House is testimony to the fact that we believe that providing our men and women who serve so bravely with the correct equipment is an issue on which we should not make too much of a party political point—although Members will forgive me, as we are in Parliament, for making some observations in my speech.
I have a specific question for the Minister, which he may wish to consider, on the reserves and the territorial extent of the provisions. The explanatory notes state that the Bill’s scope on reservists will extend to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man—so, to Crown dependencies—but do not mention the overseas territories. It is my understanding that Bermuda and Gibraltar raise TA units, and it would be helpful if the Minister could explain why the provisions will not extend to Gibraltar and Bermuda. I know that the Minister is already thinking carefully about the answer he will give me.
There has been some suggestion that the budget is now balanced, but unfortunately the Defence Committee’s view has been that as the Secretary of State has consistently refused to show us the books, we have no way of upholding that judgment. The Prime Minister—he is only the Prime Minister and not Lynton Crosby, so he is not actually running the Government—has said that his preference is for a real-terms increase from 2015 or 2016, but there is some confusion about the date he meant. Perhaps the Minister will explain what will happen if there is no real-terms increase. Will the books go out of budget? This returns me to my exchange with the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire. If the books are balanced only in the event of a real-terms increase beyond 2015, I am afraid that we shall have another black hole, whether the Minister likes it or not.
I am something of a sceptic when it comes to a GoCo, for a reason that the Minister heard me give only last week when he met members of the Defence Committee representing both sides of the House. There are three reasons for the overruns and programme delays that have led to some of the biggest procurement problems in the last 20 years: those involving the Type 45 destroyer, the joint strike fighter and the Queen Elizabeth class carrier.
First, there is the conspiracy between the defence industry and the services. The industry wants the work and the services want the kit, so they artificially drive down the cost that they declare to Ministers for each project. Surprisingly enough, once the main gate decision has been reached, the costs start to rise to fairly extreme levels. We also see decisions being pushed to the right. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, Labour must take some responsibility—our hands were not entirely clean in this regard—but it is not a new problem.
Secondly, there is the chopping and changing of programmes. We saw that when, following the strategic defence and security review, a carrier decision was changed in favour of a sea variant. After £100 million had been wasted in 18 months, the new Secretary of State made the correct decision to return to the B variant, but unfortunately we are where we are, and, regrettably, the taxpayer is down £100 million. Thirdly, there is the problem of immature decision making on the part of the MOD and the services. They do not necessarily understand what their requirements are in the longer term, and that drives up costs.
The GoCo will not solve any of those problems, but strong ministerial leadership would help to alleviate at least two of them, if not all three. I hope that the Minister will explain how the MOD will tackle the buy-in conspiracies, the chopping and changing, and the lack of mature decision making.
As was made clear by my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard)—and, indeed, by the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot)—the Committee feels quite strongly about the research budget. We spend only 1.2% of the defence budget on research and development, and not all that money is going to United Kingdom companies. We are, in effect, subsidising other nations. The Defence Committee has an aspiration—it cannot be described as a pledge—to reach a spending level of 2%, and, crucially, we think that that money should be spent on UK companies. We must support our own companies, as the Americans and the French do. We should welcome an update from the Minister on the progress of, for instance, the remotely piloted aircraft programme. I understand that Sentinel will not be funded beyond 2015, and it would be helpful to understand the implications of that now.
May I press the Minister to say more about how two programmes will be dealt with under either GoCo or single source? I will not make my speech about Trident today, because we shall have a three-hour debate on the subject tomorrow, but it would be helpful if the Minister could explain how the common missile programme will be dealt with, in practical terms, under the new arrangements. I should also like to know how the joint strike fighter programme will be dealt with, given the genuine concern that has been expressed by our closest ally about GoCo and the new arrangements.
I am slightly disappointed that the Bill contains no provision to tackle the “revolving doors”. The Committee is concerned not just about the revelations in The Sunday Times about generals and admirals leaving on a Friday afternoon and popping up in the defence industry on a Monday morning, but about the more general policy. I am not specifically criticising the Bill here, but it would be helpful if the Minister outlined what steps he intends to take, so that we avoid this culture and what appears to the Committee to be an unhealthy relationship between some of our senior military leadership and the defence industry is tidied up.
It is easy to knock civil servants. Politicians have never lost a vote by having a go—[Interruption.] Except in Cheltenham, where I suspect that if a politician knocked the civil servants, they would probably lose quite a lot of their votes. On the whole, however, knocking civil servants is not a difficult gig, and successive Governments have perhaps been guilty of doing that. I think we must recognise the contribution made by our civil servants, however, as we would not have a procurement programme or a functioning defence industry without them. I hope the Minister will say that this is not going to turn into an exercise in beating up civil servants.
I cannot see anything in the Bill about how the pay and conditions for those for whom Bernard Gray wants greater flexibility will be set. The Defence Committee is very concerned that Mr Gray may be seeking to have the power to set the pay and conditions for his management team without ministerial buy-in. Will the Minister explain how he will ensure that there will be ministerial accountability for all the pay and conditions awarded to Mr Gray and his team? We understand the argument about increasing competitiveness, but we must not get into some of the situations that have developed elsewhere, with personal contracts and off-the-books arrangements and tax avoidance, such as for the chief executive of the Student Loans Company. Will the Secretary of State still have to sign-off all individual packages, or does the Minister expect that to be delegated to Mr Gray and his successors?
On the point about invitation to negotiate, it is my understanding that we have seen a slippage from July to August. Can the Minister confirm whether that is indeed the case, and does he understand the concern felt by me and many other Members across the House in respect of the aspirational timeline he has set and the possibility that it will become harder to meet the deadlines? I might not attribute this to the same cynical reasons as the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire, but can the Minister assure us that if the date has indeed been moved, there will be no rushing of the later stages to get us back on track?
I appreciate the sentiment behind the aim of trying to transfer financial risk from the MOD to defence contractors, but does the Minister accept that in reality that is impossible, partly because we are talking about buying kit for our men and women serving on the front lines? The MOD will have to own and take accountability for those decisions, therefore, and any slippage or risk will ultimately be borne by the politicians, not BAE or Babcock or whoever else. I am also yet to be convinced that there is a practical way of transferring the financial risk, because. given the types and the size of the contracts, in the final analysis the MOD will still have to be the underwriter for those projects.
I have asked the Minister this question before, but I did not get a clear answer, so I will ask again: which country does he hold up as a good example of defence procurement? We often hear about the bad examples, but I have yet to hear that there is any good example. Perhaps the Chinese, for the obvious reason they tend to chop people’s heads off when it goes wrong? Which country would the Minister hold up as doing procurement well? The United States has some of the worst examples of procurement. We need only to look at the strike fighter to see that. That project’s costs have increased 100% in the past 10 years, from $100 million per airframe to $191 million.
Mr Brazier
Sweden, a country of just 8 million people, developed its own fast jet fighter. Its defence industry has an astonishing record of not only using high-quality equipment but finding diverse civil applications for many of its products.
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he has made that point about Sweden to the Defence Committee as well. I take on board the point that he is making about the Saab Gripen. My understanding is that the Swedes would say that they procure less badly than us or the United States; they would not say that they were a great procurer. The hon. Gentleman is probably right, however, and he has probably helped the Minister to avoid doing some homework. Sweden might be a reasonable example, although it does not have a fantastic track record on procurement schemes.
Let us bear in mind some of the problems that we have coming down the road, including the strike fighter. I apologise to my colleagues on the Defence Committee for having been something of a sceptic about the whole procurement system. An example can be seen in air-to-air refuelling. The A-variant of the strike fighter, which the US air force, Australia and most of our European allies are procuring, uses a probe and drogue refuelling system, whereas the B-variant and the C-variant, which we and the US Marine Corps are buying, use a boom refuelling system. Unfortunately, the two systems are not compatible with each other, so if the RAF were to win its argument for the A-variant, it would have to retrofit the Voyager tankers to enable them to be refuelled. That is an example of the UK, the US and others not being joined up, and it is absurd that we have got into such a situation. I shall not rehearse the arguments about the carrier, but the Defence Committee found that there had been an “immature understanding” of the decisions on the strike fighter and the carrier, and that not enough detailed work had been done before decisions were made. Will the Minister tell us how he is going to fix that problem?
There is a great deal to commend in the Bill. The fact that we have heard supportive remarks from the Opposition Front Benchers and from Back Benchers, who are not always sympathetic to the Secretary of State’s arguments, bodes well for the legislation. We all wish the Bill God speed.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my interest as a member of the reserve forces. I should like to start by paying tribute, as others have done, to the two reservists who died on the Brecon Beacons. My thoughts are with them and their families, and with their colleague who is still ill in hospital. I would also like to associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard) about the volunteers who assisted the reservists on that day. I am glad that he was able to put our thanks to them on record.
There clearly needs to be an inquiry into the incident, but I want to take this opportunity to put on record my sadness at the line being taken by some people, whom we might call “reservist sceptics”, that the death of those two young men is evidence that we cannot rely on reservists. We have lost those two young men, but in the past we have lost people from the regulars, too. We need to wait for an inquiry to find out what went wrong in this case, and there should be no attempt in the meantime to draw conclusions or wild and false deductions from this tragic event. I hope that all Members will support those sentiments.
Bob Stewart
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for letting me speak. As a company commander, I very nearly lost two regular soldiers on a 12-mile march in Akamas early one morning. They suffered heat exhaustion followed by heatstroke, but their lives were saved because we were near water—the Mediterranean. We chucked them in until the rescue helicopters came. Anyone who suggests that the two young men died on the Brecon Beacons because reservists are in some way substandard is way out of line. I suspect that all hon. Members would agree that such an assessment is fallacious and wrong.
Penny Mordaunt
I am grateful for my hon. and gallant Friend’s intervention, as his experience in this matter will back up my point.
In my experience, reservists are extremely dedicated individuals who have to reach the same standards as the regulars. The joint training between the two, instigated in the past few years and which it has been my privilege to experience, has been very powerful indeed. To achieve the recruitment and training we need for our future reserve forces, we need to focus on the detail and the dry administration: we need to ensure that people are getting their medicals swiftly; and their identity cards, joint personnel administration accounts and insurance cover need to be processed quickly if we are to retain interest from new recruits and deliver the throughput we need to regenerate that capability.
I am extremely pleased at the attention given and the offer made on strengthening the package not only to reservists, but to their employers. That is an excellent piece of work. I also hope that we will be able to focus on problems that lie in particular professions, where reservists are having real difficulty in meeting their training and deployment commitments. Anecdotally, teachers always seem to top that list, but one would think that that profession would be well geared up to cope with reservists, given the supply teaching system. I hope the Minister will be able to give that some attention.
There has been much focus on the issue of reserve forces as the major challenge facing the MOD, but I would argue that it is tiny in comparison with the challenges on Defence Equipment and Support. What we have had has not been fit for purpose; earlier in this Parliament, I highlighted the case of a frigate that was deployed to Libya with no defensive weapons on board. Historically, we seem to have been incapable of getting what we needed, where we needed it and in a state in which we could use it. It will be some time before these reforms come into effect. They are very much needed and I very much welcome them, but they will not take effect immediately. I hope that the Minister can provide reassurance that the status quo will not remain in the interim. We cannot wait for this Bill to take effect for further progress to be made; we need further improvements now. I very much recognise the considerable progress that has already been made, but it must continue and pick up pace.
Immense changes lie ahead for our armed forces and in how we procure for them. We must seek to protect our sovereign capabilities and the unique research, development and supply chain networks so evident in constituencies such as mine. We need to have a clear vision of what industrially is in our national interest. We need to consider: what technology should we be investing in with our research and development funds? What do we build enough of over a given cycle? What is genuinely innovative? What kit could we be using in trade deals, for example? To which countries should we be exporting? Clearly there are countries to which we do not want to sell particular kit, but it might be to our advantage, for diplomatic and defence reasons, to sell them naval assets to protect their oil platforms, for example. Outside the MOD we need a more sophisticated view on exports.
Much scepticism has been expressed in the Chamber this afternoon about an off-the-shelf approach, but people could be very reassured by reading the White Paper produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who is no longer in his place. [Hon. Members: “He is over there.”] I am glad that he is here for the pat on the back that I am giving him. That excellent White Paper captured the necessary subtleties when considering whether to retain particular sovereign capabilities and focusing on our national interests. We need to learn from the example of the MARS tanker contract, which he cited, because although a proposal might seem on paper to be the best decision for the budget and the procurement process, we must be aware of its knock-on effects on the supply chain. A number of companies would have found it difficult to get a foot in the door to supply kit for that project, including large companies with an export rate close to 50% of what they produce. We must learn from such experiences and guard against throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
For understandable reasons, the previous strategic defence and security review was not strategic enough. We therefore must ensure not only that the next one is strategic, but that a strategic approach permeates our defence procurement, because only then will we get the best value from our budget.
If the Minister will forgive me, I shall conclude by returning to a campaign about which he has heard me speak many times. As he sorts out the tangled mess of contracts that he has inherited, I hope that he will consider the case that building two ocean patrol vessels for the Royal Navy would be the best use of the budget. Obviously, I would want them to be built in Portsmouth, which would give the city a couple more years to put in place an excellent plan for the future of the dockyard. It would provide the overstretched Royal Navy with a couple more hulls, as well as freeing up the existing and future frigate fleet from undertaking tasks for which, frankly, frigates are not needed. I have bored the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and Ministers from the Ministry of Defence to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about this, and I thank them all for giving up their time to listen to me.
Mr Brazier
I hate to interrupt my hon. Friend’s compelling speech, but may I suggest that she could not possibly bore on that subject? She is absolutely right from a shipbuilding angle, as well as from the point of view of flexibility and value in the Navy, so full marks to her.
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the proposal would be a good idea for the Royal Navy and the taxpayer, as well something that would cheer him up no end. If the Minister agreed to my proposal, my happiness could be topped only if he also announced that he intended to revive the names HMS Portsmouth and HMS Penelope, which have been absent from the surface fleet for far too long. I thank him not only for listening, but for all the work that has gone into this excellent Bill.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who speaks with a great deal of personal experience from her commitment to her reserve career.
My thoughts and prayers are also with the families and friends of the two service personnel, including Lance Corporal Craig Roberts, who perished in the Brecon Beacons at the weekend, as well as with the soldier who remains seriously ill in hospital. Although our service personnel—regulars and reserves—are aware of the risks and challenges inherent in their service selection and training, and while we must all accept the necessity of gruelling and challenging assessment procedures, especially for our special forces, such processes should never be exempt from appropriate scrutiny by the MOD and external authorities. I hope that there will be a full and thorough investigation of the tragic events as a matter of urgency, especially in the light of the equally tragic death of Captain Robert Carnegie in the Brecon Beacons some months ago, also during a selection process. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard), I pay tribute to the work of the mountain rescue services and other rescue services in the Brecon Beacons that had to deal this weekend with not only the events I mentioned, but two tragic drownings in reservoirs in my hon. Friend’s constituency and in Brecon and Radnorshire.
Those tragic events occurred at a time when the Government are about to make some of the most significant changes in a generation to the make-up of our armed forces, especially with regard to the crucial relationships between the regulars, ex-regulars and reservists who make up our armed forces. The increasing demands that will be made on our reservists in operations, training and levels of recruitment will have a series of wide-ranging consequences that we may not be able to foresee in their entirety at this stage. I hope the Government will keep those under continuous assessment and ensure that if any further changes are needed in future, those are made.
I associate myself with the comments of the hon. and gallant Lady. I have no doubts whatever about the capability and commitment of individual reservists. I have seen that for myself in Helmand, where I saw reservists fully integrated into our operations there and doing incredible work. I met a senior civil servant who was a reservist contributing to our operations at Camp Bastion. I have also seen the work of our reservists at home. I have seen that in Wales in my constituency and in the region, where they play crucial roles, from preparing for civil emergencies to liaising with merchant shipping and to protecting the Olympics, which Cardiff was delighted to play its part in hosting last summer.
I was delighted a few weeks ago to be able to watch veterans, regulars, ex-regulars, reserves and cadets all march down the street together in Penarth in my constituency in recognition of Armed Forces day, and a few days later to see a similar gathering of regulars, reserves and others to celebrate Armed Forces day in Cardiff and, in particular, to learn about the work of the Royal Naval Reserve from the commander of HMS Cambria in Sully on the border of my constituency—work which draws on many of my constituents. I am well aware of the excellent work done by the other three facilities—the newly named Army Reserve in Cardiff at Morgan street, again on the borders of my constituency, Maindy barracks, which brought my father to Cardiff many years ago with the Army youth team, and in Gabalfa avenue.
The image that I saw of our regulars and our reserves marching together united down the street in a coherent and seamless fashion is clearly the Government’s intention in the reserve forces changes set out in the Bill, but I hope the Government show more coherence in the execution of that strategy than they did in the confusion surrounding announcements in the House recently.
I shall make a few brief remarks about the recruitment of reservists and in particular the move to a 70:30 split, which is a significant change predicated on a successful available uplift of the reserve capacity, while the regular Army, as we have heard from many hon. Members, faces a loss of 20,000 troops. The uplift is planned regardless of the timing and the coherence of the two changes and one being contingent on the other. We should be careful that no gaps in capacity or capability occur as a result. The Secretary of State admitted in a statement the other week in the House that many current reserve units remain heavily under-recruited, which is the justification for closing or rationalising a number of them.
From the details of the strategy, I am not yet totally convinced that the recruitment levels will meet expectations, particularly in view of the barriers to bringing reservists in that many hon. Members have spoken about and despite the measures in the Bill, a number of which are extremely welcome. The Bill sets out a number of measures to help us recruit more reservists and retain them in their employment. There are measures in clause 44 to deal with additional payments and measures in clause 43 to deal with unfair dismissal. As we have heard from others, little is said about the barriers that some reservists or potential reservists face in squaring their reserve career with potential new employers.
Mr Havard
Before my hon. Friend moves on to the particulars of the people being recruited, does he agree that one important consideration is that the figures given relate to ambitions for 2018 and 2020? We are on a journey from here to there. Therefore the sequencing of the number of reserves against the number of regulars may need to be monitored very carefully in order to see whether the ambitions set out can be achieved against the timings set out.
Stephen Doughty
I absolutely agree. There are some real questions that must be asked. Other significant changes are going on at the same time as this transition in the composition of our armed forces, such as the return of troops from Afghanistan and Germany, which are major logistical challenges.
I hope that all employers would see the value of having reservists on their staff, quite apart from demonstrating their commitment to wider national purposes, but sadly the reality is that we often see differences. Even when employers recognise that value, there are some genuine challenges, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) outlined, particularly for smaller companies. Obviously, that will be particularly so given the increased number of conditions under which our reserves can be deployed and the length of those deployments.
Therefore, will the Minister assure us that clear measures will be set out to support reservists in handling difficult questions from new or existing employers about the changes proposed by the Bill? The Bill and recent announcements have generated a great deal of media interest, which might have put worries or concerns into the minds of new or existing employers. I want to ensure that reservists and those who wish to join the reserves are properly equipped to deal with those challenges when asked questions by employers.
I understand that the MOD has outlined its intention to gather further evidence of any disadvantages faced by reservists and perhaps take further measures in a future armed forces Bill. The Secretary of State mentioned a website, but I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether there are any plans for a more comprehensive survey of those challenges, particularly over the transitional period in the months ahead. What surveying and information gathering will take place to ensure that there will be a response to any challenge that arises, whether in a particular sector of employment or particular areas of the country?
As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire said, there is evidence of real concern resulting from those comments, as last year the Army Reserve recruitment target was missed by more than 4,000. I want more assurances from Ministers that we will not see a rise in that figure. A worrying survey from the Federation of Small Businesses has shown that a third of employers said that nothing, including the measures set out in the Bill, would encourage them to take on reservists. What assessment have Ministers made of the impact on some reservists—hopefully only a few—who might to choose to leave the service given the changes in the length of deployment and other changes outlined in the Government’s proposals that might not fit their personal circumstances or the expectations they had when they first signed up?
I do not want to paint a bleak picture. I would certainly be willing to speak to any employer in my constituency who is worried about employing a reservist and to talk about the benefits for them and the employee. Nevertheless, we must recognise that there will be a major shift in numbers and expectations. I worry whether the Government might simply be over-reaching themselves, which could leave us with gaps in capability or put stresses and strains on our overall reserve forces that are not sustainable. The Secretary of State tried to brush off that concern earlier by describing it as a potential for “lumpiness” in the transition process, but that might understate the risk. How long does he expect that “lumpiness” to persist and what exact impact does he think it will have on capability? As I said, that comes alongside some major logistical changes resulting from the return of troops from Afghanistan and Germany.
Finally, I will turn briefly to some of the concerns that have been raised about procurement. I share the concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) raised about the potential squeezing out of smaller companies in defence supply chains. I certainly am aware of that from conversations I have had with companies in my constituency, such as BCB International, which provides excellent services and products to UK and other NATO armed forces. It provides a significant majority of camouflage paint and a significant proportion of survival gear, non-lethal devices and blast-protection equipment, and it does some excellent and innovative work. I want to hear more assurances from Ministers that such companies will not lose out as a result of these changes and that they will continue to play a valuable and innovative role in our defence supply chains.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
This has been a constructive and positive debate, and I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who made a valuable contribution to the debate along those lines. A discordant note was sounded by the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), who is no longer in his place, when he deviated into tomorrow’s debate on Trident and launched a bit of a pre-emptive strike on Liberal Democrat policy. Since Labour’s policy on nuclear weapons over the decades has itself been a bit of an unguided missile, it might be wise for Labour Members to look at the evidence and consider the possible value of the Trident alternatives review before finalising their policy too quickly.
Other hon. and gallant Members have made valuable and interesting contributions, including the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who is no longer in his place, who mentioned the allocation of command. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) made a stinging indictment of past procurement policy and outcomes, and we would all echo the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), whose remarks about the reservists who died recently in the Brecon Beacons were well made. In a debate such as this it is right to pay tribute to the courage, commitment and loyalty of all our armed forces, and to emphasise that those who die in training are people of no less courage, loyalty and commitment than those who die on active service.
This enabling Bill does not directly mandate the creation of a so-called GoCo procurement system, and neither does it set the terms of single-source contracts, the shape of new reserve forces or the plan for implementing them, as that is done in more detail in the White Paper. It does, however, give the Secretary of State power to change defence procurement and the way reservists are recruited and supported, and I think there is general consensus that such powers are badly needed, and that particularly for procurement, the existing system has not delivered. Let us consider some of the statistics: average timing overruns of 80%; cost overruns often 40% over estimate. Bernard Gray’s 2009 report suggested that we might be wasting as much as £1.5 billion a year through poor procurement. Clearly that cannot go on, and it is right for the Government to take tough decisions to tackle the issue.
That does not mean, however, that there are no possible criticisms of the GoCo model—we have heard some in this debate, and in another place Lord Lee made pointed criticisms about the possibilities of a GoCo. I raised in this Chamber the possible complexity of having various bodies involved in procurement and trying to align it. Those bodies obviously include NATO, the Ministry of Defence, the armed forces and eventual contractors, and now we are inserting the GoCo level into that process. I highlighted to the Secretary of State the possible risks of inefficiencies and complexity entering the system, and his reply was good. He said that any structure contains the risk of inefficiency and waste creeping into the system, and that whatever structure we create, we must focus on good management and monitoring, and good assessment of cost effectiveness and management of contracts. I am sure that is right. It is clear that something has to change, and the Bill is going down the right path.
Part 2 creates the regulatory framework for single-source contracts, which is an interesting case. The explanatory notes to the Bill explain the relevance of EU law, which requires most Government contracts to be subject to an open process involving
“publicly advertising the fact that the contract is available for tender, and then a competitive process to select the successful contractor.”
We have taken advantage, as have other states, of the exemption in the European treaties for
“measures which a Member State considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security”.
That is how single-source contracting has managed to develop on such a large scale. However, it has created the strange anomaly whereby there is currently no legal framework regulating defence single-source contracts, and so we are now putting in place something that will, in effect, regulate those contracts. I could make a small point about the value of the European Union on occasion, when we see exposed the fallacy of the argument advanced by some Members that we are beset by EU rules on all these issues. In this case, we find that where an EU rule does not apply, we feel the need to invent a substitute, and I am afraid that that would be the case in many other examples often cited in this Chamber. This is absolutely the right thing to do. I think we all instinctively know that where there are single suppliers, with no competition and no regulatory oversight, there is a real risk that uncompetitive results will be the outcome. We must address the obvious risk in the procurement of single-source contracts, and the Government are right to do so in this Bill.
Part 3 makes changes to reserve forces. This is a sensitive area to deal with but it is very necessary to do so. As we move further into the 21st century, the threats that our military are asked to counter and the demands on them are changing, and we need to look at a more flexible and light-footed model of personnel. The Government plan by 2020 to change the numbers in the Army from 102,000 to 82,000 regular soldiers but to balance that by increasing the number of reserves from 15,000 to 30,000 by 2018, with smaller increases in the maritime reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, giving us a total reserve armed forces of about 35,000 people. That is a different model that will prove more flexible and more cost-effective but make certain demands as well. If we are to have that level of reliance on our Army Reserve forces, we need to take some of the steps that the Government have considered in providing access to and use of the same equipment and vehicles as regulars, increasing reserves’ training commitments to 40 days a year, and pairing reserve units with regular units for training and deployment purposes.
I might add some ideas such as those put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) about trying to promote reserve liability. He has particularly identified the Gurkhas as a group who might figurehead and lead that process. Automatic reserve liability for the Gurkhas would send a positive signal that we are aiming for parity of esteem between the regular forces and the reserves. We should also be encouraging ex-regulars consciously to engage with the reserves.
I would like to draw attention to work that is being done in a slightly different context by a company based in my constituency. This may sound like a shameless plug for a local company, and perhaps it is, in a way. It is called Omega Resource Group and it is doing interesting work with 1 Rifles based on the employment of veterans, taking ex-regulars and trying to place them in civilian jobs in a way that makes the best use of their skills and markets those skills effectively. Although that might not seem immediately relevant, I think that it is. If we are to try to increase the demands on employers on behalf of our reserve forces, employers have to understand even more than before the value of having soldiers and military people as part of their establishment.
Omega has made a very good case for that. It says that there are widespread myths among employers—for instance, that soldiers have institutionalised thinking and are incapable of thinking out of the box. Omega points out that exactly the opposite is true—that modern soldiers are brilliant at thinking out of the box, problem-solving, and thinking tactically and differently from the way that might be expected. That kind of skill, resilience and flexibility is exactly what we should be trying to sell to employers. We will have to do that selling job because we will be putting greater demands on them if these increased reserve commitments are to be successful. We need to look at companies like Omega and, I am sure, many others that have experience of military personnel—some will already employ ex-military personnel—who can help to make a success of the whole process.
This is an enabling Bill that will allow us to move to a more flexible, light-footed, effective and, not unimportantly, cost-effective armed forces. For that reason, I am happy to join the seeming consensus throughout the Chamber in support of this very important measure.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be the tail-end Charlie in this important Second Reading debate. I begin, as others have done, by declaring an interest as a member of the reserve forces and the military stabilisation and support group.
While listening to this very interesting and informative debate, I had flashbacks to my time serving as a regular officer and some of the procurement problems our troops had with equipment, including the ever-promised better radio. The Bowman radio is now in use, but back in my day it was just a vision. We had the old Clansman set and must have been one of the few armies across the world still using open voice procedure that was not even encrypted. The SA80 was issued to us, only to be recalled because of problems with the catches. It was then mended and given back to us at double the cost of the original contract.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate and to place on record my gratitude to the Government Front Benchers for the work they have done not just in this area but right across defence. They deserve to be commended, particularly on procurement, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who worked very hard when he had that portfolio.
The Bill is a reflection of how seriously this Government take defence matters and is another significant milestone in Ministry of Defence reforms since 2010. We have seen improved operational decision making, thanks to the National Security Council, and the creation of the Defence Board, the primary MOD decision-making body, which under the previous Government did not include the Secretary of State. We have seen the introduction of real-time control of major equipment programmes in order to stop spiralling costs and delays, and the major projects review board is taking note of and monitoring the top 20 programmes. A focus on British exports has led to an increase in the world market share, boosting support for our small and medium-sized enterprises, and the completion of the long overdue basing review ensures that Her Majesty’s forces are now represented right across the Union. We have also developed an exit strategy from Afghanistan after inheriting a war that had no clear mission, and we have enshrined in law, through the military covenant, the nation’s lifelong duty of care to those who serve in the armed forces. Finally, as has been said time and again, the Secretary of State and his team have, after inheriting a defence budget in deficit, managed to balance the MOD’s books.
Those reforms continue with this Second Reading debate, which has focused on two main areas: the way in which equipment is procured, and the balancing of our regular and reserve forces. It is important to understand the landscape this Government inherited. I am afraid that a glance at Labour’s efforts on procurement makes worrying reading. The majority of the equipment projects ran over budget, as explained in detail by the National Audit Office major projects report of 2010. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and others are right to say that many legacy issues go further back in time, but during my time in the British Army—and certainly during my time in Parliament —we always asked why the issue of procurement was not being grasped in the way it has been today.
Bob Stewart
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for allowing me to intervene. I was a staff officer in the Ministry of Defence in 1984, when the world was black and white. I well remember Michael Heseltine introducing a system called “lean look and sharp sword”, which we were told would sort out procurement for ever. I totally agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), who implied that we have not got the answer to a maiden’s prayer. Whatever we get, we will still have—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We need short interventions, not major speeches at this stage. I am sure that the question is coming.
Bob Stewart
There is no question; it is a statement. We have not got the solution and we will still have a problem.
Mr Ellwood
I am very grateful for that statement. My hon. Friend makes an important point. A concern that dates back even to those times is that many of those who have been in charge of procurement have not stayed in their posts for long. Indeed, the people in uniform who filled those posts would spend six to 18 months on a project and, once they were conversant with it, would be rotated out and back to a front-line posting or elsewhere, and all that knowledge would be lost. The mistakes were made because the knowledge was not passed on correctly.
I want to look at some of the big issues that have been mentioned in this debate. The Queen Elizabeth class carriers project, which started in 1998, was deliberately delayed by the last Government at a cost of more than £1 billion. The cost of the Nimrod spiralled out of control. Nine aircraft cost as much as three space shuttles. That was outrageous spending. When we came into government, we decided to stop that process, because not one of the aircraft was able to get an airworthiness certificate and get into the sky.
The Typhoon has also been mentioned many times: an example of procuring for the last war rather than looking ahead. It is a cold war fighter plane that is unable to hit anything on the ground. Not only does it have no ground attack capability—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) wants to intervene I will happily give way; if not, I ask her please to listen to what I am saying.
Mr Ellwood
Let me finish this point about the Typhoon; then I will be delighted to give way. Unlike other aircraft of its generation, the Typhoon has a flight control system designed by one country and a weapons release system designed by another. That means that every time a missile system upgrade is required, two complex computer systems have to be reconciled, which makes it far too complicated and costly to do any major upgrades to the software or the missiles. That is why there is a delay in converting the Typhoon from an air-to-air aircraft to a multi-role aircraft with ground attack capability.
Thomas Docherty
My concern is that, as the tail-end batsman, the hon. Gentleman is bringing a level of partisanship to the debate that we have not had so far. He needs to say sorry for the part he played in the Defence team that did two ridiculous U-turns on the aircraft carrier, which opened a capability gap on carrier strike that would not otherwise have existed and that led to more money being wasted. I agree with his point about our time in government, but does he accept that his Government have also made mistakes?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I might be able to help everybody. I know that Mr Ellwood is going to discuss the Bill and will not continue discussing the theme of past events.
Mr Ellwood
I accept your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will not mention the AirTanker project or the fact that the last Government got rid of the Sea Harriers; I will certainly move on. There was a lack of clarity and direction under Labour and, I concede, under previous Governments. That was not just because of procurement, but because of the unclear strategies—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. We are going to discuss the Bill. We are not going to keep going back in time, as much as Mr Docherty is tempting you to do so, Mr Ellwood. I know that, as the tail-end Charlie, you want to deal with the Bill.
Mr Ellwood
Again, I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker.
If I may, I will talk about the complications in procurement projects that can cause costs to increase. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife gave the example of the Typhoon and said how the costs had ratcheted up. However, the F-16 is now seen as one of the most successful aircraft in the world, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to listen. It went through a torrid procurement process, but the unit cost has now shrunk because the problems have been removed and enough units have been sold to drive the price down. We are just beginning to grasp the nettle and we need to ensure that we can sell such equipment across the world.
With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will turn to the Bill. In debating defence procurement it would be remiss of me not to mention the work of Bernard Gray, who first highlighted the worrying state of UK procurement of military equipment, which consumes approximately 40% of the annual defence budget. In his 2009 report, he described the MOD as having a
“substantially overheated equipment programme, with too many types of equipment being ordered for too large a range of tasks at too high a specification”.
That, as successive NAO reports confirmed, is completely unsustainable. I am pleased that the Minister is willing to take up many of the 53 recommendations in Lord Levene’s report on defence reform, and Lord Currie’s report on single-source pricing regulations included the requirement to upgrade the yellow book and a recommendation to introduce a single-source regulations office.
In an intervention, I posed a question on the concerns that I and others have about a possible clash of interests if a GoCo is owned by a foreign operator, an issue that perhaps needs to be explored in Committee. “Off the shelf” has been mentioned as a possible way forward: instead of procuring ourselves, we could simply purchase whatever we need. We saw what happened in Afghanistan when there was a rush to recognise that the Snatch Land Rover was inadequate for our troops there. We suddenly saw the Cougar, Vector, Jackal and Bulldog being purchased off the shelf at huge cost to the taxpayer, until eventually something was found—the Mastiff—that was adequate for the troops. Going shopping and hoping that we hit on the right thing is the not the way to look after our troops on the front line.
On the balance of regular and reserve forces, as I mentioned, I am a member of the reserves and my last exercise was in Laikipia in Kenya. Halfway through the two-and-a-half week exercise, we came together to discuss the future of the TA and its impact on each of us. Round the table, we had to say what would happen if we were required to break away from our jobs for nine months. Not one person in my group was able to put up their hand and say that their employer would be able to grant them permission to be away from work for that period. I hope we can pursue this issue in Committee. We need to secure employees’ rights to ensure that jobs can be protected, otherwise we will struggle to meet the demands of increasing the size of the reserves.
Due to the changing nature of warfare, greater emphasis is now being placed on stabilisation operations. That has been illustrated in both Iraq and Afghanistan, where the kinetic phase of war ended quickly but there was no unconditional surrender. I am reminded of the study by General Charles Krulak, who described the concept of the three-block war: soldiers can be fighting one week, doing stabilisation operations the next and engaging in peacekeeping the week after. Reserves often have civilian skills that regulars do not have, which can be used for those peacekeeping and stabilisation roles.
I am also pleased to see that the relationship between the MOD and the Department for International Development has changed substantially since the Iraq war, when DFID was told that the war was illegal and that it was not allowed to support our military operationally. That was absolutely wrong and I was astonished that Clare Short, in a debate on Iraq, admitted to that. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is shaking his head. I will show him in Hansard where she said that she thought the war was illegal and therefore did not want to participate in it.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I do not think that DFID is relevant to the Bill. I have allowed a little leeway, but I am worried that the time is being used to discuss what has happened previously. I want the debate to continue on where we are now.
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall come to a conclusion.
The Bill will introduce some of the biggest changes since the creation of the TA in 1908 by the Secretary of State for War, Richard Haldane. Today, the TA represents more than one quarter of our manpower in the British Army. It was never intended to go overseas, but the first world war changed that, and it is now used in all sorts of circumstances to provide not just military but civilian support. The Bill will bring greater job security to those in uniform, result in more funds for training and provide better equipment for the reservists. It is fair to say that we owe all those who serve a debt of gratitude. It is we politicians who put soldiers, be they regulars or reservists, in harm’s way, and I join others in paying tribute to their and their families’ commitment. I welcome the Government’s reforms since 2010 and I very much welcome the Bill.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This has been a wide-ranging, interesting and thoughtful debate that has raised a series of concerns, including the basic one of whether we should go down the GoCo route. Many speakers raised the issue of intellectual property, particularly commercial confidentiality and our relationships with partners and other nations. That was vocalised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who has established herself in this place as a bit of a defence expert. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) mentioned the need to ensure that if foreign companies or employees are to be included, the protections around IP and commercial confidentiality are not insubstantial. Despite assurances from a former Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who is back in his place, that will require further exploration in Committee.
The hon. Member for Canterbury also spoke with great knowledge about the reserve force. I hope he will bring that experience to bear in Committee, because clearly this is something that many hon. Members would like to debate further. There are issues to do with the recruitment of reservists, the policy of cutting the Army, particularly before we have a clear idea of where recruitment to the reserves will come from, and the protections for those signing up.
I thank the Chair of the Defence Select Committee, the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), for his contribution, which brought his wisdom and knowledge to bear, and for his many questions. He flagged up the risk Ministers have taken, going, as it were, where no one has gone before, and asked where the risk would sit. Will it sit with the Secretary of State, the GoCo or the taxpayer? He also expressed concerns about time slippages and the lack of a plan B for the reserve force.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard) raised several questions about the bigger picture and concerns about the totality of the reforms. He asked if control would be pushed too far away to be meaningful. I think the whole House listened with great sympathy to his comments about the role of the emergency services during the tragic events in Brecon. I am sure the Minister will respond at length on that.
We also heard from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). I shall not be drawn into a debate on the nuclear deterrent or whether the Trident review is half-baked.
Alison Seabeck
Yes, perhaps not even half-baked.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham made some valuable points about the GoCo, its complexity and the treatment of reservists, and he dallied tantalisingly with European legislation—very dangerous territory in this place.
We also heard from the gallant tail-end Charlie, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who was frankly lucky not to be shot down by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). The hon. Gentleman had a very selective memory of the projects he discussed, which distracted from his important opening point about flagging up some of the problems that the Gray review and this Bill seek to correct.
Alison Seabeck
No, I will not; I will carry on, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. He has had more than his time to make the points he wanted to make. Perhaps he will be on the Committee and we can discuss the issue further.
In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) talked about the background to the need for change and the importance of not jeopardising the ability of our defence industries to deliver world-class equipment to our front-line forces. We have to say loudly and clearly that, ultimately, we have to get this right if we are serious about giving our soldiers, sailors and airmen and women the kit and support they need when carrying out their role of protecting our nation. We cannot cut corners; we need to sharpen up our act. The question is therefore this: does this proposal cut the mustard?
Procurement and the problems associated with it are issues not just for the public sector but for the private sector. As we have seen, getting large projects delivered on time and to budget is a problem not just for the Ministry of Defence but for companies outside. Wembley stadium is an example. It is neither easy nor straightforward to procure for large projects and contracts, which is why we on the Labour Benches have been interested to see the results brought forward by the Chief of Defence Matériel, based on work started under the last Labour Government. The Government will also need to convince Members of this House, the Public Accounts Committee and those outside that they are capable of negotiating and supervising a contract that will be one of the most complex undertaken, given past history—a point touched on by the former Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire. I would add that anything that this House decides must not risk destabilising our defence industrial sector, our prime contractors or their supply chain—which is made up of innovative and high-quality small and medium-sized enterprises—in a way that might reduce our ability to deliver in the UK the projects that are vital to this nation’s security.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) talked about the focus on price rather than value. He was concerned about the arbitrary nine-year contracts and the potential instability and uncertainty. He also intimated that there was a need for a wider defence industrial strategy.
The much respected former Minister the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire waxed nostalgically lyrical about the Bill. He also made the point, in a non-partisan way, that our armed forces are currently well equipped. His observations on the single source regulations office were acute, and he is correct that the weighty impact assessment is an interesting and valuable document. I am sure that the Minister has noted his remarks about the potential exemptions of foreign companies—as well as the concerns others have raised—and the need for a level playing field. I thank the former Minister for his gracious acknowledgement that whatever the party political differences, we have a shared interest in getting the best possible legislation through this House. Scrutiny and engagement from Her Majesty’s Opposition are part of that process.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife for delivering a speech that had great depth and was very probing of all parts of the Bill. He has been assiduous in his preparation, and I hope he will want to serve on the Committee. He also asked legitimate questions about the Department’s finances and the need to avoid a revolving-door culture. Again, that is something on which we might want to seek reassurances in Committee.
The jury is still very much out on whether the GoCo approach in part 1 of the Bill is a panacea. The points made by many right hon. and hon. Members bear out some of those anxieties. It is vital that the Committee set up to scrutinise the Bill does so with great care and attention to detail, because the devil is always in the detail and this is a very techie—if I may use that term —piece of legislation. It is in no one’s interest—that of the Government, the Opposition, business or the work force—for us to rush the Bill through or simply assume that it must be better than the status quo or DE&S-plus.
We are still not clear about the view of our key allies and partners, especially the USA, towards these proposals. On the other side of the channel, too, the French are looking at them with interest—and, I suspect, with some concern. Indeed, the impact assessment highlights the fact that one of the key risks associated with the Bill is that our international partners might not fully accept the proposals. The MOD itself has acknowledged that although the Minister has received assurances from the Americans, rumours still abound, so they will need to be put down firmly in Committee with some evidence to back up the assertions made. As we know, the Americans have set up a taskforce to follow the UK’s proposals.
My hon. Friends and I will want to be convinced—I am sure that the Treasury will need convincing, too—that this is the best option. We will also need convincing—in the light of major concerns about outsourcing, particularly to G4S, and the history of failures that we have seen—that this model is significantly different, that the safeguards in place are robust and that the taxpayer will not be at risk of having to pick up the pieces. We all witnessed armed service personnel stepping up to the plate when G4S failed in its Olympic delivery. Now we have further horror stories to add, so what protections will there be to ensure that it does not happen again?
Members in the other place will look carefully at the way in which the discussion moves through Committee and, given the wealth of expertise—former permanent secretaries, former Secretaries of State for Defence and former heads of the armed services—I have no doubt that the Bill will be given an extremely thorough and testing passage.
We broadly support the proposals to create an SSRO and, specifically, to replace the yellow book, designed to bring rigour to the process and to drive cost savings. However, we will want to probe a number of issues, including the level of power that the Secretary of State will hold over this “independent” body. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool voiced concerns about specific clauses and exports in this regard.
Part 3 is, of course, about our reserve forces, and many Members have spoken to the four relevant clauses. We support an enhanced role for the reserves, which have historically made a significant contribution to the armed forces and UK security. Tragically, some have paid the ultimate sacrifice. Our thoughts are with the family and friends of the two young men who lost their lives this week. I would like to endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who spoke with such good sense about the need to avoid speculation about what happened in the Brecon Beacons and made thoughtful comments about how to expand our reserve force.
We are concerned that the reserves are being used to regain capabilities lost through the cuts made to our regular forces, which have gone above and beyond those outlined in the strategic defence and security review. We are concerned that the cart has been put before the horse, and we are concerned, too, about recruitment and retention levels and whether we can reach the level cited by the Government. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for bringing to this debate his relatively recent but clearly quite deep expertise on the issue of reservists.
We have concerns about whether employment patterns will be compatible enough to allow for prolonged deployment, which could become more frequent under these reforms. That is of particular concern to SMEs’ employees, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire made clear in his opening speech.
In winding up, I would like to thank right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to what has been a thorough and thoughtful debate. I hope some of them will volunteer for the Public Bill Committee. In closing, I say simply that we Opposition Members do understand the rationale for all the changes in Bill, but we will need to be satisfied that there are no unanticipated consequences and that, ultimately, the defence of our realm, the industry and people who support it will be at no additional risk in the long term because of a failure fully and openly to scrutinise the measures that are being brought forward.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)
Let me start by adding my sympathies to those expressed to the families of the two reservists who have died so tragically on the Brecon Beacons during this hot weather. I also join the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard) in paying tribute to the volunteer mountain rescue teams who were so helpful in that rescue effort.
I am pleased to be able to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) and to welcome the tone that she and the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), adopted in their speeches. Frankly, that tone has been adopted in virtually every speech. It is interesting that in a debate on a subject that the hon. Lady describes as technical but others might describe as dry, Members on both sides of the House—my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who showed an intimate knowledge of the subject, Members who serve on the Defence Committee, those who serve gallantly in the reserve forces, and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who undertook the reserves commission work earlier this year—have demonstrated a great deal of expertise. I am sure that many of them will be looking forward to serving on the Public Bill Committee for a number of weeks in the autumn. The debate has been a good start to the House’s scrutiny of the Bill and I hope that we can look forward to its continuing in the same tone.
It is clear that the objective of the Bill is shared across the House: we need to provide our armed forces with the support they need and to take appropriate measures to ensure that the reserve forces can be used as part of the integrated Future Force structure, with individual reservists appropriately protected in their role and their employers better rewarded for the contribution they make in supporting the reserve forces. Many points of detail have been raised in the debate and I shall try to cover some of them, but I am sure that those which I fail to cover in my summing up will be picked up in Committee.
It is encouraging that we have developed a clear sense of consensus across the House and I want to assist in that process in Committee. I shall ensure that draft regulations under part 2 are available when the Committee undertakes its detailed scrutiny, as the single source provisions are some of the most complex. By the time the Bill is scrutinised in the other place, we will have draft regulations available for part 3.
The measures set out in the Bill represent a real change to how the Ministry of Defence will conduct its business in future. They will allow us fundamentally to reform Defence Equipment and Support and to strengthen the regime governing single-source procurement. That will help to ensure that equipment and capabilities are delivered on time, on budget and to the right specification. The Bill will also enable us to make the best use of and offer the best support to our reserve forces and their employers. The sooner we make these changes, the sooner the benefits to both the armed forces and the taxpayer will become reality.
The Bill covers three main areas, including two aspects of procurement—DE&S and single source—and the reserves. Let me pick up on some of the comments by reviewing the contributions of hon. Members before I conclude my speech.
The shadow Secretary of State made a broadly welcome series of comments about the Bill and asked a couple of specific questions that I think I can address now. One was about the FSB survey and whether small employers were critical of our proposals for the reserves. Of course, the survey of FSB members was undertaken in advance of the publication of the White Paper. Since then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and the Chairman of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) mentioned, the FSB has endorsed many of the points we have made, which is clearly helpful.
The right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire also asked whether we would introduce employment protections for staff. The staff in the DE&S who will transfer into a GoCo, if we go down that route, will fall under the TUPE regulations, which would all apply. There would be no special risk to those individuals. I shall come on to some of the other employment points shortly.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Bill would require additional costs for funding of the reserves. We have set aside £1.8 billion for that purpose, which includes the cost of payments to small and medium-sized enterprises, and there will be no net additional costs. Incidentally, we have defined SMEs as businesses employing a maximum of 250 staff with a turnover of £25 million or less. There are a number of possible definitions.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire posed some specific challenges. He suggested that there had been a slippage in the timetable for the commercial contracting. I can confirm that we expect the invitation to negotiate to be dispatched later this month. We are merely waiting for cross-Government final approvals, which we expect to receive this month. There should therefore be no slippage in our programme, and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening speech, we expect conclusions to be reached next year.
My right hon. Friend asked which domain would go first. In the White Paper, we predicted a phased approach. The identity of the domain to go first will be disclosed in the ITN, which will be made public. He also asked whether we would make public some of the internal documentation that we have used when considering the various options. We intend to publish the business case for the initial gate review which was undertaken earlier in the year.
My right hon. Friend asked why we needed a statutory procedure for the single-source arrangements. The existing arrangements, which are voluntary, have been in place for 45 years, and do not work. We have concluded that, as Lord Currie recommended, they should be given the force of statute to ensure that the contractors honour the undertakings given under the single-source arrangements. The system will be policed independently by the new single source regulations office, whose staff will be selected by an appointments committee and whose chairman and chief executive will be recommended by the Secretary of State. It will subsequently appoint its own staff, and will be funded jointly by the MOD and the companies themselves. My right hon. Friend asked whether the single-source arrangements would apply to foreign military sales to the United States. They will not, but we expect the vast majority of single-source contracts to be covered by the new regimes.
My right hon. Friend and others asked a number of questions about intellectual property protection. The Bill contains a number of safeguards to cover both the intellectual property owned by the companies and the international property rights that protect state secrets and sovereign data. We are confident that, in the event of a GoCo operation, sensitive information will not be passed up to parent companies through the corporate veil, regardless of whether those companies are owned by the United Kingdom.
The Bill controls the handling of confidential information supplied to the MOD by contractors under previous and existing contracts. Those will be passed to the GoCo so that it can carry out its tasks. Schedule 2 makes detailed provisions relating to unauthorised disclosures and unauthorised use of the information by the GoCo. The contract will also include a comprehensive suite of provisions to protect the MOD’s own confidential information, including new confidential and security-classified information, which is generated as a consequence of procurement activities. The provisions specifically include restrictions on the passing of information to parent companies. Other provisions will prohibit the transmission of sensitive information to foreign nationals, or to individuals who do not have the correct security clearances and the need to know.
The contract will also include requirements for employees to meet nationality restrictions—for example where access to information is restricted to UK eyes only—as they are at present for a number of contracts within DE&S. Only potentially contracting entities will have to satisfy us that they can meet all these requirements and manage these restrictions. It should also be noted that the Official Secrets Act will also apply where appropriate to those staff in the GoCo, who will also be subject to confidentiality clauses in their own contracts as now. Given all these safeguards, I am confident that sensitive information within the GoCo will remain within the GoCo and we will be able to address concerns hon. Members have raised in that regard.
We have also been asked by a number of Members about the impact of foreign shareholders in a GoCo entity. Clearly the national security interests of the country are the primary responsibility of Government and we will make sure they are protected. If we have concerns in that area, that will be a reason not to select a GoCo route. Given the scale of activity it is likely that the winner of a competition for a GoCo will be a consortium. It is highly likely that members of the consortium will include US companies who have made approaches to us thus far, and we will ensure that a future GoCo is suitably constructed in order to protect UK interests. The contracting entity will be UK-domiciled and UK-registered and we have specified that the overwhelming majority of the contracts shall be performed in the UK, where the company will, of course, pay tax, as the Secretary of State has said.
That addresses issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire. Other Members have raised concerns about the risk of transferring activities of the GoCo into the private sector and whether that would impose undue risk on the contractor. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard) asked about this. A GoCo contractor would act as agent of the MOD so the principal risk would reside primarily with the MOD. The risk that would transfer would be risk of non-delivery, which would form part of the performance fee of the contractor operating the GoCo. That element would be at risk, but the principal risk for fulfilling contracts would reside with the Secretary of State.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury raised a number of points in relation to reserves provisions. Many of these matters are not properly part of the Bill. I am sure he will seek to press some of these points in Committee, however, and I will be happy to discuss them with him if and when we get there. On his point about whether there should be officers dedicated to reserves and whether they should hold senior posts, the intention is for the reserves to be more closely integrated within the regular forces, as he identified. We are looking at a whole-force concept and command structure. I will be happy to talk to him further about those points in Committee.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) raised some questions about the potential challenges of a nine-year contract for a GoCo and about whether that might be too short. We envisage that there will be pricing points within that period. We wish to maintain a competitive tension during the course of that contract, and at the end of the contract a successful bidder would be in prime position to renew their contract but we would retender it.
The hon. Gentleman and several other Members raised a number of points regarding MOD policy, such as how we will ensure that exports remain encouraged. That will be a matter for MOD policy-setters. The GoCo entity will implement policy introduced by the MOD. We are in the process of introducing exportability as part of our contracting arrangements for existing contracts, and we envisage that would continue.
I have already paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire as one of the authors of the measures in this Bill. He gave a very good example in relation to exports of the reciprocity that we are seeing from countries such as South Korea. I will be in Korea next week visiting some of the companies that he knows from the work that he did, and seeking to identify further examples of reciprocity affecting British job prospects. My hon. Friend also asked about the speed of our work. I think that I have already addressed that point in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline and East Fife (Thomas Docherty) touched on—
Mr Dunne
West Fife—my apologies. The hon. Gentleman touched on the need to maintain research and development and asked how that would work in the GoCo structure. He mentioned the figure of 1.2%. It is a policy commitment of the MOD to spend that percentage of our budget on science and technology. Our research and development budget is somewhat larger than that, however. In fact, we are spending approximately £1 billion on research and development within our programmes in addition to the science and technology budget. It will be an important part of the policy setting, should a GoCo be the successful outcome, that we should to continue to direct the science and technology spend and the research and development spend, as we would for any normal procurement.
I need to bring my remarks to a conclusion. I want to thank all the Members who have contributed to the debate for the quality of their contributions and the penetrating issues that they have raised. I am looking forward to working with them in Committee. There is clearly widespread support for the need to reform the way in which we procure defence equipment, and a real commitment to ensuring that we get these reforms right.
The Defence Reform Bill provides the legislation that we need to make far-reaching changes to the way in which we procure our defence capabilities. The changes will not only improve the support we give to our armed forces but make specific improvements for reservists and for their employers, who are an integral partner in enabling the reserve forces to function. The measures will also ensure that the taxpayer gets value for money. We must not miss this opportunity to make essential changes to the way in which we manage and deliver defence. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
defence reform Bill (programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Defence Reform Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 24 October 2013.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other Proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Mr Dunne.)
Question agreed to.
Defence reform Bill (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Defence Reform Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(1) any expenditure of the Secretary of State required by the Act to be paid out of money provided by Parliament;
(2) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State; and
(3) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Anne Milton.)
Question agreed to.
Tougher legislation on dangerous dogs
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to associate myself with the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling). I am presenting a petition on behalf of the residents of Blackpool South in identical terms to that presented by my hon. Friend.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Blackpool South,
Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government’s current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001208]
European Union (Referendum) Bill (Money)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the European Union (Referendum) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(1) any expenditure of the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act, and
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.
It is standard Government procedure to introduce a money resolution for any private Member’s Bill to which the House has given a Second Reading to enable the Bill to be fully debated in Committee. It is inevitable that costs would be incurred in holding a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union, and a money resolution is required to enable those costs to be paid.
Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the chair of the Electoral Commission is the chief counting officer, responsible for the conduct of referendums. So far, no detailed estimate has been made of the cost of this national referendum. We do, however, have the precedent of the referendum on the parliamentary voting system in May 2011. We would expect the cost of running a UK-wide referendum to be similar to the cost of that referendum on the alternative vote system, which was just over £75.3 million. Of course, that would depend in part on whether a referendum on EU membership were held alongside local or other elections, as the alternative vote referendum was. I commend the motion to the House.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
As my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary said on Second Reading, any decisions about the European Union and about an in/out referendum should be taken in the national interest, and the Opposition do not believe that such a referendum in 2017, as proposed in the Bill, is in the national interest. The Prime Minister, in January, chose an arbitrary date in order to keep his Back Benchers on side. The Bill also sets out the 2017 date, which does not reflect any realistic timetable of treaty change, given that the French and Dutch Governments, and many others, including even the German Government, have now gone cool on the idea. The Bill sets an arbitrary date that does not represent a clear negotiating strategy, and I fear it has been motivated by a desire to paper over the deep divisions in the Conservative party on whether the UK should remain a member of the European Union. It seems that the Bill has been introduced because Conservative Back Benchers, such as the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), simply do not trust their own party leader and Prime Minister to deliver on his January speech.
Although the Opposition will not oppose the money resolution attached to the Bill, the Government still need to answer serious and significant questions about the expenditure implications of the Bill. The shadow Europe Minister—[Interruption.] Sorry, the Minister for Europe—
Emma Reynolds
Soon to be shadow, I hope.
The Minister for Europe said that he could not give a number for, or approximate cost of, the expenditure needed for a referendum. He has, however, some questions to answer on whether particular groups will be included in this specific referendum. Will the good people of Gibraltar, who have a right to vote in European parliamentary elections, be included in this franchise? Will British people living abroad have the right to vote? Will 16 and 17-year-olds have the right to vote in this referendum, as they will have in next year’s Scottish referendum? Finally, and importantly, will British service personnel serving abroad have the right to vote in the referendum foreseen by this Bill? I fear that the Government have not answered any of those questions today.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
I shall be brief, Mr Speaker. First, I wish to put on the record my thanks to the Committee of Selection, which has pulled together the Committee that will now consider this Bill as it goes forward, following this evening’s resolution. I also wish to put on record my thanks to the House and the Government for following the convention that a private Member’s Bill that secures its Second Reading will secure its money resolution and be able to be taken forward.
I very much look forward to going through many of these issues in detail with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds). I hope that we can do that in the spirit of finding mutual ground, co-operation and agreement on an extremely important issue, rather than trying to make it a difficult and arduous process for all involved. I am sure that that will be the case. I am grateful to all hon. Members for the support I believe they will give this resolution, and I look forward, in due course, to bringing the Bill back on Report.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I wish to speak on the money resolution. This is not the speech that I was not called to give in the debate on 5 July, nor is it the single transferable speech I would have given, had I been chosen to be a member of the Committee, on various amendments that I have tabled. I cannot understand why I was not chosen, given that I am so keen to debate these issues. Perhaps it is because there is a view out there—I had an e-mail this afternoon claiming this—that I am trying to wreck the Bill. I am not trying to do that, and I wish to focus these remarks on some of its expenditure implications.
The Minister talked about the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. However, the Bill makes no reference to that Act, so we must consider the nature of the question that would be put in a referendum. The original draft Bill, which was published by the Conservative party on 14 May, proposed the question:
“Do you think that the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union?”
However, the European Union (Referendum) Bill sets out a different question:
“Do you think that the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union?”
The Daily Mail suggested that Eurosceptic Conservative Members were unhappy about the original wording and that it had been changed because
“anti-Brussels MPs privately protested that the word ‘remain’ would prompt voters to stay in”.
As the Bill proceeds through Committee, I hope that that change will be explored further.
My hon. Friend the shadow Minister referred to the timing of the proposed referendum. The date that is chosen will have implications for the referendum. As the Minister said, if a referendum were held on the same day as local or European Parliament elections, the costs could be minimised and turnout would probably be significantly higher. Perhaps we should consider whether we should have a threshold for turnout, as was the case for the Scottish referendum in the 1970s, but that is not a matter for today.
If we were to hold the referendum on the same day as next year’s European Parliament elections—22 May 2014—expenditure on the referendum and its associated literature would be greatly reduced. Those arguing for leaving the European Union could then presumably vote for the UK Independence party, or perhaps the Conservatives, while voting to leave in the referendum. The cost of the literature put out by the respective parties would then be considerably smaller, although I am not entirely sure what the Conservative party’s literature would say about such a referendum.
The referendum could be held on the same day as the next general election, which will take place on the first Thursday in May 2015. Such an approach would similarly minimise the cost, as well as giving at least one of the coalition parties, or perhaps both, more time to clarify their attitude to the in-or-out question on the European Union.
There are implications of holding the referendum after the 2015 general election, given the rule that a Parliament cannot bind its successor. We are presumably being asked to vote for the money resolution on the basis that a commitment is being made for the future, but it might not be carried through if a different Government are elected at the next general election and they want to take a different approach.
If we are to hold the referendum by 31 December 2017, as is proposed, there might be implications for the British presidency of the European Union, which is due to begin on 1 July 2017. We could hold the referendum on the same day that the United Kingdom takes over the presidency, which might minimise costs because the literature published about the programme for the British presidency could refer to the referendum. If we held the referendum later that year—during the British presidency —it would help to publicise the various events that would be held to celebrate Britain’s contribution to the European Union, so I would look forward to that. The Bill does not deal with those options, but I hope that they will be explored in Committee.
We could minimise costs, and give the Conservative part of the Government more time to renegotiate the special arrangements that they wish to put in place, by holding a referendum on the same day as the 2020 general election. Based on the same arguments as I used before about the 2015 election, that too would be a way to minimise the cost that would be incurred.
The Prime Minister has said that he wants to reduce the cost of politics. It seems a strange way to go about reducing the cost of politics to bring in a referendum which, as the Minister said, will cost millions of pounds, and at the same time try to reduce the number of Members of the House of Commons, but increase the number of Members in the other place.
Mike Gapes
I do not wish to detain the House too long because I wish to celebrate later the passing of the equal marriage Bill. I hope that along with all my colleagues on the Opposition Benches and many on the Government Benches—or most of those on the Opposition Benches and some on the Government Benches—we will be able to celebrate the equal marriage Bill. Therefore it is not my intention to divide the House this evening.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
May I correct the hon. Gentleman? It is not an equal marriage Bill because it does not provide for non-consummation or adultery. Therefore it cannot be described as equal marriage.
Mike Gapes
I suspect, Mr Speaker, that you would not wish me to get into the next debate so I shall not be tempted to go down that route. [Interruption.] But we could, of course, discuss wider issues—the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is shouting at me from a sedentary position, but I will not be tempted. I remember our exchanges over the Maastricht treaty in the early 1990s and I would much rather debate the referendum with him now.
These are important issues. The Bill needs proper scrutiny. It therefore needs to be considered carefully in Committee, and when it comes out of Committee—whenever that is—in several months, it will need to be properly considered in the House on Report and before it gets, or if it gets, a Third Reading. There are too many important questions to be considered for it to be assumed that the Bill should be pushed through without proper scrutiny and debate. The future of our country in Europe is at stake. Therefore the House and the country expect nothing less than the proper parliamentary scrutiny appropriate for a parliamentary democracy, not a democracy that is undermined by what a former Labour Prime Minister called a device of demagogues and dictators, which was quoted favourably by Margaret Thatcher when she was Leader of the Opposition in the debate in 1975. In that debate she said, and I conclude on this—[Interruption.] I know that Conservative Members were frustrated when they were unable to get their Margaret Thatcher day. At least I will quote Margaret Thatcher—
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Tim Loughton
I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He might like to take the opportunity, before he ends, to mention the money resolution which is supposed to be the subject of this debate. So far he has not done so.
Mr Speaker
It is not necessary to repeat the refrain “money resolution” so long as the content of the remarks of an hon. Member relates clearly to the purpose of the resolution. I have been attending closely to the hon. Gentleman’s expatiations and so far he has met the criterion. I do not want him to depart from the path of virtue as he nears his end.
Mike Gapes
I would never intend to depart from the path of virtue, Mr Speaker.
Mrs Thatcher said that the 1975 referendum had been introduced as
“a tactical device to get over a split in their own party.”—[Official Report, 11 March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 306.]
Those are the words she used to describe the policy put forward by the then Labour Government, and I believe that they are completely appropriate to describe the policy now being put forward by the split part of this split Government—the Conservative part of the coalition.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I am in broad sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, but since he is now repeating things I said on Second Reading, I wonder, given the historic vote on equal marriage that we are waiting to cast, whether it would not be better to stop banging on about Europe just for a bit.
Mike Gapes
Yes, of course. Had I not taken the previous two interventions, I would have finished by now. I was just about the give the House the benefits of Margaret Thatcher’s words of wisdom in 1975, but I was faced with two interventions, and now I have taken three. I am happy to conclude my remarks and hope to return to these issues later in the year if the Bill reaches consideration on Report.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I do not intend to detain the House for long, because I accept that there is an important piece of legislation to consider after this, but it is important to highlight the fact that the British taxpayer will be faced with a bill of £75 million, as the Minister said, for what is basically an internal debate within the Conservative party. I wanted to intervene on the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) earlier, because I would like to know what he would do if he were given £75 million to spend in his constituency. I am sure that there are many projects there that have been cut by the Government and that could more justifiably be argued for than the proposed referendum.
The Minister said that the referendum would cost £75 million, provided that the Bill was used in relation to the voting system, but it could cost a lot more, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) has already demonstrated. If we include Gibraltar, and I can see no reason why we should not—I do not know what the hon. Member for Stockton South has against it—because it votes in European referendums, that would add to the cost. We also should not forget the overseas territories, which have the access rights that others have in the EU. Why should they not be consulted on their future status? I argue that they should, but again that would add to the costs.
Another debate, which I know is taking place in Scotland, is whether 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to vote. If they are, that would add more costs. Another issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South referred to is the fact that in 1975 the Government provided money to the yes and no campaigns. Is it proposed that Government money will be given to the yes and no campaigns for this referendum? If it is, that will mean the cost will be more than £75 million. We can clearly see that, in addition to his point about whether the referendum will be on the same day as other elections, that will lead to a great deal more than £75 million.
The important point for the hon. Member for Stockton South is this: can he really say to his constituents—I know Stockton South very well, as he knows—that in excess of £100 million of Government money should be spent on this referendum, and all to solve an internal debate in the Tory party, rather than our relationship with Europe? Can he or any other Member who supports the referendum really justify spending more than £100 million on it? I know what I would do with the money in my constituency: I would replace the money that has been taken out of the Building Schools for the Future programme. Once we explain to people that the Bill will use well in excess of £100 million, I am sure that most of them would agree that it could be spent a hell of a lot better.
Emma Reynolds
Does my hon. Friend find it surprising, given that the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) said the day before his name was drawn at the top of the ballot that there were issues much more pressing than an EU referendum, such as the economy and jobs, that he suddenly changed his mind 24 hours later?
Mr Jones
The hon. Member for Stockton South has a small majority, so he might be promoting this Bill to endear himself to the selection panels of future safe Tory seats, rather than to the electors of Stockton South who, as my hon. Friend is right to say, would have many more priorities for spending in excess of £100 million.
Will a referendum solve the problem? No, it will not and some hon. Members try to paper over the real issues that will face the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, quite rightly, has argued in favour of membership of the EU, but the big question for him is which way he will vote—yes or no. Will he support state funding for this referendum? We will then see cracks opening up in the Conservative party between those who are pragmatists in Europe and those who represent the more extreme section of his party. That is the question that will face the Prime Minister, and it will not change between now and 2017.
A lot of questions will obviously—and rightly—be explored in Committee, but as the Minister for Europe said, the Bill has passed Second Reading and private Member’s Bill money resolutions are usually supported. There is nothing wrong with agreeing to such a process, but I conclude with a question. The cost will be in excess of £100 million. I know that many of my constituents, and those of other hon. Members, will ask how we could spend £100 million in a better way. There are many ways better than wasting it on this Bill which, as I have said, is about the internal politics of the Conservative party, rather than what is in Britain’s best interest.
Question put and agreed to.
Marriage (Same sex couples) bill: programme (no. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 5 February 2013 (Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (Programme)) and 20 May 2013 (Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
Subsequent stages
2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mr Robert Syms.)
Question agreed to.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Mr Speaker
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments 10, 11, 15, 16, 26, 27, 34, 54 and 55. If the House agrees to any of these amendments, I will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.
Clause 2
Marriage according to religious rites: no compulsion to solemnize etc
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Maria Miller)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2, 3 10, 11, 15, 16, 26, 27, 34, 41 to 44, and 51 to 55.
Maria Miller
The title of this Bill might be “Marriage”, but its fabric is about freedom and respect: freedom to marry regardless of sexuality or gender, but also freedom to believe that marriage should be of one man with one woman and not be marginalised. It provides clear affirmation that as a nation, respect for each and every person is paramount, regardless of age, religion, gender, ethnicity or sexuality.
Throughout this Bill we have listened closely to the issues raised with us, and I particularly thank the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), and the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), for the impressive way that they handled this Bill in Committee. The issues raised in Committee have been looked at thoroughly, and these further amendments will improve the Bill and strengthen its effectiveness. I also thank the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) for their constructive and considerate contributions.
Lords amendments 1 and 2 clarify the meaning of “compelled” in clause 2, which provides important protections to ensure that religious organisations and their representatives cannot be compelled to opt in to, or conduct marriages between same-sex couples.
Maria Miller
If my hon. Friend will give me a moment to make a little more progress, then of course I will give way.
The amendments were tabled in response to questions asked in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and those in the other place who were concerned that the protection from compulsion set out in clause 2 might be too narrow because the meaning of “compulsion” was not clear. We concluded that we could clarify the meaning of the word “compelled” in this context and make sure that in doing so we were not doing harm elsewhere. The sensible clarification that “compelled” means “compelled by any means” put the question beyond doubt, and it was warmly welcomed in the other place.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps she might add to her list of tributes my hon. Friends the Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) so that it does not just include Opposition Members who support her Bill but colleagues who have done considerable work in scrutinising it.
Maria Miller
I thank my hon. Friend for making sure that we pay tribute to those on both sides of the debate, whether it be my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate or my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). They have all played their part in making sure that we will have a strong piece of legislation that protects people who have deeply held religious beliefs and those who believe that it is absolutely right and fair that marriage should be open to same-sex couples.
The guiding principle of this Bill, from the start, has been the protection and promotion of religious freedoms, so we have made a number of other amendments to ensure that the religious protections that it contains are as strong, clear and effective as they can be. They include amendment 3 on the Jewish governing authorities, amendments 38, 39, 40, 48, 49 and 52 on void marriages, and amendment 51 on a change of personnel within a governing authority.
Some people are concerned about the effect of the Bill on the broader issue of freedom to express the belief that marriage should be only between a man and a woman—in particular, in relation to employment and schools. We want to ensure that that freedom of expression is protected, as, I am sure, would my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth). That has guided our thinking throughout the passage of the Bill. We have listened to these arguments and acted. Our amendment to the Public Order Act 1986, amendment 53, puts it beyond doubt that the discussion or criticism of marriage regarding the sex of the parties to it shall not be taken, of itself, to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation. The belief that marriage should be of one man with one woman is, of course, mainstream, legitimate and lawful, and it is explicitly recognised as such by the religious protections contained in the Bill. Whatever one’s view about the marriage of same-sex couples, it is legitimate and the Government will protect the right to express it. I hope that that provides the reassurance that several right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have been looking for.
Extending marriage to same-sex couples changes nothing in respect of freedom of speech. That is why, in relation to other questions about the operation of the Equality Act 2010, particularly on the position of employees and teachers, we are clear that further changes to the law are not necessary and could indeed be harmful in casting doubt where none currently exists. For this reason, we believe that the best way to deliver clarity is through guidance to deal with the particular concerns that have been expressed, not by making specific provision in the law. We will therefore work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to ensure that guidance will be available on how the Equality Act should be interpreted in the light of this Bill.
I am aware that there is considerable anxiety on the issue of teachers. I would like further to reassure hon. Members that, in the unlikely event that unforeseen consequences materialised, the Bill already contains ample powers to take action, particularly in paragraph 27 of schedule 4. These powers make it possible to disapply or modify, should circumstances require it, the default approach provided in clause 11 and schedule 3 whereby marriage has the same effect in law for same-sex couples as for opposite-sex couples.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
On the Equality Act, will my right hon. Friend explain why it was not considered appropriate to make marriage between a man and a woman a protected characteristic?
Maria Miller
I know that my hon. Friend raises that point for legitimate reasons: he wants to make sure that the House has clarification, and I respect that. I refer him back to the lengthy debate on this issue in Committee, where it was decided that further reassurance or clarification was not required and that, to avoid any scintilla of doubt, an amendment should be made to the Public Order Act to ensure that anyone who states that marriage is only between one man and one woman should not be taken as having criminal intent. We will achieve that through the Public Order Act, so we do not need to do so through the Equality Act.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I concur with the Minister on the Equality Act. Indeed, I referred to it a number of times in Committee and have done so in debates in the House. Is it not the case that the Equality Act balances protected characteristics, such as those of religious belief and sexuality?
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman, who sat on the Committee, makes a strong point, but we have to recognise that people require reassurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) has sought that reassurance and I hope he will join me in supporting the amendment to the Public Order Act so that there is absolute clarity for those who may remain concerned.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her detailed clarification on the issues of compulsion on the grounds of religion and with regard to teachers in particular, because they have formed the basis of most of the letters of objection that I have received from constituents. Now that those points have been clarified, people’s fears can be put to rest.
Dame Angela Watkinson
We can now allow the Bill to progress and legislate on equal rights for gay people.
Maria Miller
As always, my hon. Friend makes a powerful comment. I hope that she is right that this lays to rest those concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said from a sedentary position that that was not the case, so perhaps I could give him an example of how we could use these provisions. Should problems arise in faith schools as a result of this Bill’s effect on section 304 of the Education Act 1996 or the guidance made under it, these provisions could be used to resolve them. I hope that that provides the further reassurance for which my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough is looking.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I appreciate the assurances being given by my right hon. Friend. She promised that the Government would consider whether any amendments or guidance were needed, particularly in relation to education. I appreciate that the other place has considered the issue, but am I right to understand that the Minister is now giving an undertaking that if there are any practical concerns on the ground about teachers promoting or endorsing same-sex marriage, she will consider the evidence and would then be willing to use her order-making powers under clause 11 to ensure proper clarity?
Maria Miller
I do not think that my hon. Friend heard me right. I said that there are provisions in the Bill and the decision about whether they should be used will be made as and when any problems arise. My hon. Friend is right that any issues that arise can be dealt with under clause 11 and schedule 3 in particular. I hope that that provides him and other hon. Members with the sort of reassurance for which they are looking. I think that many of us, if not everyone, in this House understand the critical role that faith schools play in all our communities and I am sure that we all want to do everything we can to ensure that there is clarity and certainty so that they can continue to teach according to their faiths and beliefs.
I think that this is an appropriate point to address amendments (a) and (b) that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has tabled to Lords amendment—
Mr Speaker
I fear not, notwithstanding the good intentions of the Minister, on the grounds that those amendments are included in the second group. The Minister is ahead of herself. She should not be condemned for that, but I know that she would not wish to be disorderly. She may return to her previous position or stick to her last, if I may put it that way.
Maria Miller
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. As always, you are extremely helpful. I would never want to be ahead of myself, particularly not when discussing this Bill.
The powers in paragraph 27 of schedule 4 are very specific. They are safeguarding powers to prevent the Bill from having a greater effect than is intended. I hope that hon. Members are able to look at that—
Mr Speaker
I do not wish to be unhelpful to the Minister, rather the contrary, but my strong impression, and I have guidance to confirm it, is that, having chosen the material that is the subject of the grouping, she is moving beyond that grouping and encroaching on other territory, which, in a parliamentary sense—the only sense in which I would ever accuse the right hon. Lady of this—is disorderly. I would not want her to be guilty of disorderly conduct, but in a parliamentary sense she is. She has strayed into it and she needs to get back to the group to which she was talking. If she has completed her consideration of the group, there is no obligation on her to continue her speech.
Maria Miller
Thank you for bringing me into order, Mr Speaker. I would like to move on to Lords amendments 41 to 44, because the Bill also introduces—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The Members who are chuntering from a sedentary position with evident disapproval should know that the Minister is absolutely in order. Amendments 41 to 44 are within the group and it is perfectly proper for the Minister to treat of them. I am not sure whether the heckling was calculated or ironic, but it was wrong.
Sir Edward Leigh
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would never seek to use irony against you, so do not worry.
Mr Speaker
I am not sure whether I am supposed to be comforted by that observation, but it is on the record.
Maria Miller
I think that we should turn the House’s attention to amendments 41 to 44 before we become more sidetracked.
The Bill introduces an important advance for trans people who wish for their marriages to continue after seeking gender recognition. We have made a number of amendments to achieve that. First, Lords amendments 41 and 44 introduce a fast-track procedure for those who transitioned a long time ago, but who have not sought legal gender change, so that they can remain in their marriage. Secondly, Lords amendments 42 and 43 make it clear that the consent of a trans person’s spouse is simply consent to staying married after the trans person’s gender recognition; it is not consent to their gender recognition and is therefore not a veto to it.
There are two further issues on which the Government have recognised the strength of feeling here and in the other place, and on which we have undertaken to establish a proper evidence base. Lords amendments 10, 15, 26 and 54 provide for a statutory consultation on whether marriage law in England and Wales should be changed to enable belief organisations to conduct legally valid marriages. That was not part of the original policy intent of the Bill and careful consideration is required before any legislative action can be taken, including a full public consultation. It is entirely sensible that that should now be done.
Those amendments are the fruits of a great cross-party effort to achieve an agreed position and to provide a sensible and considered way forward. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my noble Friend, Baroness Stowell and the noble Lord Wallace of Tankerness for the careful and considered way in which they presented the Bill in the other place. By working with Opposition Front Benchers, we have achieved considerable progress in this area.
Sir Gerald Howarth
My right hon. Friend mentions Baroness Stowell, who said in another place that
“marriage does not require the fidelity of couples. It is open to each couple to decide for themselves on the importance of fidelity within their own relationship.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 June 2013; Vol. 746, c. 379.]
I find it absolutely astonishing and unbelievable that a Conservative Government Minister should be uttering that. Does my right hon. Friend agree? Is that the Government’s view of marriage?
Maria Miller
My view of marriage is clearly that fidelity can be extremely important. This is something on which my hon. Friend and I would very much agree. It can be a commitment between two individuals on, one would hope, a lifelong basis. I think he and I would share the importance of fidelity in that relationship.
Another area of the Bill that has been considered in great detail is that of pensions. Amendment 11, with amendments 16, 27, 34 and 55, deals with survivor benefits under occupational pension schemes. During debate in this House and in the other place important questions were raised, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), about the differences between opposite sex married couples and same-sex married couples with regard to these benefits. The House is fully aware that historically there are many pre-existing discrepancies within the pensions system. To equalise these benefits would come with a considerable price tag. Amendment 11 represents a sensible way forward and has cross-party acceptance. It commits the Government to arranging a review of differences and survivor benefits in occupational pension schemes, and includes an order-making power should one be needed.
Amendments 4 to 8, 12 to 14, 17 to 21, 23—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister has strayed again into the second group. I think that she has in this regard been ill-served by people whose grasp of parliamentary procedure could perhaps do with a little brushing up.
Mr Speaker
I note the sedentary observation from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). The Minister should return to the first group, with which she was dealing. If she has dealt with that group to her satisfaction, we can always await with interest and anticipation her remarks on the second group, but only when we reach it.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I am pleased to welcome the Bill back to the House, and not only because the Chamber is the only cool place in the building and it is some relief to be in here.
This evening, we will see the Bill through its final stages and have the chance to wish it well on its way to Royal Assent. We have the chance to consider the Bill as it is returned to us from the Lords, with the amendments they have tabled. As a result of the Bill, gay and lesbian couples will be able to get married, just as their parents did and just as their friends and relatives do. Couples who love each other are getting engaged already: they are preparing to tie the knot and getting ready for a great party. I have a sneaking suspicion that even some of the opponents of the Bill—certainly many of its supporters—are rather envious of those who are on the Elton John and David Furnish guest list. That will certainly be a proper party.
It is striking how much warmth and celebration the Bill has received. I join the Secretary of State in thanking the House of Lords for its strong cross-party support for the Bill. In particular, I thank Baroness Thornton and Baroness Royall, who led the Labour Front-Bench team in the Lords, but also Baroness Stowell who led for the Government. I am sure the Secretary of State will join me in thanking Lord Alli, who did such a fantastic job building support throughout the other place over many months.
I thank the Prime Minister for sticking with the Bill when those around him called for a halt, and I thank the Secretary of State and her Ministers, who have worked extremely hard; I know how much of their time this has taken up in the Department and Parliament. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who worked so hard from the Labour Front Bench, and all my hon. Friends who came to support the Bill. I am very glad that Labour votes got the Bill through its Second and Third Readings in the House and that we will support it again tonight.
I also thank hon. Members from all parties who voted for the Bill despite personal pressures, perhaps from their faith group, the Government Benches or local political parties. It is not an easy thing to do, but it is the right thing to do.
Mr Burrowes
The right hon. Lady talks about the time the other place gave to scrutinising the Bill, which I respect, but can she point to any non-Government amendments that made it through that scrutiny process? Does she not give some credence to the concerns of the noble Lord Framlingham, who said:
“This House prides itself on being a revising Chamber. On this Bill it has been a bulldozer. We are being used to bulldoze through an ill thought through Bill”?—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2013; Vol. 747, c. 543.]
Yvette Cooper
I strongly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The Lords have debated the Bill extensively and have given it strong support. It is true that many of the amendments have Government support, but that reflects the detailed discussions that have taken place between Ministers, Back Benchers and Opposition Front Benchers. For example, the Government now support the amendments on humanism and so on, which they did not when we debated these issues before. As a result of those debates and our efforts to compromise and ensure that the Bill made progress, we reached agreement even among those who disagreed on certain issues. We did that to support the Bill and to promote the strong values that we celebrate in marriage.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
On the question of celebration, can we spare a thought for those persons, including supporters of Stonewall, who rallied across the road while the Bill was in the other place, celebrating with rainbow flags, costumes and free ice cream from a well-known ice cream maker—
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right. While we have been debating the Bill, we have been not only lobbied, but serenaded, most fabulously by the London Gay Men’s Chorus, who sang a rousing version of “Get me to the Church on Time”, which we all joined in with, as the Bill got its Second Reading in the House of Lords. That was a loud and proud, joyous celebration of love, laughter and marriage. That is the spirit in which we should see the Bill through its final stages this evening. As a result of this vote, same-sex couples will have the same recognition and respect from the state, and the same recognition under the law, for their relationship and their love. Because marriage is about the ups and downs, the long-term commitment through thick and thin, so this is also about the right to grow old and grumpy together under the banner of marriage. This is indeed time to celebrate, not discriminate.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
As someone who celebrates his 40th wedding anniversary next month and has had many ups and downs, I ask my right hon. Friend: is the Bill not about having a caring relationship between two people who love each other, making that commitment for life and making it all worth while? Why should anyone be excluded from that?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right, although I would never accuse him, whom I know so well, of growing old and grumpy with anybody, even after 40 years of marriage. We congratulate him as he celebrates his 40th anniversary.
This is about people celebrating their love for each other regardless of gender or sexuality. That is why the Bill is so important, after we have had changes in the law on the age of consent, membership of the armed forces, discrimination and adoption. In the words of Stonewall, this Bill is the final piece in the jigsaw to get equality under the law, and it is one we should welcome and celebrate.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
Would my right hon. Friend add to that list the repeal of section 28? Despite all the concerns, it has done no harm, just as this Bill will do no harm.
Mr Speaker
Order. It is perhaps understandable, but the remarks on both sides are in danger of causing this debate to become a kind of Third Reading debate, which it must not become. There are Lords amendments before us, and it is on those that Members’ remarks must be focused.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that by accepting this group of Lords amendments, we will be completing a journey that started, as she rightly said, with the Adoption and Children Act 2002? I and other hon. Members moved amendments to that legislation to give same-sex couples the right to apply to adopt. They were opposed by Conservative Front Benchers, which resulted in your resignation from that Front Bench, Mr Speaker, and started you on a journey that resulted in your being in the Chair this evening.
Yvette Cooper
In the spirit of your ruling, Mr Speaker, let me say that the reason the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) and for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) are relevant—not only to the Lords amendments we are considering, but to the amendments that many people have tried to make, and certainly from the Back Benches—is that there has been a debate about what happens in schools and teaching. We know that the removal of section 28 has been a good thing, which is an example of why people are wrong to be concerned about the impact on teaching. As the Secretary of State said, there are many safeguards in law to protect freedom of religion and belief in these matters, but also to ensure that we do not discriminate. That is what the amendments and this Bill are all about.
I want to refer to some of the most significant amendments passed in the other place, one of which deals with humanism. We made it clear in the House—as have many others—that we support the principle of allowing humanist weddings in England and Wales. We know that 2,500 non-religious couples in Scotland every year already enjoy the meaning and sentiment that having a humanist ceremony can bring to their special day. Humanist weddings are now the third most popular choice of ceremony in Scotland. I gather that humanist funerals are also quite popular in both England and Wales, as well as in Scotland. When it comes to weddings, we think that couples in England and Wales should be able to enjoy the same choices in how they celebrate as they do in their final rites.
Fiona O'Donnell
My right hon. Friend is generous in giving way again. As we have humanist naming ceremonies —she also referred to humanist funerals—does she not think it right that the whole journey of an individual and their family should have that seamless thread running through it?
Yvette Cooper
That is right. People should be able to have that choice. This is about what are the most important moments in people’s and family’s lives—births and weddings, as well as death and saying goodbye to a loved one. People should be able to choose how those crucial events in their lives are celebrated. That is why we think it right for people to be able to enjoy humanist celebrations as well.
Stephen Doughty
I totally concur with the points my right hon. Friend is making about humanist marriage, and I am glad the Government came back with amendments on this issue. Does she agree that there are important protections in the amendments made in the other place to prevent the possibility of crazy things such as Jedi weddings? This is about humanist weddings, which are very specific. It is not about commercial weddings, Jedi weddings or any of the other scaremongering that we have heard.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. We debated humanism when the Bill was in this place and in Committee, and the Government originally stated that they would not support amendments that would deliver humanist wedding ceremonies in this Bill, citing concern about delaying its passage. We did not, of course, want to delay the Bill’s passage or to create complexities that might have caused unintended problems elsewhere. That is why we did not, in the end, press the matter to a final vote in the Commons, but allowed the proposals to be further considered in the Lords so that Ministers could discuss them further.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Could the right hon. Lady assist me by explaining the difference, if there is one, between marriage and weddings? She seems to be using the latter form rather than the former.
Yvette Cooper
Weddings are fabulous celebrations, and I really love going to them, but I do not love going to marriages. Marriage is something that people commit to for the whole of their lives—it has ups and downs; pain as well as pleasure and beauty—so it is obviously a very different thing from the one-day fabulous celebration that we all want to enjoy at weddings. However, I think we have a great opportunity to celebrate both weddings and marriages—that is what the Bill is about—and that long-term loving commitment that two people want to make to each other: to put up with each other when things get tough, to look after each other through illness or old age. Being able to make that commitment is hugely important. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) clearly seems to find this something he does not want to celebrate. I suspect he would celebrate such loving commitment in an opposite-sex marriage, so why will he not do so in a same-sex marriage as well? I urge him to do so, to give us a smile and just enjoy the fact that other people are going to get married as a result of this legislation.
Mr Speaker
Order. I think that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has been celebrating his own marriage for 29 years.
Barbara Keeley
Talking of celebrations, Mr Speaker, I want to celebrate the fact that Labour’s shadow equality team has supported all the way through this amendment on the notion of humanist weddings. I am very pleased to see Lords amendment 10 tabled. Some years ago, I attended a humanist funeral for someone in my constituency, and it is one of the most moving occasions I have ever attended. It attested to the value of such a ceremony for somebody with humanist beliefs. I look forward, as I am sure other Members do, to a time after the consultation and review when we will be able to attend humanist marriages. I particularly wanted to celebrate the fact that the Opposition have supported this all the way along.
Yvette Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston and my noble Friend Baroness Thornton have had many meetings with the British Humanist Association and have worked with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who has been a keen supporter of enabling humanist weddings.
I turn to pension survivor benefits, on which a major amendment was passed in the other place. We want to ensure that through this Bill, we make some progress towards addressing the remaining pensions inequalities between same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Measures have already been taken to equalise survivor benefit entitlements for civil partners with those of widowers under public sector and contracted-out schemes, and I welcome that. However, the estimates of the cost of equalising the remaining differences in survivor benefits have so far been very wide ranging. Everyone has accepted that the equalisation of pensions would involve some small and direct cost to private pension schemes, and the Government have asserted at different stages that equalising the benefits for civil partners and married couples of the same sex could result in a wide range of costs, but we have never seen any breakdown of those costs or of how they are calculated.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
Would the right hon. Lady be surprised to hear that neither the House of Commons Library nor the National Association of Pension Funds can provide a list of contracted-in schemes, which means that we cannot identify how the figure was calculated?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We also tried to find out through the House of Commons Library and others how some of the costings produced by the Government could be calculated. Everybody wants to ensure that the approach to the legislation and to pensions is fiscally responsible, and we need to understand what the costs might be, so it has been very frustrating that we have not had a detailed breakdown that justifies the claims of large costs. That makes it implausible to many experts that such costs would accrue. Many experts believe that the costs would not be those that Ministers have suggested would be incurred at different stages. That is why it is right to make this progress in the legislation.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way and for her comments earlier about humanist weddings, which we will come back to later. The anomaly with pensions started with the civil partnerships legislation and was about to be continued, but is she really saying that equality should depend on price? Surely we want people to be equal regardless of their sexuality, and cost should not stop us ensuring that.
Yvette Cooper
I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is right to get an assessment of what the costs should be before making any decision. It is right to get the information, but unfortunately it has not been forthcoming. Although we have pressed the issue in the Commons and in meetings with Ministers, including the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb)—a member of the same party as the hon. Gentleman who will, I hope, encourage him to provide the detailed evidence we need—it looks to many experts as though the proposal is affordable, doable and will not incur the considerable costs that the Government have suggested. The amendment provides a sensible compromise that will not delay the progress of the Bill while allowing us to make some progress on pensions.
Mike Freer
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, who is being very generous in giving way. Does she agree that whatever the cost, when contribution rates are the same, whether someone is straight or gay, it is not equitable that the pension benefits are different? If people pay the same, they should get the same.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman makes exactly the right point about the principle of equality that we should be pursuing. That is why we wanted to see progress made on the legislation. We supported the compromise position proposed by the Government so that we did not delay the Bill but could make progress towards ensuring that the costings were set out and we would have the power to make the changes and establish the equality we all want. That is the right approach.
Kevin Brennan
Will proposed new subsection (6) in amendment 11, which gives the Secretary of State power to make an order in relation to pension benefits, mean that the order will come back to the House in any way, shape or form before it is made? Or are we allowing the Secretary of State the powers to make such an order without further parliamentary scrutiny?
Yvette Cooper
I hope that the Government will be able to make rapid progress and to introduce orders. It is right that they should look into the legal details and consequences of doing so, but I hope that we will be able to see that progress and to scrutinise such orders in this place.
Let me refer briefly to the amendments that relate to a group of people affected by the Bill who are sometimes overlooked in these debates and who still face enormous prejudice—that is, men and women who are transgender. Under the Bill, couples who want to remain married when one partner changes gender will for the first time be able to do so. I am pleased that the Government have made that concession and have allowed a fast-track procedure for gender recognition certificates to take place in particular circumstances, and I am pleased that the issue was debated in such detail in the House of Lords.
Yvette Cooper
I do. The issue was debated in Committee, but, given the huge effect that the present situation has on some people’s lives, it tends not to be considered much in comparison with the consideration that is given to other issues. The House of Lords was able to consider it at length, and I believe that we should support its amendments. I know that some Members of both Houses wanted more changes to be made to the Bill, or indeed opposed it in the first place.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
May I ask the right hon. Lady a question that I should have asked her earlier? The “humanist” amendment, which she supports, prescribes a clear timetable: a review must be
“produced and published before 1 January 2015.”
Why did she not consider it necessary to demand a timetable for the review of civil partnerships, which she supported during an earlier stage of the Bill’s passage? That provision is open-ended.
Yvette Cooper
I am in favour of a similar, or even more rapid, timetable for the civil partnerships review. In fact, during one of our earlier debates I said that I should like it to proceed alongside consideration of the Bill. Obviously it is for the Government to set the timetable, and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, many of the amendments are a result of discussion and compromise along the way, but I agree that rapid progress and consultation on the civil partnerships review would be useful.
Mr Burrowes
The right hon. Lady has just mentioned discussion and compromise. I am not sure whether we are going to discuss Lords amendment 53, which allows freedom of
“discussion or criticism of marriage”,
but I understand that Labour accepted it in the other place. Obviously such discourse should not be
“threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”
I understand that there was previously a commitment—which, indeed, was included in the Labour party manifesto —to repeal section 29JA of the Public Order Act 1986, the so-called Waddington amendment. Is it now the case that Labour would not proceed with that commitment if it ever had the opportunity to do so?
Yvette Cooper
We took the view that the amendment to the Public Order Act was not necessary, because there was already considerable protection for freedom of religion and freedom of speech. However, we accepted the Government’s amendment because we were content to accept a clarification of the Public Order Act, and because we thought it right to support the Bill. As I have said many times, the Bill is the product of a great deal of cross-party discussion and compromise on a number of issues which took place to ensure that progress could be made.
Other Members wanted to see further changes, but I think that there is already strong protection in case law, in primary legislation and, indeed, in the Human Rights Act for freedom of religion, freedom of belief and freedom of speech. Freedom of speech goes in both directions. Just as the Bill rightly respects and protects the freedom of belief of those who do not want to celebrate same-sex marriage as part of their religion, we should support and respect freedom of belief for faith groups who do want to celebrate it. It is worth reflecting on the fact that these amendments and these debates show just how far we have come in a short period of time for LGBT equality. When the Labour Government proposed changes to the law to get rid of section 28, to end the bar on serving in the armed forces, to end discrimination in employment, to allow gay adoption and to end discrimination in the provision of goods and services, each time there was strong opposition, but now those changes are taken for granted even by those who opposed them at the time.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
Does the right hon. Lady agree that it is not just attitudes in this House or the other place that have changed, but that there has been a fundamental change in attitudes among the British public? People’s attitudes to sexuality have changed in a very progressive way. A majority of people want to see the law changed. The polling shows a very clear skew between younger voters and older voters, too, so it is very clear in which direction public opinion is moving. That, more than anything, is the key force behind this Bill.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman is exactly right about that change in attitudes, and we heard it from some Members in the House of Lords who now strongly support this Bill, having previously opposed other legislation that provided for equality in this area. As the legislation has changed, so attitudes have changed, and as the legislation has changed further, so attitudes have changed further. Step by step, the law and public attitudes have moved forward in a progressive way, and we need to complete those steps. I hope we will do so now with the passage of this Bill.
Ms Abbott
It is certainly the case that attitudes in this country have changed, but we have still to see more progress around the world. Just yesterday a prominent Cameroon gay rights activist was found murdered there. Their neck was broken and their body was broken. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this debate on this group of amendments this evening will encourage people all over the world to follow the progressive attitudes we are talking about?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend. As the House of Lords was discussing these amendments, I was talking to some of those outside who were joining in the demonstrations in support of this Bill. There were some who are involved in Ugandan and Cameroon groups and organisations who are campaigning for basic human rights for people who live in those countries and can find themselves persecuted. They certainly do not enjoy equality before the law or basic human rights and respect for their freedom as well as for their relationships.
I hope this is not simply the end of a process, because this is not just about the legislation. It is also about how we make sure it is implemented in practice and how we go further in terms of equality. I hope that many of those who have opposed this Bill will come to celebrate it in future. I hope that many of the religious organisations and Churches whose religious freedom we have rightly respected and protected will also change their minds in future and celebrate the marriages of same-sex couples in their congregations. I hope, too, that all of us will do more to challenge discrimination and injustice wherever we find it—challenge prejudice and homophobic bullying in schools or the workplace—so that no one is discriminated against on grounds of sexuality and gender.
In previous debates on the Bill, I have quoted those who have been most affected by it, and I hope that you will indulge me, Mr Speaker, if I conclude my remarks on the amendments by quoting briefly from an e-mail from someone who has contacted me to tell me of his support for the legislation. It is important that we in the House hear the voices of those who are most heavily affected by the legislation that we are debating.
I received this e-mail from a 19-year-old man after the Bill had completed its previous stages in this House, and while it was being debated in the House of Lords. He was concerned that the House of Lords might somehow not pass the Bill, and he wrote this to me:
“Whilst I have known for a few years that I am gay, it was only five weeks ago that I came out to my parents and close friends. Prior to this, I had gone through an initial stage of denial and then a stage of acceptance but without having anyone to turn to. The progress of the Bill through Parliament has pushed LGBT equality up the political agenda and made me feel more accepted by the society in which I live....This legislation will help young people who find themselves in a similar situation that I was in a year ago. They will be assured in the knowledge that the law recognises their relationships equally to heterosexual relationships. I have struggled through this stage of my life and now live safe in the knowledge that my close family and friends accept me for who I am...History will most certainly be on your side. With the greatest sincerity, thank you.”
I want to conclude by saying to the House: thank you for supporting this legislation, and I hope that we will send it strongly on its way to Royal Assent this evening.
Mr Burrowes
I wish to speak to amendments 1 and 2. Throughout the passage of the Bill, Ministers have acted in good faith and with good intentions to make it clear that they did not want it to encroach on religious liberty. In fact, they have given a 100% guarantee on that. That guarantee has focused on religious premises and the wedding ceremony. Hon. Members have scrutinised the Bill in Committee, on Report and in the other place to determine how secure the locks will be. Scrutiny has been carried out by those who oppose the Bill, not by Her Majesty’s Opposition. In relation to the locks, I remember that not a single amendment was tabled in Committee to clauses 1 or 2, even though they cover a key aspect of the Bill—namely, the encroachment on religious liberty.
Kevin Brennan
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that parliamentary scrutiny not only consists of tabling amendments but can involve debating the Bill that is before the House?
Mr Burrowes
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have been involved in the ups and downs of the Bill, and I have noticed from our debates on important clauses such as 1 and 2, on safeguarding religious liberty and on those who wish to opt in or out of same-sex marriage ceremonies, that the bulk of the scrutiny has come from those who oppose the Bill. That includes two thirds of the members of the parliamentary Conservative party, who did not support the Bill on Third Reading, with honourable additions in the form of members of other parties.
Concerns have been raised throughout the Bill’s passage by non-Church of England denominations, especially the Catholic Church, to which I pay tribute for its hard work and engagement with those on all sides of the argument. This is at the heart of amendments 1 and 2. Hon. Members have sought clarity through tabling amendments in Committee and on Report in this House and in the other place about the meaning of the word “compelled”. I pay tribute to Ministers for listening to the debate and to the views of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in this regard, and I am grateful to the Government for tabling Lords amendments 1 and 2, which properly clarify the meaning of the word. They allay many of the concerns that have been raised about the quadruple lock.
I understand from the main denominations that they are satisfied that the locks now in place with the additional clarification are comprehensive and will protect both religious individuals and religious organisations on the issue of conducting same-sex marriage ceremonies. Those amendments, coupled with Ministers’ assurances and explanations, particularly those given in the other place on the meaning of “compelled”, make it clear that compulsion “by any means”—those three words will have a very important impact on denominations on this matter—is prohibited under the Bill.
Therefore, as I understand it, any type of detrimental or unfavourable treatment, any civil or criminal action or penalty, and any less favourable treatment undertaken by a public authority against a religious organisation or individual that has not performed, has decided not to perform or has refused to perform a clause 2(1) or clause 2(2) activity will be absolutely prohibited. The words “by any means” are enormously welcomed by denominations beyond the reaches of the Church of England.
Religious organisations are protected. The Government’s amendments also protect them, when they are deciding whether or not to perform a clause 2(1) activity, against challenges—we pressed on these throughout the stages of the Bill—under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010, which has been mentioned, and by way of judicial review or any other legal challenge on the ground that the religious organisation’s decision involves the exercise of a public function. I recognise that the Government have never considered that decision to involve the exercise of a public function, despite much debate and scrutiny, not least by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. However, the Government’s amendments 1 and 2 alleviate the perceived risk and that has an important impact; it is a real, measurable improvement made during the passage of the Bill.
We saw progress in the Commons Public Bill Committee, when heroes and villains came as witnesses before us. The Catholic contribution was met with derision in some ways. One area that met with derision concerned the amendment before us, as the point was made in a considered way that we needed to clarify the word “compelled”. So I welcome the fact that we have moved on from that derision. We have moved on from the swatting away of the amendments that sought this clarification in the Commons Public Bill Committee—[Interruption.] We have also moved on from the “Star Wars” theme and the Jedi knights discussion. I am not sure what theme we need to move us into this particular passage. The helpful contributions made in the other place have moved us towards amendments 1 and 2, so we should not underestimate the movement and progress that have been made. There has been a lot of debate about the locks and how we have reached this point.
Mr Burrowes
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and I pay tribute to his diligence and scrutiny throughout the course of the Bill.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman has outlined some of the steps forward that the amendments have made in at least addressing some of the issues raised by the religious groups. Opposition spokespeople, Members and Ministers have detailed the number of minority groups with religious views that were glad to see that the Bill had been changed. Does he recognise, as I do, the large number of religious groups, from across the whole UK, that were opposed to this measure? Even now, with the changes he has outlined, many people are opposed to it.
Mr Burrowes
I fully recognise that, and I have yet to come to my “but” and the concerns out there, which go beyond the issue of the marriage ceremony and religious premises. We recognise that the Government’s and Ministers’ commitment to this Bill not resulting in an encroachment on religious liberty—indeed there is a 100% guarantee—does not just encompass the walls of a church or religious premises; it goes beyond that into the public square and relates to people manifesting their faith in their workplace, their school and beyond. It is that area of scrutiny where the “but” comes in, although I still want to be positive before I get to that.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Quakers have played a brilliant role in the passage of this Bill?
Mr Burrowes
I pay tribute to the Quakers and, in particular, to the Winchmore Hill friends meeting house, where there is a proud tradition of human rights. It is one of the oldest friends meeting houses and was involved in the early movement to abolish the slave trade, working alongside William Wilberforce and others. I recognise the involvement of the Quakers in these key issues and the fact that they have been involved in providing religious freedom for Quakers and others; I do recognise that engagement.
Mr Burrowes
If I may, I shall make a little more progress.
I welcome Lords amendment 53, which is the sole amendment that has resulted in this group’s title on the selection list including the phrase “freedom of expression”. It deals with such freedom beyond the marriage ceremony, and I commend the other place for amending the Public Order Act 1986 by extending section 29JA to ensure that there is protection for
“discussion or criticism of marriage which concerns the sex of the parties to marriage”.
The amendment plainly states that such discourse cannot possibly
“be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”
The explanatory notes make the important point:
“To the extent that this provision removes any discouragement to discourse about marriage which relates to the sex of parties to marriage (where that discourse is not threatening and intended to stir up hatred), it could be argued that it has a positive effect on the Article 9 and 10 rights of those wishing to engage in this discourse.”
Mr Speaker
Order. Several colleagues wish to speak. I am keen to accommodate them all, but the logic is unanswerable. If they are to have the chance to speak, brevity and colleagues’ consideration for each other will be essential.
Stephen Doughty
It is a genuine pleasure to be able to speak on such an historic occasion. The fact that we are discussing a relatively small, concise and consensual group of Lords amendments shows the extent of the scrutiny that the Bill has received in both Houses, as well as the clear will of both Houses at all stages of its passage, notwithstanding the objections that have been raised. Despite several claims to the contrary, anyone who has followed the debates in the Chamber or in Committee, or indeed during the late-night sittings in the other place, will know that the suggestion that it has not received adequate scrutiny is not true.
I commend the fact that most debates in this House have taken place in a highly respectful manner, which sends out a helpful message to the public and especially our young people. I am sorry to say that that was not always the case in the other place, but I hope that lessons have been learned on both sides about how to conduct such debates respectfully and in a caring manner.
The Lords amendments underline the Bill’s fundamental characteristics of being permissive and protective. The crucial point is that the Bill will not compel anyone to do anything that they do not want to do, and religious organisations that do not want to conduct same-sex marriages will not have to do so. Given the myths that have been out there in the public, it is important to underline that the Bill is about permission and that it includes the appropriate protections that Conservative Members have sought. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has asked for clarification on several points, and I note that he is happy with Lords amendments 1 and 2, which he believes offer additional protections. It is crucial that we understand that. That was the Government’s intent and has been further strengthened following the discussions in the Lords.
As we have noted, there have been amendments about the meaning of “compelled”. I do not think that was entirely necessary, but if it provides additional assurances and additional protections and makes people feel more comfortable, that is a good thing. We have seen important clarification of some technical aspects—for example, about who can authorise marriages. Particularly in the case of people of the Jewish faith, important clarifications were provided in the Lords, which will help with the application of the law.
I am pleased to see clarity about deliberate malfeasance by anybody trying to marry in a religion or denomination that does not permit same-sex marriage. No misuse of the legislation would be permitted. I welcome the provisions relating to pensions. It is crucial that the review takes place as soon as possible in order to right a fundamental inequality that may exist for a number of couples. There is provision for secondary legislation to right that.
Issues relating to changes of gender are complex and difficult but it is important to clarify them, especially with respect to transsexuals who did not get a gender recognition certificate because it would have meant the end of their marriage. That serves to underline the importance that most people in this country attach to marriage, and it illustrates why so many people want the Bill to go forward. The fact that some people who wanted to maintain their marriage felt unable to get their gender recognition certificate shows the crazy quandaries that we put people in. This is a chance to put all that right.
Fiona O'Donnell
My hon. Friend is making a powerful contribution to the debate, as he did in the Bill Committee. Does he agree that that example shows us that marriage is about so much more than the gender of the two people who make that commitment?
Stephen Doughty
Absolutely. That is the point that has come out in all the debates.
We have also seen protections for those who disagree. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate seems happy with those. I felt that protection already existed, but if the additional protections please other people and make them feel more secure, that can only be a good thing. The comments of Baroness Stowell were important when she said that the amendments that were agreed do not allow hate speech. There are two sides to this. We will protect the rights of people who disagree in a calm and respectful manner, but when that steps over into a different type of speech, which unfortunately has happened in some of the public debate, that is entirely unacceptable.
We have spoken about humanist marriages and I have stated my strong support for those to be able to go ahead. I am a person of faith, but I have seen how important humanist marriages are. I have had many representations from humanists in my constituency. As I have mentioned before, the former Assembly Member for my constituency is a humanist celebrant. I know how many people who want to take part in those ceremonies are ready to come forward—[Interruption.] I cannot quite hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is saying from a sedentary position but I am sure it is something supportive. I am glad that the door has been left open. I hope the review will take place. Other useful clarifications were made during that debate in the other place.
It is important to underline again that the protections that come through this set of amendments are all in addition to existing ones in the Bill. A great deal of thought went into the Bill and I commend the Government for that and for respecting and trying to understand the concerns that had legitimately been expressed, which have been answered comprehensively. I am glad that the protections provided by the amendments are on top of the protections in the original text and in other legislation such as the Equality Act 2010. These things were all carefully considered long before I came into this place. It is important that we recognise that. It is not as though there was some sort of free-for-all or the ability to abuse various circumstances.
In conclusion, the Lords amendments are the result of detailed, technical and careful consideration, which is the opposite of some of the claims that have been made. Ultimately, they reflect the will of Members in both Houses to right an injustice in the laws of our land. It is about putting in place the final piece of the equality jigsaw referred to by Stonewall and other organisations. I am very glad that we have reached this stage. As other hon. Members have commented, it reflects a wider change that has taken place in public attitudes. Of the many surveys that have taken place, one shows that 80% of people under the age of 50 welcome the changes and that three in every five people with faith also want them to go through. I think that reflects how far we have come, both in the public and in both Houses.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman says that three in every five people with faith support these changes, but that is not what we heard in Committee, when a number of people from different religious organisations came to us, and they referred to having memberships in the hundreds of thousands, and perhaps even half a million. I am very interested to hear where he got the figure of three in every five.
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not think that the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) is covered by an amendment, and now that time is short we really must be self-disciplined, because otherwise colleagues who wish to contribute will be unable to do so, and it will be no good complaining to me.
Stephen Doughty
Thank you for bringing us back into order, Mr Speaker.
At an earlier stage I suggested that we might want to recognise the celebrations that have taken place elsewhere, such as in New Zealand, with lots of singing. We are wearing our carnations tonight, and I would be very happy to sing at the first of the marriages under the new legislation. To do so now would be very disorderly, but I would be happy to be present to recognise that love and that celebration. I am very glad that we have come to this place.
Dr Huppert
This is a monumental day for many people; be they straight, gay, lesbian or bi, they will benefit from the freedoms and opportunities in the Bill. I think that it will be seen as one of the great legacies of this Government. I would like to thank all those who have played a role, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), whom I am delighted to see in her place, because without her personal initiative three years ago this simply would not have happened, so I say thank you to her.
I would also like to thank colleagues in the Lords who pushed it through: Baronesses Barker and Brinton, Lord Lester, Cross Benchers such as Lord Pannick, and even the Bishop of Leicester, who pushed very hard to get a sensible outcome. I would also like to thank the Liberal Democrat LGBT+ organisation for its sterling work. Perhaps the whole House will join me in congratulating its vice-chair, Ed Fordham, who last night got engaged to his partner, Russell Eagling.
Mr Speaker
Order. It is always of great interest to the House to hear the contents of the hon. Gentleman’s Christmas card list, and I do not wish to cavil at his sincerity, but if he could turn his mighty mind to the Lords amendments with characteristic succinctness, the House will be indebted to him.
Dr Huppert
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Let me turn to Lords amendment 10. It feels that it has been ages since I initially tabled the first version of that amendment to try to allow humanist weddings. It has been a long struggle, alongside hon. colleagues, and I would particularly like to mention the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), with whom it has been a great pleasure to work, and my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) and for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert). It was a choppy passage, which is odd because the premise seems simple enough: humanists should be able to get married under their rules. After all, Christians, Jews, Quakers, Muslims, Sikhs and even spiritualists are allowed to, so why not humanists, particularly since that works in Scotland? We had a somewhat unedifying debate at the end of our considerations in this place, which I think is a testament to the complexity of marriage law, which has caused many problems, but I am delighted that we have got there and that the review will be conducted properly with a view to ensuring that we get this right. I was critical of some officials, but I think that they have now worked very well with the British Humanist Association.
We have also made progress on pension inequality. I must say that I do not think that the cost of equality should matter. Is £1 million too much for equality? What about £10 million, or £20 million? I do not think that is the right argument and hope that we can make progress on that, just as I hope that we can make progress on equal civil partnerships.
The one thing really missing is a lot of issues for those who are transgendered. We have not restored the marriages, and there is much more to do with the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, and we are still providing pension support only for the cispartners of transpeople, not the transpeople themselves. The trans community is still marginalised and will continue to be after the Bill is passed. Far too often LGBT seems to stop too early. We must look at that. The Bill will not end homophobia, but it will make a lot of people’s lives very much happier.
Ms Abbott
I am glad to speak to this important group of amendments to this important Bill, which is a piece of proposed legislation that rights past wrong. The Bill will ensure that gay and lesbian residents of Hackney North and Stoke Newington, and countrywide, will have the chance to marry the person they love, and for that love to be recognised by the law and the wider community.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I am pleased to join in the celebration tonight in so far as I have been able to find one clause in this wretched Bill with which I agree. Lords amendment 53 relates to freedom of speech, and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been instrumental in accepting it. Nevertheless, it is astonishing that a Bill for which there is absolutely no mandate, and which a majority of Conservatives voted against, has been bulldozed through both Houses. Just two hours of debate tonight is an absolute parliamentary disgrace and the Government should think carefully in future because if they want the support of Members on these Benches, offending large swathes of the Conservative party is not a good way of going about it.
Sir Gerald Howarth
Forgive me but I will not give way because a lot of colleagues wish to speak.
I am pleased with amendment 53, but what my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) said about the chill factor is important. I advise the House to be very careful. Despite all that has been said here, lots of people out there will feel unable to express, or will be inhibited from expressing, their true opinion that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. That is because we live in a politically correct society. It will be interesting to see what happens to teachers. How many teachers will feel able to express their views, even in denominational schools, for fear of upsetting their political masters and losing their jobs?
Sir Gerald Howarth
I will not, because I have limited time and a lot of colleagues want to speak.
I hope that the Government are serious about moving swiftly to prevent that from happening and that the Opposition will support them should they decide to do so.
This is not happening only outside this place, Mr Speaker, but inside this place.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I will give way to my hon. Friend in a minute.
Two weeks ago I held a meeting here. I have here two pamphlets, “Same sex marriage: the cost and consequences of redefining marriage” and “Freedom of speech: street evangelism”.
Sir Gerald Howarth
This is about freedom of expression, as the hon. Gentleman ought to be aware.
Someone who was coming to my meeting had several copies of those pamphlets. I hope you will be interested to know, Mr Speaker, that the pamphlets were seized and removed from that person. I was incensed and went down to Cromwell Green to find out what was going on. When I said, “By what authority has this material been removed?”, I was told that it was by the authority of the House. I put it to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House: if that is going on in this place, can you imagine what will go on up and down the country once this Bill is enacted?
On Monday my noble Friend Lord Fowler said in another place:
“It has never ever been our case—those of us who want reform—that opposition is homophobic.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2013; Vol. 747, c. 544.]
I fear that anybody who speaks out in favour of the belief that marriage can only be a union between a man and a woman will be accused of being homophobic. Most people do not want to be accused of suchlike. Most people do not want to be accused of being racist and therefore did not raise the issue of immigration. Of course, we are told by the Leader of the Opposition that it is now all right to talk about immigration, but for a long time it was not.
Does my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) still wish to intervene on me? After all, this is about freedom of expression.
Jane Ellison
My point was about freedom of expression, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When we debated this in Committee, one of the examples given was that in all the years that Catholic teachers in Catholic schools have been teaching their own views on abortion, nobody has been prosecuted for that. People have been free to teach that view within that religious context, so there is no reason to think that teachers in religious schools will have any problem with this Bill.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. It is interesting that surgeons are not required to perform abortions. What sort of tolerance is it—I am looking at my parliamentary neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—for this Bill to impose on registrars who may have served for 25 years that their conscience will not be allowed to be spared and they will have to do as it requires or surrender their jobs? This is not the tolerance that the Conservative party should be espousing in our country. If there are provisions whereby atheists do not have to teach religion in schools and surgeons do not have to perform abortions if it is against their conscience, why was the amendment in the other place, which was argued for by so many noble Lords and Ladies, rejected?
Maria Miller
I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend’s speech, but it is important that the House is aware that registrars do not wish to have any sort of provision. They perform a public function and they believe it is very important that they do so without any sort of dispensation. [Interruption.]
Sir Gerald Howarth
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) tells me that there is no representative body for registrars and so they were not able to give a corporate view. However, there are registrars who do not wish to—[Interruption.] Apparently I am going to be shouted down. If I go out on to the streets, what will happen? Will Labour Members uphold my right to freedom of expression or join in the shouting?
I understand that a van drove around yesterday proclaiming the case of those of us who oppose the Bill. It had a picture on it of two men and a little girl under the caption, “What about Sophie?”, but the driver received such abuse that the company stopped the van going around the square. I say to those Opposition Members who are keen to champion freedom of expression and to stand up for minorities that they should stand up for the majority who feel that they are being intimidated.
That brings me neatly to the question: what about children? Neither my right hon. Friend the Minister nor the Opposition spokeswoman, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), has mentioned children. I want to celebrate marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman leads, generally speaking, to children, but marriage between two men or two women will not lead to the production of children. This is a very serious matter. Therefore, on the question of freedom of expression, I hope that those of us who proclaim that view will not be shouted down or denied our view.
Others wish to speak so I shall conclude by saying that I believe that, ideally, children need a mother and a father—that is what all the evidence shows—and preferably a mother and father in a marriage. I am utterly, completely, irredeemably opposed to this Bill and this is my last chance to speak against it before it is enacted. I believe it will lead to serious unintended consequences and that it debases traditional marriage. I will conclude with the words of a former Deputy Speaker of this House who is better known to us as Sir Michael Lord, but who now rejoices in the title of Lord Framlingham:
“This Bill is built entirely on pretence. It pretends that there is no difference between a man and a woman.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2013; Vol. 747, c. 544.]
That is a formidable basis upon which to build legislation that affects all our people in this land.
Mr Speaker
Order. We have 31 minutes remaining. Members can do the arithmetic for themselves.
Fiona O'Donnell
It is a pleasure to be able to contribute to this debate on Lords amendments, because this is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak on this Bill. Having listened to the often powerful and personal testimony of many Members from all parties and given that many of them have suffered abuse, violence and discrimination, I did not feel that I had earned the right to comment. Tonight, however, I think we can celebrate.
It saddens me that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) thought that Members were seeking to shout him down when he spoke to the amendments on freedom of expression. No one was attempting to do that, but some of his comments provoked, let us say, an emotive response from Opposition Members. Whenever I have seen people outside this place celebrating the passage of the Bill, I have seen others holding placards with statements that I found deeply distasteful—some referred to a man lying with another man as a sin—but I never saw anyone being lifted by the police.
Fiona O'Donnell
I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to heckle me. That is not about freedom of expression; it is about a healthy debate in which we all have strong emotions, and I would expect no less of him. I hope he respects the fact that the feelings of those of us who support the Bill are as strong as his.
It is clear that people have been able to air their views. The hon. Gentleman referred to a van with the caption, “But what about Sophie?”. I do not approve of anyone removing anyone else’s right to freedom of expression, but at the same time I think that sometimes we have to put ourselves in the shoes of people we would not always walk alongside. For someone to imply that a loving parent is not fit to perform their role is deeply offensive. We need a little sensitivity when considering these issues.
As a few hon. Members have said, Lords amendments 1 and 2 are not absolutely necessary, but I support anything that reassures Members who do not support the Bill that it is not about removing people’s freedom to hold their views. The Bill has struck the right balance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) said. There was rigorous scrutiny in the Public Bill Committee. On many a sleepless night, I invited my hon. Friend into my living room as I watched the Committee’s sittings. The Committee struck the right tone, as have the shadow Minister and the Minister in this debate. We are sensitive to the feelings of those who oppose the Bill and I am glad that they have found some comfort in those two amendments.
Fiona O'Donnell
My hon. Friend makes another excellent contribution. I am glad that society will be different from the one I was born into. There was progress by the time my children were born, but as my grandchildren rapidly arrive on the planet I hope we have a better society still. This is a good Bill that will do good. It has been made better by these amendments, and I am delighted to have had the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I appeal to remaining colleagues wishing to speak, of whom there are seven, to factor into their thinking that we have 21 minutes left? It is up to colleagues, but that would be in the spirit of equality.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I will endeavour to be brief, Mr Speaker.
Lords amendment 53, on freedom of expression, is important. It has been the mission of many of us to ensure that this important step forward on equality also protects religious freedom. In making it clear that mere criticism of same-sex marriage is not an offence, the amendment surely deals with the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) about the “chilling” factor that such legislation may engender. I must say to him that it also behoves those who call for freedom of speech to ensure that the words they choose are temperate and reasonable. Words may not and should not become a matter for criminal law. I am with my hon. Friend on that, including on the defence of free speech in relation to the offence of incitement of hatred against homosexual people. However, when phrases such as “aggressive homosexuals”—the phrase my hon. Friend used on Second Reading—are used, they take freedom of expression to an unreasonable extent and do cause offence.
Nick Herbert
My hon. Friend has not listened to a word I have said. I have just said that nobody should be prosecuted for words that are merely offensive, but that does not absolve those who use those words of causing that offence. If my hon. Friend and others are calling for freedom of expression and not to be prosecuted—as they should not be—for merely criticising activity or conduct, they have a responsibility to use words carefully that do not cause grave offence to a considerable section of the community. It would be considered intolerable to talk of aggressive blacks or aggressive Jews. Perhaps even my hon. Friend would not consider it acceptable to do that, but he did consider it acceptable to use the phrase “aggressive homosexuals”. I regret that, and that is why I find it so difficult to accept what he says about the importance of the chilling factor.
The second group of amendments to which I shall refer relates to those applying to clause 9. On Lords amendment 4 on the conversion of civil partnerships into marriage, it has surely been a fundamental proposition of the Bill that the status of civil partnerships is no longer considered adequate to confer equality on gay people.
Mr Speaker
Order. I was just checking that I had not misheard the right hon. Gentleman. Whatever his temptation to dilate on Lords amendment 4 he must resist it, because that is in the second group that we have not reached. He should stick to the first group, and I am sure he has got plenty to say on that.
Nick Herbert
I am very happy to stick to the first group, Mr Speaker.
I hope that Lords amendments 10, 15, 26, 27 and 54, relating to humanist weddings, are in that group. They make provision to allow the dislocation of weddings from premises, to which further consideration will be given. I was at such a wedding in the United States a few weeks ago, and at such weddings it is common to read words that were delivered by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts 10 years ago and which ring true today:
“Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition. Without the right to marry one is excluded from the full range of human experience”.
In words that get to the kernel of the matter and these amendments, the Court continued:
“The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.... The dissimilitude between the terms ‘civil marriage’ and ‘civil union’ is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status.... For no rational reason the marriage laws…discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain.”
That surely is the point. It is no longer considered acceptable by a majority of the public, the House of Commons and the other place.
The Bill was not bulldozed through; it was voted through by considerable majorities in both Houses, and it reflects a fundamental change of attitude for the better in our society. The Bill will do no harm to those not affected and it will protect those who do not wish to join in, but, in recognising the place of gay people in our society, it will do a great deal of good for people who love each other and want to express a permanent commitment to each other. For that reason, I will be proud to have been a Member of the House of Commons when it passed the Bill and to see it—I hope—given Royal Assent within a matter of days.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Many of my constituents contacted me who support humanist weddings but were disturbed when they thought they were going to drop out of the Bill. I know the Government were concerned they might be a diversion and so delay the Bill, but I am pleased that, after discussion and debate, they have been included. I am marginally amused, however, that the amendment asks for a review, given that I have sat through several Bill Committees recently in which the Opposition have been berated for tabling amendments seeking a review, rather than immediate action, and for somehow wimping out. Perhaps a review is appropriate if there are concerns about the mechanics of how something will work.
Lots of people would have liked the opportunity of a humanist ceremony. Certainly, I wish they had been available when I got married—more years ago than I care to recall. At that time, if someone was not religious—I belonged to a family that was strong, but not religious—the choice was a simple register office ceremony or, for some, to pretend to be religious. Humanist ceremonies, whether for weddings or other periods of life, offer something more profound that reflects upon our humanity and our connections to each other. Humanist weddings give people the opportunity to celebrate their love and commitment to each other, while, in sadder circumstances, humanist funerals avoid that vague religious feeling that might be totally meaningless to the family and which might have meant nothing to the person who died. It is the same with weddings.
I am pleased that this measure is going forward, therefore, and I hope that my constituents who wrote to me will be pleased. Like many others, I have constituents who are disturbed by the Bill, but I hope and believe that in a few years a lot of their concerns will have been put to bed and we will have moved on.
Sir Edward Leigh
It is instructive that, despite your valiant efforts, Mr Speaker, this debate has been so discursive, because very little has changed in the other place. We had long, lyrical passages from the shadow Secretary of State about the beauty of marriage, but even a cursory examination of the amendments—[Interruption.]
Sir Edward Leigh
I can smile, yes.
Even a cursory examination of the amendments made in the other place confirms that very little has been done to protect freedom of conscience. We get a crumb of comfort, it is true, from Lords amendments 1 and 2, which tighten up the quad locks that are meant to stop Churches doing same-sex marriages. We were told repeatedly in this place that the quad locks needed no tightening, but better late than never, I suppose. A sinner—even the Government—who comes late into the vineyard of truth is just as welcome.
Then there is Lords amendment 53. Apparently it means that if someone says that they believe in a man-woman marriage, they will not be deemed to be “inciting homophobic hatred”. What a bizarre country we live in, when declaring one’s support for the Marriage Act 1949, under which most of us were married, could be deemed to be stirring up hatred. Indeed, such is the risk that we have to legislate against it. I hope that amendment 53 has some read-across to the offences in section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and other offences with a much lower threshold than “homophobic incitement”. They are the laws that we should be worried about, even after our amendment to remove the “insulting” limb comes into effect.
Nothing whatever has been done to alleviate the concerns of thousands of Church schools and tens of thousands of teachers, who fear that they will be ordered to teach a view of marriage that conflicts profoundly with their deeply held views. I predict that within five years a chill will descend on the 2,200 Catholic schools, because they will feel under an obligation to teach a view of marriage that is “balanced”—a word that Ministers themselves have used. I am sorry, but the view of the Catholic Church and other Churches on marriage is not “balanced”; it is a view. It is the view that marriage is between one man and one woman for life. It is not a balanced view; it is a view, and increasingly a “balanced” view will have to be taught.
Ministers keep telling us that the views of those teachers and others who are worried about this issue are respectable and that they are free to hold and express them, but they have done nothing to guarantee that. That is being left to chance. When we have a toxic mix of this Bill and the Equality Act 2010, anything could happen. It is like an experiment with unstable substances that could blow up at any minute. The Government should be legislating to stabilise the situation, but they steadfastly refuse. Earlier this year, the House voted for my ten-minute rule Bill to protect employees from suffering detriment at the hands of their employers for believing in traditional marriage. Ministers kept saying, “It’ll never happen”, but of course it is already happening. We have all read about the cases, even before the Bill has become law. The Government just do not care enough to solve the problem and protect Church schools.
When gay rights activists—not aggressive; they have their point of view, which is just as valid as anybody else’s—demand better pension rights, the Government jump to it, and we get Lords amendment 11 and pages of consequentials. When transsexual activists—not aggressive; they have a right to their view—demand changes to the Bill, the Government jump to it, and we get Lords amendment 44 and all that goes with it. When humanist activists—not aggressive; they have a right to their point of view—demand the right to humanist weddings, the Government jump to it, and we get Lords amendment 10 and pages more like it. However, when people who believe in traditional marriage demand better protections, simply so that they cannot be mistreated for failing to support same-sex marriage, the Government harden their heart, close their mind and refuse to do a thing.
I know some people think that this will all go away after the Bill becomes an Act in the next few days. They wish it would for political reasons, but by the time of the next general election, we will have a whole catalogue of new cases like that of Adrian Smith and his Facebook page, and the Wimbledon street preacher who got locked in a cell for hours for his sermon on 1 Thessalonians. We will have teachers—such as the teachers Lord Dear referred to in his speeches in the Lords—being ordered to teach that their own views on marriage amount to nothing but bigotry. And the electorate will hold us accountable for doing nothing to help them.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
First, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for the hard work they have put in, particularly on the amendments dealing with humanism and pensions. I also commend their collaboration with the Government Front-Bench teams here and in the House of Lords. People often hear about conflict in Parliament, but not about the good work that goes on behind the scenes.
I do not want anything to slow the Bill’s progress on to the statute book or to delay people celebrating same-sex marriage, but a review of both humanist weddings and pensions seems a sensible way forward. I have witnessed the excellent way in which humanist celebrants can help people at funerals—a sensitive situation, particularly for those with no religious beliefs who do not really wish to engage with such beliefs at those sensitive moments. Councillor friends of mine, instead of going to a civic wedding ceremony in a chapel or a church, decided to have a humanist ceremony, which was more in keeping with their beliefs, much more honest and less hypocritical than using a chapel simply for the day of that civic ceremony. Humanist marriage ceremonies fall exactly into that category—offering an opportunity for some depth and consideration, without having to adopt some form of religious belief in a rather hypocritical and shallow way.
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Having made such arguments on Report, I would like to record how delighted I am that the amendments on humanist weddings are to be included in the Bill. They will be as significant a part of the Bill as the same-sex marriage proposals. Many people will be affected, and I am delighted that the Government conceded the point in the other place.
Nia Griffith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution.
Moving on to pensions and survivor benefits, again, we do not want to do anything to delay the Bill, but we want a review. It is a complex subject, and people have made wild estimates about the costs. They seem to forget that what is paid out often comes back, to some degree, in the form of taxation, so the situation is nothing like as simple as it might sound. The principle that those who have contributed have the right to the same benefits—whether they are in a same-sex or an opposite-sex marriage—is absolutely fundamental. We certainly want to make sure that that is where we get to. It will take time; it will need working out; it will need costing; it will need phasing in—but the important thing is the principle. We really want to see the review.
I support amendment 10, on humanist marriage ceremonies, and amendment 11 and related provisions, on the pension review, and I very much hope we can celebrate the passage of this Bill tonight.
Mike Freer
First, I pay tribute to both Front-Bench teams—both here and in the other place—for how they have steered the Bill through. I visited the other place and was quite impressed with the quality of the debate and its calmness.
On amendment 11, it is worth revisiting why the pension inequality has to be addressed. The inequality between survivor benefits of civil partners and married couples is simply not sustainable, but it is worth repeating that this issue relates to contracted-in schemes. The key point is that for a man or woman in what some would call a traditional marriage, the pension rights in the event of the partner’s death go back to the date the pension scheme was joined. If, however, someone is a surviving civil partner, even though the partner might have been in the scheme for 20 years, the pension rights go back only to the date when civil partnerships became law. I must point out that this is not just a fractional difference. In the example of John Walker, his civil partner would get a surviving pension of £500 a year. If the civil partnership were dissolved and he married a woman, she would be entitled to £41,000 a year in the form of a widow’s pension. That discrimination is simply not defensible.
The important message to remember is that although survivor benefits are currently unequal, contribution rates are not. Two men—one straight, one gay—both pay in at the same contribution rate. If their contribution rate is not determined by their sexuality, why should their pension be?
The bottom line is that if contributions are equal, pension benefits should be equal too. I welcome the review, because we can get to the bottom of how the figures were determined. As has been mentioned before, neither the Library nor the National Association of Pension Funds can help to identify the schemes. We do not know where the figure has come from. That is why the review is crucial, and the evidence session held by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions will add to the debate.
The House has spoken resoundingly on the issue, not once but twice. The other place spoke resoundingly in rejecting unhelpful amendments, and last night the Bill passed without a vote. Whatever personal objections colleagues have and however sincerely they are held, there comes a time when opponents have to bow their head to the will of this House and give way graciously.
Finally, I thank the Government for the Bill. When it receives Royal Assent, we will be helping to build a more tolerant society. We are saying to people tonight, “Whoever you are, whoever you love, you are respected and valued as an equal member of our society.” Members can go home tonight knowing that for once we have done some good and for once we have made a difference. I look forward to issuing wedding invitations in due course.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
I am so pleased that tonight we will pass this Bill, which is clearly good news for the many gay couples across our country who want to get married. I also believe that it will be very good news to people in other countries—those lesbian and gay people who have to face unacceptable degrees of persecution every day of their lives. Members should make no mistake about it: there will be Commonwealth countries watching what we do tonight, and if we improve the lives of people who are treated unacceptably in those countries, we will have done a great good.
I do not know whether, in the short time remaining, I will be able to answer the points about the so-called chill, but I want to. We are not dealing with hypotheticals. Let us consider Catholic Spain, a country that for several years now has allowed the marriage of gay couples. I think there have been about 22,000 such marriages, yet not a single case has been brought to the European Court of Human Rights concerning a gay couple who wish to be married in church—
Business without Debate
Petitions
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It gives me great pleasure to present a petition signed by 833 of my constituents. It reads as follows:
The Humble Petition of residents of Isham, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,
Sheweth,
That there is an urgent need to construct the A509 Isham by-pass, not only to relieve the current unacceptable number of traffic movements through the village, but also mindful of the extra proposed traffic movements which will occur due to:
The 5,500 houses that are being built at Cranford; the 3,500 houses that are being built at the station in Wellingborough; the proposed 3,000 house development off Niort Way in Wellingborough; the proposed industrial site development at Appleby Farm in Wellingborough with an estimated daily vehicle movement of 2,000, the majority of which will be lorries; the widening of the A14 road at the A509 Junction one mile from Isham.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Northamptonshire County Council and the Borough Council of Wellingborough work together to ensure that the Isham A509 bypass is constructed imminently.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
[P001199]
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
This petition was organised within a week of the announcement of the closure of the Territorial Army Centre in Caernarfon, which has a population of 9,600. It has already been signed by 2,204 people, which is a substantial proportion of that number. It reads as follows:
The Petition of the people of Caernarfon and the surrounding district,
Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the closure of the Territorial Army Centre at Caernarfon and draws the House's attention to the long and unique tradition of service in the forces by people from the community; further notes that the Caernarfon centre has an important role in recruitment given that it serves a very large rural area, that similar facilities will not easily be available elsewhere.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to retain the current usage of the site and explore complementary uses so that it can be further developed as an important and valued strategic resource.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001209]
Mr Speaker
Before I call the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) to present his petitions, let me give him some guidance. It is not necessary for him to perambulate back and forth between his seat and the Chair for the purposes of his presentation. He should remain in his place. Let me also advise him that, while he is at liberty to speak briefly about each of his three petitions, it would be a mistake for him to suppose that because he is speaking about three, he can speak for three times as long as he would have spoken if he were speaking to one. He should speak with the brevity of which I know he is periodically capable.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I am immensely grateful for that guidance, Mr Speaker. I shall present three petitions from my constituent, Mr Gruffydd Meredith.
In this petition Mr Meredith calls for the Government of Wales Act 2006 to be amended to rename the National Assembly for Wales as the Parliament of Wales or Senedd Cymru, with appropriate signage being erected so that every visitor will know its significance.
The petition states:
The petition of Mr Gruffydd Meredith,
Declares that up to 12 million people from all over the world visit Cardiff bay and pass the Senedd building annually yet the majority of these must have no idea what the Senedd building actually is or does, as they have no way of knowing unless they enter the building and ask the staff; further that Wales must be one of the few countries in the world that is does not have a sign denoting its own national parliament and that the Senedd building is one of Wales’ most important institutions and belongs to the people of Wales; further that there is a need and duty for the Senedd building to therefore showcase and make itself known to all the citizens of Wales as well as to the rest of the world.
The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons makes the necessary amendment to the Government of Wales Act 2006 and any other relevant act in order to facilitate the renaming of the current National Assembly for Wales or Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru to Senedd Cymru (Parliament of Wales), placing a large sign on the main public entrance of the Senedd building overlooking Cardiff bay, with prominent lettering denoting ‘Senedd Cymru’ (Parliament of Wales), together with an impressive Welsh flag placed centrally at the front top of the sloping roofed entrance.
And the Petitioner remains etc.
[P001210]
Kevin Brennan
This petition calls for the Government of Wales Act 2006 to be amended to allow for the creation of a unified power grid.
The petition states:
The Petition of Gruffydd Meredith,
Declares that the current and historical energy map of Wales shows all the classic indicators of an extractive economy, with the extractive drainage lines either extending east out of Wales or to the ports; further that Wales is already greatly more than self sufficient in electricity generation, producing at least twice more electricity than what we use but most of this is given to the UK national grid and then sold back to us; further that future renewable energy projects for Wales show that we could be easily producing at least four times more than we use if we realised basic achievable renewable energy projects (including tidal lagoons and the Severn estuary instead of a barrage) and this without even mentioning the possibility of clean coal and methane gas extraction, which could make this figure higher again; further that joining the currently unconnected electricity lines could be done with specially designed pylons that blend in with the Welsh environment, by underground cables or by placing undersea cables in Cardigan Bay and this would mean that all of Wales’ energy production is quantifiable and our abundant excess energy can be exported and providing potentially thousands of new jobs.
The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons make the necessary amendment to the Government of Wales Act 2006 and any other relevant act in order to facilitate the development of an unified Welsh power grid, joining the currently unconnected electricity lines on North, Mid and South Wales.
And the Petitioner remains etc.
[P001211]
Kevin Brennan
This petition calls for the Government of Wales Act 2006 to be amended to establish a second, scrutinising Chamber in Wales to be called Ty’r bobol or Citizen House.
The petition declares:
The Petition of Gruffydd Meredith,
Declares that there is a need for a second scrutinising chamber—a ‘Ty’r bobol’/ ‘Citizen House’, made up of Welsh citizens chosen at random from all over Wales in the citizen jury style system; further declares there should also be representation by independent non party affiliated experts and spokespeople from all fields suggested by small to medium sized businesses, non charity community groups, schools and colleges; further declares that this system of demarchy would provide Welsh politics with a much needed opportunity for independent scrutiny by the people and would make sure that the Welsh legislative process and the Welsh Government in general is able to be challenged and truly held to account where necessary.
The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons make the necessary amendment of the Government of Wales Act 2006 and any other relevant act in order to facilitate the forming of a second scrutinising chamber in Wales made up of Welsh citizens chosen at random in the jury style system.
And the Petitioner remains etc.
[P001212]
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Since the tragic death of Jade Lomas Anderson in March of this year, I have been working with her mum and dad, Shirley and Michael Anderson, their family and the wider community to collect signatures on this petition. I commend in particular Michael and Shirley for their bravery, Sandra Lucas, Councillors Karen Aldred and Fred Walker and my staff team for their hard work in collecting 4,618 signatures, which were presented to Downing street today, as well as the businesses, schools and churches who have done so much to help, and the people of Bolton West who have shown their support in signing the petition.
The petition declares:
The Petition of residents of Bolton West,
Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government’s current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001200]
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
This petition is from several hundred of my constituents who want to see tougher legislation on dangerous dogs. I want to thank members of Jade Lomas Anderson’s family for all their work in collecting signatures, and in particular my constituent Mrs Kathleen Holden, who is Jade’s grandmother. The petition is in identical terms to that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling).
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Wythenshawe and Sale East,
Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government's current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001201]
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I am presenting a petition in identical terms to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling). I present it on behalf of a constituent, and I pay tribute to the grandmother who collected signatures after Abigail Boyd was attacked by dogs in Farnworth.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Bolton,
Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government's current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001202]
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, present a petition on behalf of residents of the UK on dangerous dogs laws. I was very proud to deliver the petition to No. 10 Downing street this afternoon with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), the parents of Jade Lomas Anderson and my constituent Angela McGlynn. Her son John Paul Massey was tragically mauled to death by a dog in 2009. The petition calls on the Government to take further action. We need to prevent these attacks from happening. Some 239 people have signed a petition in similar terms on my website.
This petition is in identical terms to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West.
The petition declares:
The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government's current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001203]
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of citizens of the United Kingdom, including residents of my constituency, in identical terms to the petition presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), calling for tougher legislation on dangerous dogs.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Stretford and Urmston,
Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government’s current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001204]
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
Following the brutal and totally unprovoked attack on the 13-year-old Sunderland schoolgirl Meghan Reynolds, which left her requiring four hours of surgery and 48 stitches to horrific facial wounds, almost 100 of my constituents have signed petitions on this subject, and numerous petitions are still in circulation. I will present those to the House at a later date. I, too, am presenting a petition in identical terms to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), who has passionately led this campaign and pushed for tougher legislation on dangerous dogs.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Washington and Sunderland West,
Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government’s current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001205]
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I am proud to present this petition on behalf of citizens of the United Kingdom, including many residents of my Scunthorpe county constituency, in identical terms to that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling).
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Scunthorpe County,
Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government’s current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001206]
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I, too, would like to present a petition in identical terms to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), calling for tougher legislation on dangerous dogs. I present it on behalf of my constituents of Lewisham East.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Lewisham East,
Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government’s current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001207]
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to associate myself with the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling). I am presenting a petition on behalf of the residents of Blackpool South in identical terms to that presented by my hon. Friend.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Blackpool South,
Declares that seven children and two adults have been killed by dogs since 2006, and that 6,000 admissions to hospital are caused by dog attacks each year leaving many victims scarred for life; notes that the introduction of Dog Control Notices is supported by many organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Royal College of Nursing, British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union; and believes that the Government’s current proposals on dangerous dogs do not go far enough.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the law to cover attacks on people and animals on both private and public property, to enforce Dog Control Orders, to introduce Dog Control Notices giving the authorities the power to intervene, to introduce the compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and to promote responsible dog ownership, including training owners and dogs.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001208]
Fishing Quotas
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I am pleased to have secured this debate before the summer recess, as it provides us with a timely opportunity to consider the future of the fishing industry in the United Kingdom. Last month, the Minister provided details of the agreed reforms to the common fisheries policy, which provides the framework within which fishing in the UK will be administered over the course of the next few years. Its provisions are generally welcome, though its success will depend on how domestic fisheries are managed.
Last Wednesday in the High Court, Mr Justice Cranston delivered an approved judgment that will pave the way for the introduction of a new system of management that could be fairer and more environmentally friendly than its predecessor and that could provide an opportunity to reverse the fortunes of many fishing communities around the British isles. That is good news, although I sense that the path to this promised land will not be an easy one to travel along.
My interest and concern are for the inshore fleet that fishes out of Lowestoft in Suffolk, in my constituency. Like so many other fleets, it has had a raw deal in recent years. The Lowestoft fleet, which is a pale shadow of its former self, used to dominate the local economy. A significant contributory factor to its decline has been the way in which fishing quotas have been allocated in recent years. It is not possible to turn back the clock to the town’s glory years, but there is an opportunity to build an industry that can play a role in bringing back prosperity to an area that has struggled in recent years.
It is important to state at the outset that the Minister has achieved an enormous amount in the three years he has been in post. He has negotiated hard in the CFP reforms and delivered a settlement that is good for the UK. He has also listened to the concerns of the inshore fleet and made proposals to address those in the face of opposition from the producer organisations. His Department then defended this decision staunchly and successfully in the High Court. We owe him a debt of gratitude, for we have arrived at a position where we can provide a new beginning for the fishing industry in the UK. As Charles Clover concluded in his article in The Sunday Times, the Minister and
“his heirs have a once in a generation opportunity to throw the dice again on behalf of wild fish and the greater good”.
It is appropriate to say a bit about the inshore fleet and the under-10 metre boats—about the people involved and the situation they find themselves in today. Such boats comprise more than 77% of the UK fleet and employ over 65% of the fleet’s total work force, yet they currently receive only 4% of the total quota available to the UK. What is good for the under-10s is largely good for the ports in which they are based, and vice versa; they have considerable potential to deliver economic, environmental and cultural benefits for their coastal communities, many of which are among the most deprived in the country. They are also good for fish stocks, as theirs is a low-impact, sustainable form of fishing. Moreover, the income they generate is likely to stay in these communities and permeate down the supply chain, which has invariably been built up over many decades but which has been much eroded in recent years.
Today, that is very much the case in Lowestoft. It now has a small industry, but the infrastructure is still there and with the right policy framework it can deliver more for the area. The work of these fishermen still fishing out of Lowestoft should be contrasted with that of the eight affiliated vessels in the Lowestoft Fish Producers Organisation, which are all controlled by fishing interests based in the Netherlands. Those boats have UK fishing licences and hold British quota, but they contribute nothing to the local economy. Dutch-controlled vessels fishing British quota boast an annual turnover of £48 million, yet 1% of the fish they catch is landed in the UK.
In recent years, the under-10s have had a raw deal and in the Minister’s own words they have been “hanging on” by their “fingernails“. The root cause of their plight is the fixed quota allocation system introduced in 1999. As the under-10s did not keep records of their catch in the 1994 to 1996 reference period, the quota they received at that time was a best estimate, subsequently shown to be a major under-assessment, for which they have been paying ever since. Although there have been attempts to address the situation, as Jerry Percy of NUTFA—the New Under Ten Fishermens Association—has pointed out, with the under-10s starting from such a low level of quota in the first place, an additional percentage based simply on past allocations will be of little, if any, use.
Since 1999, the situation has got worse in many respects. The way the system was devised has meant that the producer organisations have been able to hold or acquire fixed quota allocation units, knowing that they could retain them if they did not use them. They could sell or lease them to the under-10s on their own terms, at their own whim and fancy. That conjures up the image of the under-10s taking on the role of Oliver Twist holding out the bowl for more food, only to be denied. Moreover, where reallocations have taken place, they have been profoundly unsatisfactory, as they have been neither permanent nor predictable, and they have invariably taken place towards the end of the fishing season.
The 2007 decommissioning scheme simply exacerbated the problem, creating more “slipper skippers”, with vessel owners entitled to retain the fixed quota allocation units even when their vessels had been decommissioned. A system has, thus, developed whereby the under-10s do not have enough quota to make a living and are in effect dying a slow, lingering death, while quota held by the producer organisations is not being used, and attempts by Government to encourage gifts of unused quota have invariably come to nothing.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the House, because it is important to him, to other Members in the Chamber and, especially, to me and Portavogie in my constituency. The problem is not just the quotas that are set, but those that are reduced by Europe. The Minister works energetically on behalf of the fishing industry in the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that Europe needs to give quotas that will make the industry that I represent viable? The industry has evidence to support its belief about the numbers of fish in the sea, so it needs Europe to give them back.
Peter Aldous
Communities and the fishing industry all around the coast have been affected. The problem in recent years has essentially been quota management, but the common fisheries policy, on which the Minister has been fighting tirelessly over the past three years, is also a factor, so I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
The Minister, to his credit, tried to impose a modest redistribution of unused quota, which equated to 0.1% of the fixed quota allocation units in the UK. He sought to be reasonable and conciliatory to POs in doing that, and when representations were made against his proposals, he reduced the number of realigned units from 10,494 to 7,901. Despite that, the producer organisations took the view that the Government’s proposal deprived them, without compensation, of what they viewed as a valuable entitlement, even though it was minimal and, in effect, represented quota that was not being used. They therefore launched a judicial review arguing that the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully, was interfering with their property rights, and had behaved in a discriminatory manner.
Last Wednesday, Mr Justice Cranston delivered his judgment. He found in favour of the Government, dismissing the producer organisations’ challenge. His judgment contained several conclusions. He summarily dismissed the producer organisations’ main argument as
“falling at the first hurdle”.
He expressed sympathy with the views of NUTFA and Greenpeace, the two interveners in the case, that fishing quota and the fixed quota allocation system should always be considered against the backdrop of the principle that fish are a public resource, which is an understanding that dates back to the Magna Carta. He said that the Secretary of State had done nothing that disabled him from changing the fixed quota allocation system to address consistent non-use of quota. He expressed the view that the Secretary of State’s decision to reallocate quota was justified and that the means chosen were proportionate. He said that the Secretary of State’s decision did not constitute interference with, or deprivation of, possessions, as the producer organisations had contended. He also expressed the opinion that the producer organisations and their members have no proprietary interest in the fishing stock itself, and that fixed quota allocation units give no right to any specific amount of fishing stock in advance of the annual ministerial decisions on quota that take place each December.
With the decision coming shortly after the agreement on CFP reform, there is now a real opportunity to carry out a root and branch reform of UK fishing and to replace a system of management that has become dominated by big vessels with no connection to local areas and provides no significant benefits to either the local or the national economy. Instead, we should be looking to put in place a system that supports local communities and brings with it significant environmental, social and economic benefits.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the manner in which he is making his case. I entirely agree with the conclusion that he is reaching, but does he acknowledge that large producer organisations work well with local inshore under-10 metre boats in some parts of the country? Does he agree that it would be appropriate for those vessels to ensure that they keep a record of their catch of non-quota species forthwith, because it is inevitable in the years to come that they will be asked to demonstrate what fish they have been catching over a reference period?
Peter Aldous
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is wrong of me to tar all producer organisations with the same brush. Back in 1994 and 1996, it was probably wrong that the under-10s were not keeping such records, and they have learned a lesson from that.
Based on the response from Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s Fish Fight campaign, such a reform would in my view have public backing, as well as the support of fishing communities from all around the UK, and it would now have legal justification. Common fisheries policy reform, as well as setting out the courses for the elimination of discards and the introduction of a decentralised management system, also has the requirement for member states to allocate fishing quota taking into account environmental, social and economic considerations. This provides the framework for root and branch reform. I urge the Minister to pursue such a course and, as the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recommended in its 2011 report, to base these reform proposals on the needs of the inshore fleet, rather than on the existing patterns of work of the offshore fleet. DEFRA should identify those stocks and areas where a re-alignment of quota allocation would be of real benefit to the inshore fleet.
To prevent the problems of the past recurring, there is a vital and urgent need for transparency. As a high priority, it is important that a publicly accessible register of quota allocations and transactions is published as soon as practicably possible. I would welcome an update from the Minister as to the progress being made in providing that by the end of the year, as has previously been stated. Without a clear register, it is incredibly difficult to see who is benefiting from the nation’s fish resource and to work out whether it is being properly shared out so as to get maximum social benefit. Such a register should establish what proportion of quota is currently held by non-fishermen. It would, I hope, at least dispel the urban myth that has grown up that football clubs hold quota. I urge that consideration be given to introducing a requirement that in future quota should be held only by active fishermen. A further proposal to consider is that in future DEFRA should make greater use of its powers to re-allocate unused quota in-year.
For whatever reason, we have allowed an inexplicable system to develop, with a barely comprehensible trading method inside producer organisations which is both complex and opaque. We need to consign this to the dustbin of history and move forward to a more professionally managed system with direct licensing from the Crown to fishermen, with more clarity over who has what. This way the public can get the best out of what is, after all, their fishery. There is a need for a proper formal mechanism to grant fishermen new fishing rights. A new fisheries Act may be necessary to achieve that
It would be helpful to know the timetable that the Minister has in mind for coming forward with proposals on which the industry can be consulted and which this House can debate. It is important that the right decisions are made and a management system put in place that provides fishing communities all around the coast with a sustainable future and ensures that the inshore fleet is able not only to survive, but to flourish.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on securing the debate, but on delivering a very powerful speech. I agree with everything he has said. It is undoubtedly crucial that we shift the balance in favour of the smaller fishermen, as he has described. Another opportunity for levelling the playing field, which has gone under-reported but which results from the Minister’s negotiations in the CFP reform discussions, means effectively that laws applied by our Government in our waters, which previously have only ever applied to our fishermen, now must apply to everyone, so foreign vessels operating in our waters must for the first time adhere to British law. That surely is another string in the bow of the smaller fishermen.
Peter Aldous
I acknowledge that point, well made by my hon. Friend. The decision is helpful. Also, we now have a sensible framework in the common fisheries policy. I pay tribute to Maria Damanaki, the Commissioner, for taking a lead on that, and again to the Minister for fighting hard when the negotiations got tough on that issue. As a result, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
In conclusion, we need to get on with this, because time is very much of the essence. In years gone by it was possible to cross from one side of Lowestoft’s Hamilton dock to the other by walking from boat to boat. Today the dock is virtually empty of fishing boats. However, if we now put the right system of management in place, fishing will be able to play a continuing role in the future economy not only of Lowestoft, but of many other communities across the four nations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
I start by paying great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). His constituency might have a much diminished fleet, but he is a worthy champion of it and has stood up for it on many occasions. Having visited Lowestoft’s fishing industry with him, I have seen at first hand his passion to see it return to economic viability—to flourish, as he puts it—and to protect it from the complications of a system that has failed it, failed the marine environment and failed the coastal communities on which it depends.
I was of course pleased that the judgment in the judicial review between the UK Association of Fish Producers Organisations and my Department went in our favour. That completely vindicates the decision I took in 2011 to realign consistently underutilised quota from producer organisations and allocate it to those able to fish it. I agree with my hon. Friend that we are not talking about a huge amount of quota, but we have won on a key point of principle. I entirely agree with the view, commonly held across the House, that we are talking about a national asset. It is my Department’s job to allocate fishing opportunities in this country in as fair a way as possible. The judgment might still be subject to an appeal, but I will set out what I intend to do to ensure that we can maximise the value of our fishing quotas and the sustainability of the fleet while guaranteeing the transparency and accountability of those who have access to this priceless public resource.
My Department has undertaken a wide range of initiatives in recent years, and I would like to set them out briefly, along with some of the other projects being undertaken by different stakeholders. Work to finalise the reallocation of the fixed quota allocation units had been put on hold pending the outcome of the judicial review. That work will now proceed to allow the transfer of units from producer organisations to the under-10 metre English pool. I encourage the industry, particularly producer organisations, to support that work. I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said about the many producer organisations that have under-10 metre vessels in their membership and that work well with them whether or not they are in those organisations.
I previously updated the House on 17 June 2013 on the vital progress to secure radical reform of the common fisheries policy. I do not underestimate the challenges fishermen will face as we adapt to the new provisions, especially those relating to the discard ban. We are already working with the industry in the UK on a range of projects, including catch quotas, more selective gears and the identification of discard rates in our fisheries, to ensure that we can make the new system work effectively for the whole fleet. However, the deal that has been agreed—to introduce a ban on discards, manage our fish stocks sustainably and manage our seas on a regional basis—will benefit all of our fleet, large and small.
At long last our fishing industry will be able to have some certainty as to its future. Although the introduction of a ban on discards has taken the headlines, the requirement to manage our seas to maximum sustainable yield by 2020 is perhaps the most significant element of the reform. When we look back on this period, perhaps in a decade or two, we will see that as the really big win in returning our seas to sustainable harvesting of wild fish. Fishermen will have certainty over the future of the stocks they fish and depend on.
In addition, I am pleased to inform the House that yesterday we successfully secured a general approach on the European maritime and fisheries fund at the European Agriculture and Fisheries Council. The agreement means that the EMFF will be an effective tool for supporting delivery of CFP reform, and it clears the way for discussions between the presidency, Commission, and Parliament to continue in the autumn.
As part of a package of measures to reform domestic fisheries, my Department is running a pilot community quota scheme, working with a group of fishermen from Ramsgate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) for her support for that scheme. She has been a tireless supporter of the fishing industry in her constituency—just as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney is in his—and of the under-10 metre fleet in general. The purpose of the scheme was to give a group of inshore fishermen some quota from the under-10 metre pool and for them to manage it themselves. The scheme ran from 1 June 2012 to 31 May this year, and has been extended in response to calls for the pilot to continue from the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, and the Ramsgate fishermen group. It will now operate until 31 December with support from the Fish Producers Organisation. The group will have full management control over the quotas it has been allocated.
The project demonstrated key benefits such as more flexibility and greater certainty in fishing activities that supported better business planning and efficiency. The group preferred the management arrangement under the pilot, which was reflected in its request for it to continue. The offer by the FPO demonstrates the willingness of producer organisations to help the inshore fleet, which is a welcome development. By working together, different sectors of the industry can bring about initiatives that help maximise their catches, get better value for their fish, and promote a common interest in managing those resources effectively. The outcome of the pilot will be used to help us determine ways in which we may seek to manage the inshore fleet, and the quota available to it in the future.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is currently funding an activity-based research project piloting a community supported fishery approach on the south coast. Under that project, communities in Brighton and Chichester have formed co-operatives through which local fishers supply weekly boxes of fish directly to subscribing members. As well as testing the appetite for consumers to work with their local fishers in that way, and sharing both the risks and benefits faced by the fishers, the project also provides a mechanism to create a market for underutilised or discarded fish species. The project is due to finish at the end of July, but the co-operatives and fishers involved have found the approach beneficial, and intend to continue without Government support in the future. I welcome that and congratulate them on the way they have used Government funding and will carry forward the project.
Last year I and the other UK fisheries Ministers announced our intention to produce a publicly accessible register that would show exactly who had ownership of fixed quota allocation units in the United Kingdom. DEFRA and Ministers in the devolved Administrations continue to work on that with the industry, and it remains our intention and aim to publish that register by the end of 2013. The public have a right to know who receives the UK’s fishing quotas, and I am delighted that we are on track to do that. I will keep the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney informed of our progress.
I also thank other organisations for their efforts in helping to secure a bright future for the nation’s fisheries resources. The Marine Stewardship Council has launched phase 3 of its Project Inshore initiative. The purpose of the project is to assess all inshore fish stocks in England and Wales so as to determine their preparedness for certification. The aim is not to seek certification for all stocks, but to produce a road map outlining the status of the fisheries in order to develop best practice so they can be managed sustainably. That is a timely project, supported by a range of stakeholders such as Seafish, NGOs and retailers.
Fishing into the Future is another initiative that focuses on the viability of our fishing communities and the sustainable use of fish stocks. It was launched by the Prince of Wales’s international sustainability unit in collaboration with Seafish, and aims to encourage sustainability and marketing efforts through the exchange of new knowledge and ideas between fishers, scientists, fisheries managers and supply chain experts.
I welcome such initiatives and my Department is pleased to be part of them. Making sure that our stocks are exploited at optimal sustainable levels and reallocating quota to maximise their use is only going so far towards addressing the challenges that the inshore and, indeed, other fishing sectors face. We also need to ensure that our fleet size matches the fishing opportunities available. For that reason, my Department is exploring ways in which this can be achieved, and we will be discussing it with the industry.
The task now facing us is a challenging one. Let us not run away from that fact; it is well understood by the fishing industry and by everybody who minds about the health of our seas. It is important that we all work together to grasp the opportunities provided by CFP reform and other initiatives. I hope that now that the court case is behind us we can all work together to make sure that we have a meaningful future for our fishing industry. Let us not hide from the fact that there are many fishers in the over-10 metre sector as well as the under-10 metre sector who have found life next to impossible—who are hanging on by their fingertips, as I have said before. The opportunity now exists for them to see a future that will really make a difference and encourage future generations.
I cannot guarantee that people will be able to walk across Hamilton dock in Lowestoft in the way that they could in the past. It is possible, however, that people will see that this is a business they want to go into and can manage in the same way that any other small business can be managed. However, they can do so only if there is a rising biomass of fish in the sea. Our overriding determination must be to ensure that fish stocks increase, and then the fishing opportunities that we allocate as fairly as possible can be of much more economic benefit to fishermen fishing in harmony with nature. In recent years, great inroads have been made into improving the sustainability of fisheries, and I really hope that we can build on that excellent work. I commend my hon. Friend again for bringing this important matter to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Abu Qatada (Deportation)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
It is important to remember that the UK Government already had assurances about Qatada’s treatment in Jordan—assurances that have been upheld in the courts—but in February last year the European Court of Human Rights moved the goalposts and declared that his deportation would be unlawful because of the risk that evidence obtained through the mistreatment of others might be used against him.
[Official Report, 8 July 2013, Vol. 566, c. 23.]
Letter of correction from Theresa May:
An error has been identified in the Statement given on 8 July 2013.
The correct Statement should have been:
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
It is important to remember that the UK Government already had assurances about Qatada’s treatment in Jordan—assurances that have been upheld in the courts—but in January last year the European Court of Human Rights moved the goalposts and declared that his deportation would be unlawful because of the risk that evidence obtained through the mistreatment of others might be used against him.
Petitions
Abolishment of the Probation Service
Objections to Incinerator for Huntington (South Staffordshire)
School Uniform Supply Regulations
Aircraft Noise Pollution (Holywell)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
National Parliaments and the EU
(10 years, 9 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
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to have this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Chope.
The ageing process has some charming aspects, one of which is that a new idea arrives and I sit and think, “I think I have heard this somewhere before.” If someone hangs around long enough, they may even find that not only have they heard the idea before but that they have heard it before before. I had that feeling when I heard of the latest strengthening of national Parliaments within the European Union context. At that stage I decided to break one of my basic rules: over the years I have never taken part in an EU debate without saying something that I have not said before. I recommend that practice to others, but on this occasion I thought I would pull together some thoughts on national Parliaments and some of the problems over the past few years.
Yet again, the role of national Parliaments is essentially being used as a fig leaf to hide accountability for decision making at the European level. The fig leaf is being used by national Governments, and we should not fall for it. I had a feeling of déjà vu 10 years ago, when I went to the Convention on the Future of Europe. One of the five working groups was on the role of national Parliaments, and an old hand sidled up to me and said, “Remember the dud they sold John Major?” I said, “No, I don’t remember the dud they sold John Major.” And the old hand said, “Well, during Maastricht they introduced the concept of subsidiarity and proportionality, which was supposed to appease the national Governments. There was also then a review of competences across Whitehall.”
It was funny—I thought I had heard that before. The dud they sold Major was on the principle that national Parliaments should be given a role on policing subsidiarity and proportionality—the Convention on the Future of Europe was in 2002 or 2003—so I said, “When has the principle ever been invoked?” I was then told that it had been invoked only once, during the British presidency, when there was the bright idea that we wanted to standardise the water temperature for sea lions in zoos. That was a step too far even for Britain and was deemed to be out of order on the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality.
Subsidiarity and proportionality are being chucked at an interesting case that is currently going through—the representation of women on company boards. I find that quite extraordinary. The rights of women are now seen to be something at the behest of national Governments. I thought we had already reached equality. Please give me equality, but not because of subsidiarity.
I will give a bit of history. In 1994, after Maastricht, national Parliaments were supposed to come to the rescue; and in 2002-03, they were supposed to come to the rescue again with a card system of yellow cards, red cards, vetoes and all those kinds of things. Yet again, we hear that national Parliaments are supposed to be strengthened, but in this place we are talking less about Europe than ever before. Previously, a small, select group of people would gather on Wednesdays ahead of a European Council meeting, and occasionally we would tell each other something that we had not said before. We considered the programme of the European Council. There were afternoon debates, and Ministers had to tell the Commons what was about to happen. Regularly, on the following Monday, the Prime Minister would give a statement on the results. Some Members will remember that we used to have great fun at those pre-Council meetings, because the Danes would usually have published the Council conclusions on their website ahead of the Council meeting. We made fun of that, but at least we talked about it.
What happens now is that debates ahead of a Council meeting are deemed to be Back-Bench business. I spent three consecutive Thursdays complaining about that to the Leader of the House, and I kept getting the same answer—that it is part of the Wright recommendations. We have overturned other parts of the Wright recommendations, so why are they suddenly sacrosanct? On top of that, the Prime Minister did not give a Council statement back in June because he said it was so boring, and he has combined the subsequent Council statements with hefty, serious foreign policy statements on other issues. The last Council statement was combined with a statement on Afghanistan. Both issues would have deserved a statement in their own right. National Parliaments are supposed to be coming to the rescue, yet Parliament is speaking less about the matter.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that that retrograde step is particularly regrettable given that other Parliaments have actually started to improve their scrutiny? She mentioned the Danish Parliament, but the German Parliament now scrutinises the German Government’s negotiating strategy more closely ahead of European Council meetings.
Ms Stuart
Indeed. Ten years ago, the British Parliament was seen as having some of the toughest and most extensive scrutiny functions. We were also the first Parliament to open an office in the European Parliament so that we had representation there. Ten years ago we were a model that other people looked towards, and now we have fallen behind. We are doing less than others.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I am sure the hon. Lady would not want to move on to another subject without noting that the European Scrutiny Committee has now set up an inquiry into European scrutiny, to which she has given some very good evidence. Furthermore, last night the European Scrutiny Committee and two other Committees worked together to ensure that we changed the Government’s approach to the whole business of opt-outs and opt-ins and that the Government accepted the amendment that had essentially been drafted by the European Scrutiny Committee.
Ms Stuart
I fear to tread on the subject of the European Scrutiny Committee in the hon. Gentleman’s presence, because I know I would get it wrong. I would also rather rely on his intervening to tell the Chamber about the Committee’s work. It is significant that last night it was agreed that the negotiating positions had to be brought back to Parliament, but we all know that we are still only talking to each other in Committee Rooms rather than on the Floor of the House.
What would really improve national Parliaments? I am caught between a rock and a hard place, because I do not want national Parliaments to become separate institutions within the architectural framework of the EU. The EU has the Commission and the Council, but national Parliaments provide the majorities to form the Governments that send Ministers to the Council. There is, however, a little-known organisation that is known only to those who have been to some of its meetings—COSAC, which is the conference of European scrutiny committees.
Ten years ago, I was trying to broker a deal in that working group between national Parliaments so that COSAC would be strengthened in the red and yellow card system, but for that the MEPs would have had to leave COSAC. It is difficult for COSAC to arrive at a decision, because there are, say, four representatives from each country, two from the Government and two from the Opposition. If there is a coalition Government, in our case the representatives could be a Tory, a Lib Dem and two Labour Members, so there are probably three views among the four representatives. Consensus then has to be reached across 27 or 28 countries within extremely tight time limits. What then happens is that MEPs are the only people who are sufficiently united in their view and who caucus—they are usually united in the view that the European Parliament is good and national Parliaments are bad. The card system will not work unless the national Parliaments that exercise the veto have a network to talk to each other. If that network has an in-built number of MEPs who can outvote the national parliamentarians, it simply will not work. I do not know whether it is possible to change the job that COSAC does in such a way, but we will see.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am following the hon. Lady’s remarks carefully. She refers to scrutiny as a key issue, but in Strangford, which has an agricultural and fishing base, it is not scrutiny that we want but changes in legislation to reduce red tape and bureaucracy. Does she feel that we can change things through the scrutiny that she refers to? If we cannot change things, scrutiny is no good.
Ms Stuart
The hon. Gentleman has gone to the nub of the matter. We need to decide what we think the role of national Parliaments is. Is it only to scrutinise? If so, we need to widen the base so that more Members take part more regularly. Or is it to get Governments to change their decisions at times? I think that it needs to be the latter, but a number of things have to happen to allow that. Early information is key.
We also need information about how people actually act in the Council of Ministers. I have sat in the Council of Ministers, and I know that there is rarely a vote. If there is, it is seen as a failure by the civil servants that they have allowed the situation to arise. They do a head count to see whether they have a qualified majority, and if they do not think they will get the decision they want, they give in gracefully.
That takes me to what really needs to change. We need a proper Europe Minister. That is not to cast any aspersions on the current Europe Minister, but the position is a fallacy. Why are matters involving the European Union, which deals essentially with domestic legislation, placed in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Numerous Governments have tried at times to get the Europe function out of the Foreign Office. From what I gather, the trade union of Foreign Office Ministers usually gets together and it does not happen, but there is a question to be addressed there.
If the Europe Minister is in the Foreign Office and makes decisions and strikes bargains regularly, they might say, “There’s an idea here that affects agriculture on which we want some compromise”, or it might be on cigarette advertising, the working hours of junior doctors or any number of issues on which we can get a deal. Such deals are struck across various Departments. At that level of political bargaining, the House has no ability to scrutinise, take a role or even know what happens. We are simply given the end results. A Europe Minister should have accountability for our permanent representative in Brussels, UKRep, which does all those dealings, and be answerable to the House of Commons for the bargains struck. There was a stage when a previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, seriously envisaged such a role, but for whatever reason it did not happen.
I can hear the outcry: “You can’t politicise UKRep!” I am not saying that I would do it the way that the Finns do it, for example—they call their civil servant before them every Friday morning—but Select Committees can call civil servants. There could be a regular slot for UKRep representatives when they come on a Friday to brief Whitehall Departments about what they have done. They could stay until the Monday morning or come on the Thursday afternoon to give evidence. If we do not want to do it at the civil service level—actually, I would rather do it at the political level—there should be a Minister who is answerable to the House across Whitehall Departments for negotiations, compromises and deals struck in Brussels. It would be such a far-reaching brief that the Minister would almost function as a Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr Cash
I am extremely interested in what the hon. Lady is saying, and I have often thought along similar lines. However, does she acknowledge that due to the critical mass of the European Union’s relationship with the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister and Downing street ultimately want to control all those matters? I suppose that that is understandable from their point of view. During the constitutional treaty discussions and the run-up to Lisbon, it was thought that the Foreign Secretary was out of the loop, because Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) were in discussions but the Foreign Secretary was scarcely involved at all.
Ms Stuart
That is not my recollection. The biggest thing that happened during the convention was the Iraq war, which meant that people’s attention was rightly drawn to other things. However, as I was representing national Parliaments and not the British Government, I had access to the Departments across Whitehall in a way that even a Cabinet Minister probably never has. I had a snapshot of what was happening in various Departments at any given time, and then I saw how people negotiated and traded things.
There is nothing wrong with that, but if we do not know what deals are being struck, we can neither approve nor disapprove. What happens is not uniquely British: every Government comes back with a success that they regard as an ultimate success for their own negotiating position, and think that they have shown all the others how they have failed. Anything that they do not like, they blame on the European Union. We will never be at ease with the decision-making process unless we actually know what is going on. We take notice only of the things that we do not like; there is no cognizance of the things that we do like.
This is about the Europe Minister and the accountability of UKRep. This place needs to get its head around how we can break open that decision-making process and make it accountable here. I think that I am right in saying that we still do not even know whether one of our Ministers was at the Council meeting or whether he or she was represented by a civil servant. Is that information available?
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
Parliament is usually told in advance by a Minister from the appropriate Department who will be in the UK chair for a meeting of the Council. Certainly, for the Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council, I routinely table a written ministerial statement to Parliament that says whether the Foreign Secretary or I will be in the chair. In the subsequent report to Parliament about what happened at Council meetings, we have sometimes said that for a certain item on the agenda, the permanent representative was in the chair.
Ms Stuart
That is helpful. I hope that it applies not just to the Foreign Affairs Council but to all meetings that are open, so that we can know afterwards whether the Minister or a civil servant was there.
To give one example, I was on a committee considering defence procurement across Europe. Countries have a veto and can say that it is in their national interest for a particular piece of defence procurement not to come within the single market rules. There was a reference to how often the UK had used that veto, and I wanted to find out through written answers how often that veto was used by other countries, because without comparison with other countries a single figure is utterly meaningless; one cannot tell whether it is excessive or very low.
I think that the UK used its veto about nine times. If France had used its veto 315 times, there would have been something wrong. If France had never used it, I would want to ask a few more questions about why we had. The answer came back that the information was not available. The Foreign Office felt that it was not its job to answer for the European Union, but as an MP, I had no means at that stage to go further and find that information. Similarly, the Dutch had not fully signed up to that agreement. When I tried to find out why, I was told that that was an issue for the Dutch Government. That is a legitimate answer, but it does not allow us to understand how we are represented and how other countries are working on that.
Even if the Prime Minister does not wish to create a new role for a Europe Minister with responsibility across Whitehall—I can see why he might not want to do so, because it takes power away—let us consider the notion of the red card, yellow card or whatever colour it is. The card is meant to be a mechanism by which national Parliaments can say to the Commission, “Thus far, and no further. Step back again.”
When the red card system was first mooted, the Commission was up in arms, because it felt that it was insulting to suggest that it would ever bring anything forward that would breach the principles and could be objected to by two thirds of national Parliaments, or whatever. It subsequently got off its high horse and accepted the principle—but no more than the principle, that we can wave a card, because there is no duty on the Commission to withdraw its proposals or to come back with better proposals. Following the speech of the Foreign Secretary in Berlin, I gather that we now have ideas for an improved version of the red and yellow cards, and I look forward to hearing more about that.
Instead of the card system, however, perhaps the British Government will consider discussing with the Commission the idea of a delete button for legislative proposals. When we have a general election and the Government go, so do their manifesto commitments and legislative proposals; the slate is wiped clean. At the European level, there is no such delete button. Proposals that are not agreed in one parliamentary session, simply refuse to die. A classic example of that is the hallmarking directive, which comes up again every so often, because some countries have a particular interest. We can either negotiate something to death, so that it is almost meaningless, or we end up introducing something that, 10 years ago, when first introduced, was a good idea, but now no longer is.
One example was the effect of the working time directive on junior doctors. Negotiations on the working time directive started in the ’90s, with legitimate concerns about lorry drivers driving for too long, and so on. It was not until 1999 that I ended up trying to negotiate on opt-out for junior doctors, because we could tell that the working hours requirements would mean that the increase in doctors, which the Labour Government was bringing in, would be totally consumed in the first few years. We wanted the directive to be phased, but we then had court judgments that extended it even further. The political impact of that decision did not become apparent until almost 20 years after the original directive.
If democratic accountability means getting rid of decision makers when we think that they have made bad decisions, by the time a European Union decision on some things kicks in, it really is the Schleswig-Holstein question and only three people know the answer: one is mad, another is forgotten and the third is dead. If we had a process of completion that gave us some parliamentary input, we would know where the start and end points were, so we would know where we could use our influence and get the Government to take a stance.
I hope that the Minister will tell us more about the red card, but I also hope that he will say more about whether he envisages Parliament having a role in affecting the decisions of the Government before they go into negotiations. Unless we know beforehand, not only in the European Scrutiny Committee but through a mechanism by which what is about to happen is discussed on the Floor of the House, we cannot influence it. By the time the Minister goes to Brussels, the deals have been struck. Any Ministers who have attended European Council meetings know that they go on the plane, they read their papers, they arrive in Brussels and UKRep gives them a brief with the lines to take. Anyone who tries to unravel anything is told, “That’s the deal; that’s it.” At that stage, anyone short of the Prime Minister cannot unravel the deal.
I want to leave the Minister with a final, incredibly radical thought—a radical retrograde step to some perhaps. At the recent Königswinter conference, I chaired one of the groups and, by way of introduction, I asked everyone to say, going around the table, one thing that they really loved about the European Union and one that they would get rid of tomorrow if we could. The group was half Germans and half Brits, and to my absolute astonishment there was a consensus around the table that the one thing that we should get rid of was the European Parliament. Then I realised the real difference between the Germans and the Brits. We talked about the connection never being made and how a double mandate was the way to link things, but for the Germans the double mandate was to use some MEPs as national MPs, while for the Brits it was to use some nationally elected parliamentarians at the Brussels level.
We must look at the workings of the European Parliament. It will simply not do that our contact with it is getting less and less. With the closed list system, fewer and fewer people know who their MEPs are. The relationship is not only fractured, but virtually non-existent. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say even about some basic things. He may want to correct me, but we do not automatically issue passes for the House of Commons to Members of the European Parliament, so they have to queue up with everyone else. If we want a proper a dialogue, they ought to be here. I remember that we would not let MEPs have dining rights or book a room, because we thought that they would invade this place in order to enjoy the cuisine. [Interruption.] I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer).
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I was not going to intervene, but my hon. Friend generously gave way before I asked.
I have two points to make on scrutiny and accountability. The European Parliament does not see itself as being accountable to national Parliaments; in reality, it is in competition, which is why many national parliamentarians around Europe are not in favour of the European Parliament, because it sees its future as taking over our role. Secondly, the rights of MEPs in this House were taken away some time ago.
Ms Stuart
The reason why I asked for the debate was to bring in some historical perspective, because since I have been in the House this is the third time that national Parliaments have been resurrected as the panacea for dealing with unaccountability. In the Scrutiny Committee, we have improved our function, but we have not extended that to the whole House. In fact, we have reduced the accountability of Ministers, and of the Prime Minister in particular, through debate in the House, in order for us to know what the Government are doing at the European level. Unless we have some structure or another to do that, we will simply never be at peace or feel that we know what decisions are being made on our behalf, whether we want to influence the decision or to scrutinise it.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) not only for securing the debate, but for the way in which she has deployed her arguments. She has been in the House for about 10 years, I suppose—
Mr Cash
Seventeen years! I am only getting close to 30 years. It is extremely refreshing to hear such cogent and well thought out concern about the whole European issue, which has dogged our political debates for the 30 years or so that I have been in the House—whether there is any connection, I cannot say. Today, the one thing that saddens me slightly and, I dare say, her, too, is that so few people are participating in a debate about what is at the heart of our democratic system. I regard this matter as being not “about Europe” but about Britain, and about democracy, which is not peculiar to any one country.
Our democratic systems have, in real terms, emerged since the 19th century, because of John Bright and others. I mention his name because the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston represents part of his old constituency, before it was Birmingham Central. His fight for the working-class vote was in essence the beginnings of our democratic system. The Conservative party, under Disraeli, gave in to the pressures. There is no need to go into the detail, but it was incredibly important and was based on the assumption that when people went into the polling booth and cast their vote secretly in a ballot box—that was the system that was devised in the late 19th century to ensure that the people had their say—we had a democracy. Other countries have run parallel with that, so the issue is not exclusively British but applies elsewhere in the whole of the European continent and the rest of the world.
I fear that with the movement towards bigger regional systems, even those who claim that they want world government ignore national identity, traditions and democratic systems, and therefore in essence national Parliaments, at their peril. The European Union, which I voted for as the European Community in 1975—I said yes—has since moved inexorably along a trajectory towards more and more centralisation and less and less national involvement.
The Minister for Europe is here. He and I have engaged in debates and discussions on the matter since at least 1988 or 1989, when I was first elected chairman of the backbench committee on European affairs in hostile circumstances. It was interesting that the national parliamentarians who then represented the Conservative party elected me in a secret ballot because I had put out a note explaining why I was standing, which was all about national Parliaments. I had written a pamphlet for the Bow Group called “A Democratic Way to European Unity: Arguments against Federalism” and I followed that up the following year with another called “Against a Federal Europe—The Battle for Britain”. I think I can fairly say—I do so without presumption—that what I set out in those two documents has remained the central problem.
The difference is that the evidence now demonstrates the analysis of where we were going wrong, which was further and further integration, and that was in the 1988 to 1991 period. Since then, we have had Amsterdam, Nice and Maastricht, and we have had the constitutional and Lisbon treaties. Irrespective of the evidence, both economic and political, there is increasing distrust not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the whole of Europe. I need not give all the Eurobarometer’s figures, but 72% of those in countries such as Spain and Italy have now decided that they do not trust the European Union. I presume to say that riots, unemployment and the rise of the far right are all things that I said would happen when I wrote those pamphlets back in 1988-91 and since.
Despite all that, as well as the Bloomberg speech and the movement towards a referendum—I believe that there will be a money resolution this afternoon on the European Union (Referendum) Bill—if I am being completely objective, nothing has changed except public opinion. The facts demonstrate that those of us who have argued this case consistently over a long period have been proved right. I am not saying, “I told you so.” The matter is far too serious for that because, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston said, it is about our democratic system.
National parliamentarians are elected by virtue of manifestos in general elections. We ultimately control taxation and spending. That is what determines the nature of our economy, and it also determines public services. If circumstances arise in which the economic and political situation in this country, let alone other countries, becomes dysfunctional and as a result we cannot deliver the prosperity that people want, not only will they become completely alienated from laws that are generated to exclude them from participation in a prosperous business and social environment, but the entire fabric of the European system will disintegrate.
The real problem is the treaties. The issue is no longer just a call for reform. I was anxious for reform, and I have called for renegotiation for as long as I can remember, because I thought the treaties would go wrong. Now that they have gone so wrong, there is no prospect of their improving the situation and, as I will explain, there is absolutely no sign that any Government in any European country are seriously grappling with the intrinsic problem at the heart of the treaties. Governments talk about renegotiation, but we are past that. The reality is that we must leave the existing treaties—I make this point in the context of our national Parliament and our own country—because unless other countries are prepared to face up to the fact that there has been a cataclysmic failure of the system, they will not be impelled to make the changes that are needed to achieve what I still believe in: co-operation on the European continent and in trade.
I need not go into the arguments about trading, because we are talking about national Parliaments, but one reason why the British Chambers of Commerce and others have become so deeply disillusioned by the European Union in business terms is precisely the legislation that has come about as a result of being passed under the aegis of the treaties. Those treaties, because of the concrete framework of the acquis communautaire, cannot be changed without unanimity among all member states, and there is absolutely no intention whatever to make fundamental changes to the treaties.
Graham Stringer
The hon. Gentleman is making a profound point about the inflexibility of the European Union structure. Does he agree that the reason why European Union countries, with the possible exception of Sweden, are unlikely to withdraw support from the current treaties is that they have a history of fascism, communism or of being defeated in wars and controlled by other nations? They do not have the same confidence in their national democracies that we have in this country.
Mr Cash
That is absolutely correct, and is not disrespectful or a criticism of those countries. In the past month I have been to Lithuania twice, and I have great affection for that country. One has only to look at the way in which it has been brutalised for 150 years by successive dictatorships—the Nazis, Russians and Soviet Union—to realise why it would want the security of working within the framework of something bigger. The same applies to Estonia, Latvia and many other countries in central and eastern Europe, so there is an understandable reason for their wanting to play safe, as it were. However, it is not playing safe that is the problem, because the price that people will pay for allowing that democratic system to be so much at risk will be another collapse of those countries if the democratic freedom that they fought for disintegrates as a result of the European Union’s failures.
The fact is that tinkering with the treaties is not the only thing required. It is about the very foundations of the EU, which brings me on to the question of ever-closer union. Certainly that was embedded in the early treaties, including in the treaty of Rome. However, it was not capable of being implemented, unless and until the genie was gradually eased out of the bottle as a result of successive treaty changes. People are cynical about the 1975 referendum, and I understand why. There is plenty of reason to believe that, in fact, it was done with some cynicism by the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. However, the reality is that people such as Tony Benn and others, who were involved in arguments on the other side, challenged whether it would ultimately lead to political union.
Although I freely state that I voted yes in 1975, it was because, as far as I was aware, it was going to be a common market. It was not only that, however. It could only become more of an integrated, ever-closer union as a result of further treaties, which is why I most emphatically put my foot down on the Maastricht treaty—I tabled about 200 amendments, or whatever it was—and fought the arguments right the way through from beginning to end, because that was about the creation of European government. There is no disputing that, and I am very glad that the present Prime Minister stated in the House the other day that he thought that there should have been a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. He was right.
We do not need to go into the past too much, but the Maastricht treaty remains at the epicentre of the Lisbon treaty, because the Lisbon treaty is simply a consolidation of all the others. Anyone who cares to get those treaties out can see that, although I have to say that there are not many people who would. Sometimes even I have a great disinclination to get out the consolidated treaties and plough through them, although I notice that the Minister has them on his desk, with lots of little yellow flashes so that he can immediately leap to one article or another. However, I do not think this is about individual articles, nor is it about the intricacies of bits and pieces. It is about the fundamental structure.
Graham Stringer
The hon. Gentleman is right about the Lisbon treaty to a point, but does he agree that there is a fundamental difference between the Lisbon treaty and all the treaties that went before it, inasmuch as the passerelle clauses provide the right to change treaties without going back to the sovereign Governments and Parliaments?
Mr Cash
One of the most offensive kinds of provision that appear in our domestic legislation is the Henry VIII clause, as we call it. The passerelle clause has all the same characteristics; it is a capacity to make changes without having to go back to the source of authority. However, we have to pin our main concerns to the source of authority, which is the European Communities Act 1972 itself. I allude to the White Paper, which was brought out, preceding that treaty, in 1971, and upon which, as a result of a huge amount of discussion in Parliament but not so much outside, the United Kingdom Parliament decided to pass the Act on an apparently—I say “apparently”—free vote. It happened, however, because certain Labour Members at that time decided that they would back Edward Heath’s proposals for what was to be enacted in the 1972 Act.
That White Paper is the foundation of our national parliamentary commitment to the whole panoply, the tens of thousands of lines—millions, I suspect; I have never counted them, thank God—the fabric, the labyrinth and the inexplicable and completely impossible complexities of the legislation, as was clearly demonstrated in yesterday’s debate on the opt-out. The fact is that all that ultimately turns on one piece of legislation, which we entered into voluntarily in Parliament—no doubt some, or perhaps most, did so for the best of motives. What it said was that we will accept all the decisions that are ultimately taken in the Council of Ministers as the legislation of the United Kingdom.
At the same time, we set up a scrutiny process, which I shall come on to in a moment. However, the fundamental issue is that the White Paper stated unequivocally—I do not have the quotation to hand, but I am sure that I will in no way fail to express it clearly—that we must retain the veto in our own national interest and to do otherwise would not only undermine our national interest, but endanger the very fabric of the European Community itself. That was a very wise remark, because as Members will note from what I said at the beginning, the whole of Europe is in convulsion. It is faced not only with a democratic deficit, but with a democratic crisis, and there is not only a eurozone crisis, but a European crisis. It affects the whole of Europe, which is being contaminated by a complete refusal to look at the essential ingredients of the treaties.
Those fundamental questions are now being completely ignored. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston referred to COSAC, which, as she rightly said, is not a well-known body. It is the meeting—periodically, but much more frequently these days—of the national chairmen of each of the European scrutiny committees in each of the member states. Believe it or not, its proceedings are recorded. They are even webcast—not, I suspect, that anyone knows that, but it is a fact.
In Dublin, only a month ago, I was invited by the EU presidency—then the Irish Government—to respond officially as the main respondent for the national Parliaments on the question of democratic legitimacy. Viviane Reding, who was meant to turn up, did not bother to. She sent a video, and I can assure Members that the Dublin parliamentarians were not at all amused. That is the manner in which we are being treated—that is all the member states. She said, unequivocally—I paraphrase her remarks—that we need a federation of nation states. It was completely and totally without any attempt to enter a dialogue or a debate. That was the line that she wanted to take; it had already been written. Viviane Reding is the vice-president of the European Commission and is responsible for justice and home affairs—the very matters on which we scored that notable result last night in upholding national scrutiny. However, they are not listening.
In Vilnius, the following month—only last week— Mr Sefcovic, the Commissioner responsible for relations with the national Parliaments and the European Parliament, made his position clear. I arrived in Vilnius at 1 o’clock in the morning, and I was back in London by 7 o’clock that evening. People said, “What on earth did you think you were doing going all the way to Vilnius for four hours?” I explained very simply that, as the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee—one of 28 national Chairmen—I had the right to be there and that, when I saw that the meeting was about the next steps towards political and economic union, I knew, in the light of what I know from other sources, that the EU has not the slightest interest in renegotiation; all it wants to do is to press on with the process of integration.
Leaving aside the scrutiny process, it was interesting that an increasing number of member state Parliaments are conscious of the impact that these issues are having on their populations, on which they rely for re-election, and of the fact that they must respond. A silent revolution is in the making. I am not going to exaggerate these things, but there is an issue when the Belgian representative gets up and starts talking about Belgium’s problems with democratic legitimacy. I cannot think of one of the 28 member states that does not, in the relevant chamber or outside, in the margins, over coffee, lunch or dinner, refer to the problem of democratic legitimacy.
The issue is terribly simple: if we do not get rid of the existing treaties and deal with the fundamental structure, there is no answer to the question of democratic legitimacy. We do our best in the European Scrutiny Committee. When I was first elected Chairman, at the end of 2010, the first thing I did was to set up an inquiry into the European Union and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament, which is basically what we are discussing. I wanted to get expert evidence, and we did. Our report came out, and we made it clear that national Parliaments actually have the last say. We voluntarily introduced the 1972 Act; that is what the principle involved in the Factortame case is all about. It is not, as some people believe, that we are locked into a completely irreversible situation. Although the treaties say, as the Maastricht treaty did, that the euro, once entered into, is irrevocable, individual member states must voluntarily decide to accept that system.
At the moment, there is no recognition whatever that things are going wrong. There is not the slightest intention to change the foundations of the treaties, which is absolutely what is needed if we are to preserve democracy in each member state, including in the United Kingdom. Whether we are in the euro is by the bye; the fact is that all the other legislation that affects our economy every day must be subject not merely to a competence review, but to a clear decision. I look to the Minister, because the issue is his responsibility, although he will, quite understandably, take his instructions from No. 10.
I admired the fourth principle of the Bloomberg speech, which said that the fundamental principles of our national democracy depend on our national Parliaments. The Prime Minister was right; the question is whether we do anything about that. We are promising a referendum in 2017, but that is far too late. The fact is that it should be held before the general election, because we have profound reasons for getting on with it. In Dublin, when I had finished making my rather strong remarks about the state of the European Union and the role of national Parliaments, the chairman of the Bundestag’s European affairs committee said, “We must have a referendum in the United Kingdom as soon as possible, because people do not like the uncertainty,” and that is right.
We now have two Governments and two Parliaments, both dealing with the same subject matter. That inherent contradiction is completely unworkable. There are attempts at assimilation, but they just create a more complicated labyrinth, as a result of which the whole situation becomes increasingly dysfunctional. What is more, the creation of a two-tier, two-Government, two-Parliament Europe with no real connection to anything is happening before our very eyes, without any treaty changes. That is why a referendum is required.
The fundamental reason for holding a referendum is that a fundamental change is taking place now in the relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom. We are not talking about change in 2017; indeed, there may not be another treaty—I cannot say, although the Minister probably knows. However, whether or not there is another treaty, and whether or not there is renegotiation and some nibbling here and there—some of it may sound attractive to some people—that will not change the basic structure. That is what is wrong, and that is why national Parliaments must reassert themselves. They have the power to deal with their respective parties, particularly from the Back Benches, including by persuasion. I was extremely glad that the Government listened yesterday. It was partly a numbers question; we live in a civilised world, and we appreciate that there are times when Ministers recognise that they do not have the support that they need. Three Select Committee Chairmen got together—other members of the Liaison Committee were also involved—and that created a bit of a problem for the Government. None the less, we are grateful for what happened.
The hon. Lady mentioned consensus and the fact that there are rarely votes. I simply recommend that people read VoteWatch, which is produced by Simon Hix of the London School of Economics. It has demonstrated that where there could be different outcomes, all countries end up agreeing on 90% of the legislation, and I believe that the figure has increased since Simon Hix looked at that. Part of the problem is the qualified majority voting system and part of the problem is the co-decision system, but I shall park those issues. However, that is how the system overcomes the issue of what national Parliaments could decide for themselves if they regained the power that they should regain for themselves. I also recommend that people read Professor Damian Chalmers’s paper on democratic self-government, which will prove to be a seminal contribution to this debate. He will give evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee quite soon.
What worries me about the red card system is that it is a further indication of a refusal to grapple with the essential question—that we should end up as an association of nation states that have a veto where necessary, but that co-operate where possible. We should also be able to trade and to work in political co-operation with our neighbours, without being governed by them. The red card system is liable to increase federal arrangements. I do not see why, when this Parliament, as a national Parliament, says that it does not want a measure, we should then be obliged to say yes to it, just because we do not reach a certain threshold when other member states, for completely different reasons, say they want the measure or are not prepared to stand up and say that they do not want it.
That goes back to the fundamental question on which I will end. It is about the ballot box, freedom of choice and those questions that people fought and died for, and that should determine our attitude towards not merely nibbling at, revising or reforming the European Union, but dealing with the real problem: the foundations of the treaties themselves. It may be a big ask to expect the Minister to agree, but if we do not deal with that, just as those of us who found that what we said in the 1990s has not exactly been proved wrong, we will be in a similar place in 10 or 15 years’ time, and, regrettably, by then I fear it will be too late.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope, in a debate that is of great interest to you. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing the debate and on a characteristically thorough and forensic speech, which drew on not only 17 years in the House, but many weeks and months—I do not know how many—on the Convention on the Future of Europe. She is a real expert and it was a great pleasure to hear her this morning.
I agree in particular with my hon. Friend’s overall argument that national Parliaments need to play a much greater role in holding to account not only the European Union, but our own Government’s decisions on Europe and the formulation of European legislation and policy. She and many other right hon. and hon. Friends, some of whom are here this morning, want parliamentary scrutiny of the EU and what our Government do in Europe to be enhanced and improved. That objective unites pro-Europeans and Eurosceptics, and hon. Members from different parties alike.
I agree with my hon. Friend’s specific point that it is regrettable that one of the first actions of the Government when they came into power in 2010 was to do away with pre-European Council debates. It is unsurprising that she, and others present and beyond our debate today, complained repeatedly about the decision, but unfortunately it was to no avail. While other member states are improving their scrutiny of their Governments’ decision-making and negotiating strategy ahead of European Councils, our Government have taken a retrograde step and have in effect decreased scrutiny. The Government have not simply done away with the pre-Council debates, but the post-Council debates are now combined with major issues of concern—whether Afghanistan or the horrific murder in Woolwich. Such subjects and the post-European Council report need to be separate. They are too important to be combined. Notwithstanding the scrutiny of the European Scrutiny Committee, it is vital that scrutiny also takes place on the Floor of the House, as she set out, so that all right hon. and hon. Members have the opportunity to scrutinise how the Government represent the UK in the EU.
The starting point from which I approach the debate is perhaps different from that of some hon. Members who have spoken. I am a passionate believer in our membership of the EU. I am both pro-European and passionately in favour of reform. Just because I believe in our membership, that does not mean that I think the EU is perfect—far from it. I spent six years of my life working and living in Brussels; I have seen at first hand the many imperfections of the EU. A vital part of EU reform lies in the issue that we are focusing on today: strengthening the accountability that national Parliaments have over European decision-making.
The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), in a speech in January this year, set out proposals for a red card system. It took the Government five months to come to the same conclusion, but we were encouraged—better late than never. As hon. Members are acutely aware, the current yellow card system was introduced by the Lisbon treaty, which the Labour Government negotiated. It gives national Parliaments the ability to force the European Commission to reconsider its proposals if they believe that a proposal violates the subsidiarity principle.
Mr Cash
I do not think that anyone could honestly say that the yellow card system has been a stunning success, given the number of occasions we have reached the threshold. That is also a problem with respect to any possibility of a red card system, leaving aside the federalisation they both imply.
Emma Reynolds
I do not claim that the yellow card system has been a stunning success. As the hon. Gentleman set out, it has been used successfully on only one occasion —the so-called Monti II proposals, which were then withdrawn by the European Commission. Just because the yellow card system is not a success at the moment, that does not mean that it could not be made to work better. I will move on to that and better co-ordination of national parliamentarians in a moment.
The Labour party is committed to pushing for a red card system when in government. It would, in effect, turn the yellow card into a red card, by stating clearly that a third of national Parliaments being against a proposal is a veto. It would not force the European Commission to reconsider, but would say, “No. Stop. Stop that proposal. One-third of national Parliaments have great concerns, therefore withdraw it.”
Even within the current treaties, the yellow card system could be made to work better, which brings me to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Charles Grant, the director of the Centre for European Reform—a think-tank that is well reputed and thorough on such matters—has suggested creating a national parliamentary forum in Brussels of MPs from different member states. I would be interested to know whether the Minister for Europe has considered that proposal. I regret to hear that European Commissioner Viviane Reding did not turn up to the meeting when the hon. Gentleman was in Dublin. Perhaps a new forum, made up of MPs—not necessarily including Chairs of Scrutiny Committees—meeting in Brussels could better hold to account European Governments, who have permanent representations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston suggested, there should be better political oversight of such representations.
Mr Cash
Holding a gathering of MPs to talk about issues is not the same as holding people to account. Holding people to account means that there is a vote, within a constitutional structure that requires people to answer questions, and if the people who have the numbers on their side do not like a proposal, the Government’s position changes, as happened last night. The hon. Lady is suggesting a Parliament of fools.
Emma Reynolds
The hon. Gentleman has not even allowed me to finish my point. If he considers the proposals from the Centre for European Reform, he will see that they are not about a talking shop. With great respect, I know that he sits on COSAC, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston mentioned, and that committee needs to be vastly improved from its current formulation and in its make-up. Mr Grant says that it does not give MPs a big enough stake, is only consultative and is often treated “disdainfully” by MEPs—his word, not mine.
There is clearly a great—[Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) at least give me the courtesy of listening to my response to his intervention? There is clearly a great problem with the current set-up, and having a presence in Brussels of national parliamentarians who could have a vote and scrutinise more closely the decisions taken by our and other Governments deserves closer consideration, rather than just saying that it would be a gathering of fools—a statement with which I profoundly disagree.
I recently met the Speaker of the Dutch House of Representatives, and she has an appetite, as do colleagues in other member states with whom I have discussed the matter, for Parliaments to work more closely together. The Government could give greater consideration to the successes in the Dutch, Danish and German Parliaments. For example, in the Netherlands, the standing committees—akin, I think, to our Select Committees—choose proposals from within the Commission work programme that they see as priorities and about which they might have concerns, and they refer them to their European affairs committee.
Our departmental Select Committees are not involved enough in proposals at an early stage, or even at later stages, and I would be grateful if the Minister could say something about what the Government could do to drive greater consideration and scrutiny on a policy-by-policy basis, given that, as has been said, a lot of European policy is not foreign policy—as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston said, it is an anomaly that it is often treated as such. Our departmental Select Committees could learn from the experience of the Netherlands.
Ms Gisela Stuart
My hon. Friend reminds me of another idea, which at some stage was discussed. What does she think of the suggestion that, rather than us going to Brussels, the Commissioners come here at the beginning of the work programme? They could give evidence to a Select Committee, or be here in Westminster Hall and answer MPs’ questions about the forward programme.
Emma Reynolds
I welcome that suggestion, and the idea should be considered. European Commissioners do come to our Parliament, but not systematically.
In Denmark, before European Council meetings the Prime Minister has to go before the European committee to discuss her negotiating strategy, and in the German system, the Bundestag now has much greater power to scrutinise the Government’s negotiating strategy for those meetings. Our Prime Minister, when he had just been elected as party leader, told the party to “stop banging on” about Europe, and there are rumours in today’s press that the first report on the balance of competences, which we all await with bated breath, has been put off until after the summer, apparently because Ministers are fearful of their own Back Benchers. I would be interested to hear why a dispassionate, objective assessment of the balance of competences should be put off in that way. The Government again seem to be putting the party interest before the national one. We are worried that they feel compelled to delay the initial report, and we are greatly interested in what the Minister has to say about that.
This debate comes at a particularly important time, because the eurozone member states are likely to pursue further integration among the eurozone 17. Their Parliaments, and those in non-eurozone member states such as ours—there are 10 others, including Croatia—will need to scrutinise better what happens and what the dynamic is between non-eurozone and eurozone member states.
In conclusion, it deserves to be repeated that it is regrettable that the Government have abolished the pre-Council debates. I would like to see them reintroduced. Scrutiny in Committees, such as the one chaired by the hon. Member for Stone, is all well and good but nothing substitutes scrutiny on the Floor of the House. The Government should learn from the Dutch, Danish and German examples, drive better and closer co-ordination between national Parliaments from across the 28 member states, make the yellow card system work better and consider introducing a red card system.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing the debate, and on the presentation of her arguments. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) that I have never had any intention of seeking to appear before his Committee via a video link. I have always much preferred that he and I look each other straight in the eye, person to person.
Mr Lidington
Well, that is something best avoided in any meeting with parliamentarians, if humanly possibly.
I will try to respond to the various points that were made, in particular by the hon. Lady. She posed a number of questions and challenges, some of which focused on how we do European business here in Westminster, and others that centred on what might be done in the broader European Union context, and how national Parliaments should fit into the legislative process and decisions taken at European level.
I shall start with the hon. Lady’s points about how we deal with European business here at Westminster. Her most important point was that it was vital to find a way to engage and involve a rather larger number of Members in European business. I have to confess that when I go in to the Chamber for a debate on Europe, or in to a Committee, I feel at times like a cut-price version of Henry V before Agincourt. It is a matter of:
“We few, we happy few”
that are gathered together, and it is very familiar faces, from both sides of the House, that tend to feature. It is, however, not a Government matter, but a problem for Parliament. Parliament must take more seriously its collective responsibility as an institution to see, rightly or wrongly—individual hon. Members will have their own views on this—that we live in a world in which European Union business should be treated as mainstream political business, and not as something that can be quietly shoved off to some annexe next door and left to specialists to get on with in peace and quiet. The decisions that British Ministers of any party take in the Council of Ministers have an impact on the lives of the constituents of every Member of this House and I agree, therefore, with the thrust of what the hon. Lady said.
I disagree with the hon. Lady, however, in that I feel that the focus should not be just on the Chamber. The Chamber is clearly important, but we need to consider the role of Committees, including departmental Select Committees. In various evidence sessions with the European Scrutiny Committee over the past couple of years, I have tried to emphasise my growing belief that part of the answer lies in persuading the departmental Select Committees to give greater priority to that aspect of their work that covers European Union business. That is a matter for Select Committees, and it would be wrong for the Government to get into the business of seeking to give them instructions—the powers are already there within the terms of resolutions. It is primarily for those Committees to take ownership of those agendas and drive them forward. They can by all means invite European Commissioners to give evidence and by all means go to Brussels every now and then to take evidence and meet informally with people in the European institutions who are involved in legislation.
I look forward to the forthcoming report from the European Scrutiny Committee on the scrutiny process. I am sure that many of the matters that have been touched on this morning, such as whether we should move towards a mandate model of scrutiny along the lines of what the Scandinavian countries have, will be addressed in that report, and I obviously do not want to pre-empt the Government’s response to it. I say to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) that one of the characteristics of that mandate system—she rightly drew attention to some of its virtues—is that the sessions between the Minister and the committee to discuss a negotiating mandate take place in closed session. The public and press are not admitted and the report is not public, at least until after the negotiations are concluded.
Ms Gisela Stuart
Each of these systems has advantages and disadvantages, but could the Minister address where he would assume the collective memory of Parliament on these debates resides? The decision-making process in Brussels is so long, even with one term. Where would he focus that collective memory?
Mr Lidington
That is a very good point. To my mind, it means that one needs to focus the collective memory of elected Members through the members of the Liaison Committee, which is composed of relatively senior Members of Parliament, and through the system of the Committee Clerks. If we look at our Parliament’s representation in Brussels, we have some very talented people representing the two Houses, but that amounts to three staff. The Bundestag and the Bundesrat have 18 or 19 people between them, and that is on top of the German federal representation and the representative offices from each of the German Länder that are present in Brussels. Again, Parliament should consider the question of whether our level of representation and the number of people we have on the ground in Brussels are sufficient, but the Government cannot, or should not, issue instructions on that.
The hon. Lady asked whether COSAC could be improved, and my answer is definitely yes. It is an imperfect organisation, and it could be strengthened through reforms to the secretariat or through a formal power to summon commissioners, rather than expecting commissioners by convention to come and give evidence. It is not just about the formal meetings of COSAC, because if any system of red or yellow cards is to be effective, there has to be a culture of talking and working together that means that different parliamentary representatives, and in particular the chairs of the relevant committees, are used to having contact with each other in networking and co-ordinating an approach to a particular Commission draft measure.
The hon. Lady asked about the role of the Europe Minister, and she was very fair in how she put it. There is a perfectly legitimate debate to be had in this country about where that office sits. Some argue that it should sit in the Foreign Office. Others argue that it should sit in the Cabinet Office and so be directly accountable to the Prime Minister. Some argue that it should be a self-standing Department or be located in Brussels, in effect performing the political office of the permanent representative. In France, Germany, Poland and Spain my counterparts sit in their respective Foreign Ministries. In Sweden, however, the Europe Minister sits in the Prime Minister’s office and reports directly to the Prime Minister, although she represents a different political party from the Prime Minister in the current coalition.
The key thing is not where the Europe Minister sits, but how the right level of co-ordination and accountability is achieved across Government. The Europe Minister could be put in the Cabinet Office, but that raises the question of how the work at Brussels, which is certainly cross-departmental in Whitehall terms, is co-ordinated with the bilateral diplomatic work that has to be done with 27 other member states, because European business cannot be done in Brussels alone. I would be worried about a gap opening between a Minister dealing with Brussels business and a Minister dealing with our diplomatic efforts on, for example, Germany. We try to co-ordinate our conversations with German Ministers across all relevant political dossiers. When I see German counterparts, I do not talk strictly about Foreign Office business; I talk about financial services, the European budget and whichever European issues are high on the agenda at that moment.
The key is to have effective co-ordination through a Cabinet system, which we do through the European Affairs Committee of the Cabinet. I repeat the point I have made elsewhere: the permanent representative, who is a professional civil servant, follows the mandate set by the Cabinet. If he wishes to move from the mandate he has already been granted, he has to go back to Ministers and seek their agreement and authority to go beyond it.
On the question of yellow and red cards, under the current system national Parliaments or chambers of national Parliaments can submit a reasoned opinion that a draft directive or regulation fails to comply with the principle of subsidiarity. They have to submit that within eight weeks of the formal communication from the Commission about a draft measure. One third of the voting weight of national Parliaments needs to be signed up for the Commission to be compelled to carry out a formal review, and the reasoned opinion may only be submitted on the grounds of subsidiarity. We could make more use of reasoned opinions than we do. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone is meticulous in looking at the legal grounds of a directive and whether it meets the subsidiarity test.
The Westminster Parliament has so far submitted fewer reasoned opinions than some Parliaments in other member states, but we could look to reform the system. Is eight weeks long enough? Should we not give national Parliaments longer to consider their response? There is an obvious problem with recesses. Should we reduce the threshold below a third? Should we widen the grounds for challenge? If we have subsidiarity, why not have proportionality as well? Why not have some sort of test on excessive burdens on business, or on whether there is evidence that a draft measure would have a harmful impact on European growth? Why not make provision for the yellow card to become a red card under certain circumstances, with an outright veto that national Parliaments could impose? Could we give national Parliaments the power to impose an emergency brake in certain circumstances?
Mr Lidington
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I have very little time left. Could we give national Parliaments an emergency brake to throw an issue to consideration by the European Council? Should we provide powers for a yellow or red card retrospectively, so that national Parliaments could, as a group, insist that the institutions consider repealing or amending a directive that was part of the acquis? Should we give national Parliaments the power to bring forward an own-initiative report? In the hands of the European Parliament, that instrument has been significant in helping to shape policy development.
I liked the idea from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston of some act of oblivion at the end of a Commission’s term. Under that idea, a measure that had not completed all stages would be deemed automatically to fall and would be reconsidered in the next Commission and the next European Parliament.
Ideas about a conference of national parliamentarians or a second chamber for the European Parliament are part of the discussion, although there are some serious practical issues to be considered. How would such an institution fit into the legislative process? How could it be made to work in practice, given the other parliamentary and constituency duties that Members of this House have to carry out?
I am conscious of the fact that giving a stronger voice to national Parliaments is only one aspect, though a significant one, of the reform that is necessary to make the European Union more accountable and more democratic than it is currently. It is in all our interests that a way is found to overcome the profound public disaffection that we see throughout the continent on European decisions. There is no European demos, and strengthening the voice of national Parliaments is the right way forward to restore greater democratic accountability to the EU.
Bill of Rights (Northern Ireland)
(10 years, 9 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
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
I am pleased, Mr Chope, to have secured this short debate today to raise with the Secretary of State the issue of the Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. It is a busy day in Parliament from a Northern Ireland perspective—the Committee on the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is meeting and the Secretary of State is due to make a statement in the House on the appalling and disgraceful scenes of rioting and serious disturbance that have affected many parts of Belfast, including my own constituency of Belfast East, in the past few days. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has been able to attend the debate, and that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), has been able to join us for at least part of the discussion. I do not intend to detain the Secretary of State for too long on this issue.
The Bill of Rights is an important matter and the timing of this debate is appropriate. We stand here 15 years on from the Good Friday agreement which, notwithstanding the continued instability that we have witnessed over recent weeks and months, has laid the foundations for the significant transformation that has been delivered in Northern Ireland.
No agreement is perfect, and that includes the Good Friday agreement. I do not believe that every dot and comma of it must be protected for all time against change and evolution of Northern Ireland politics and society. However, its principles are hugely important and provide an agreed foundation on which we can build for the future. Indeed, my own party has argued for significant changes to the Strand 1 structures that govern the operations of the Assembly. Those changes would create a more normalised form of governance with a properly funded and resourced Opposition to hold the Executive to account, and with weighted majority voting replacing the current petition of concern arrangements, which are increasingly being misused. Such reforms are within the spirit of the agreement and are not a challenge to its key principles.
However, the Good Friday agreement was a carefully balanced package of measures that were endorsed by referendums in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, so it is important that all parts of it are implemented. It is therefore of concern that so little tangible progress has been made over the past 15 years on the matter of the commitment within the agreement to develop a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, which would address the specific circumstances of Northern Ireland after 20 years of the troubles.
In response to previous written and oral questions on the Bill of Rights, the Minister of State has indicated that this is a matter on which Northern Ireland parties must first reach consensus before the Government will act to legislate. Although I acknowledge that consensus is important and that it is currently absent, I do not believe that that is grounds for inaction on the Government’s part. It is the duty of Government as a co-guarantor of the agreement and as a signatory to it to engage proactively with all stakeholders, including political parties, to seek consensus on this and other outstanding issues. There is a particular responsibility around leadership on such issues when they are reserved matters.
Although the primary purpose of seeking this debate is to discuss not the content of any Bill of Rights, but the process by which the Bill can be advanced, it is important to put on record my own party’s broad views on the Bill of Rights. Alliance recognises that human rights are inherent and universal. There is scope for different jurisdictions to recognise different rights in domestic law, provided of course that no inappropriate inequalities are created in doing so. Rights and a framework for the delivery and protection of rights are important to protect individuals and minorities against the state and against others. However, any dialogue around rights cannot be separated from responsibilities. Those claiming rights cannot do so without some consideration for the maintenance of the framework of a democratic society based on the rule of law that provides for the exercise of rights. That is particularly important to emphasise in the context of the past few days when tensions between competing rights have spilled over into lawlessness in a way that is both destructive and reckless.
In broad terms, Alliance believes that any Northern Ireland Bill of Rights must be realistic and capable of being enforced through our own courts, consistent with European and international standards, and flexible enough to take account of changing circumstances in an evolving Northern Ireland. Furthermore, it must avoid entrenching any particular view of identity, such as the notion of two separate communities in Northern Ireland, which could reinforce sectarian divisions. Equally, it should avoid giving group rights precedence over the rights of the individual in a manner that would do likewise.
My reason for raising the issue at this time is in part also linked to the progress being made by the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) wrote to all party leaders about the Bill on 5 September 2011, seeking views on a number of measures that he hoped to include within the Bill. In the seventh paragraph of his letter, he raised the issue of the Northern Ireland Bill of Rights in which he offered two options for taking the matter forward. He said:
“There remains disagreement about possible further rights protections in Northern Ireland. I have agreed with the Lord Chancellor that any specific supplementary rights for Northern Ireland should be implemented in a separate section of any legislation that would give effect to a UK Bill of Rights. However, our forthcoming Bill may provide opportunities to handle this issue differently by, for example, giving the Assembly power to take forward work, or even legislate, in this area.”
At that time, the Alliance party view would have been that a UK-wide Bill of Rights could have provided a suitable vehicle for progressing the Northern Ireland Bill. Although Northern Ireland is a distinct society in many respects, it does not and should not exist in a self-contained bubble. It is part of a wider UK, all-Ireland and European and international context. In a globalised and interdependent world, individuals are interacting much more across frontiers, and human rights protections must recognise and respond to those challenges.
It was originally envisaged that any Northern Ireland Bill of Rights would be created in the context of a common platform across the UK provided by the European convention on human rights, but no wider UK Bill of Rights. However, Alliance recognised at that point that any process to formulate a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland would have to relate to any potential UK Bill of Rights. That could still have entailed a separate chapter for the Northern Ireland Bill of Rights or a chapter within a larger document, provided that the subtleties of the situation in Northern Ireland were respected. However, it would be fair to say that the UK Bill of Rights has been kicked into some very long grass at this point and that we are unlikely to see it delivered in the medium term.
It is also the case that the opportunity to legislate for the Bill of Rights as part of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill has also all but expired as the Bill is now making speedy progress through the House of Commons and the Bill of Rights issue was not included within it or within the consultation that preceded it. Will the Secretary of State say how she intends to make progress with respect to the Bill of Rights in the absence of either of the identified options to do so?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for making such a valuable contribution to Westminster Hall. She will be aware that the recommendations contained in the Bill of Rights forum and those made by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission seem to suggest that abortion will be more freely available, and that there is a need to increase the age of criminal responsibility. The hon. Lady will know that the Democratic Unionist party, of which I am a member, the Ulster Unionists, the Orange Order and the Roman Catholic Church have objections to almost all of, or parts of, the recommendations put forward. How does she see the Bill of Rights going forward when so many people are against it? Does she not feel that we can go forward only when there is a consensus to agree with it across the whole of the community?
Naomi Long
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. He reinforces what I said earlier about there being no consensus on the issue. However, I want to address some of what he said. There are two narratives around the Bill of Rights. One is an expansive Bill of Rights, which includes a lot of detail, such as socio-economic rights to which he refers, and there are others who believe that that is not the role of the Bill of Rights. They believe that it should enshrine broader principles around which the country should protect people’s rights as individuals. I would tend towards that more broad definition rather than the more detailed definition that would include socio-economic rights. Abortion, the age of consent and various other issues are best dealt with through the normal democratic and legislative process and not through a Bill of Rights. That is my view and the view of my party. However, a Bill of Rights approach can inform how the debate on those issues takes place, but it is not the job of the Bill of Rights to supersede the work that Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly do when legislating on matters of socio-economic importance. That is part of the democratic imperative that must be maintained regardless of whether or not there is a Bill of Rights.
The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the Bill of Rights has caused controversy. The forum for the Bill of Rights sat from December 2006 until March 2008 and produced what is probably one of the most non-consensual reports that has ever been produced in Northern Ireland, which in itself is quite an achievement. In addition, the Human Rights Commission’s advice to the Secretary of State, which was delivered back in 2008, also drew fierce opposition from some quarters. Clearly, there is still much work to be done. I am not suggesting that we are at a point where a Bill of Rights is ready to be drafted and put to Members for agreement. However, the fact that there is work to be done should be an impetus to doing that work.
In conclusion, as with many other difficult issues, consensus is currently absent, whether it be on parades, on flags and emblems, on building a shared future, or on dealing with the past and its legacy. The Executive have convened talks, which will happen during the summer and in the autumn, to address those issues and to seek sufficient consensus to make progress on all of them, in an attempt to give renewed energy to the discussions and to end the inertia that has characterised the process of late. I believe that is welcome. I also believe that Dr Richard Haass agreeing to chair those talks impartially will add its own momentum to them. However, it is very clear from research conducted by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Consortium that a significant majority of people in Northern Ireland favour a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland being implemented in line with the provisions in the Good Friday agreement, and that that includes a significant majority of ordinary members of each political party in Northern Ireland, including the hon. Gentleman’s own party, within which I think the support for a Bill of Rights among ordinary members ran to about 80%.
Notwithstanding the political and ideological impediments to reaching sufficient consensus, I hope that today the Secretary of State will at least commit to a process that would help to breathe fresh life into this issue and make good on a promise made 15 years ago, which is still important to so many people in Northern Ireland today.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
Perhaps I ought to explain that I am standing in today for my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, because he is busy with the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill Committee. It is a great pleasure to respond to this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) on securing it. As she says, a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland is an important issue for consideration. It was good to see the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, with us for a short period, and it is good to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), whose contribution to the debate was very welcome.
Hon. Members will appreciate the thoughtful and measured way that the hon. Member for Belfast East has approached this subject, which has provoked strong feelings on different sides of the argument. Of course, we in the Conservative party are no strangers to controversies and divided views on human rights matters.
Perhaps it would help if I went back over some of the ground covered by the hon. Lady and went back to the section of the Belfast agreement that deals with rights. There is a degree of ambiguity in the way that section is written. Although the text does not go as far as stating that there would definitely be a Bill of Rights, the agreement certainly contemplated that a Bill of Rights was potentially an important part of the settlement. The Belfast agreement said that the Human Rights Commission
“will be invited to consult and to advise on the scope of defining, in Westminster legislation, supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights, to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland”.
The agreement added:
“These additional rights to reflect the principles of mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities and parity of esteem, and...taken together with the ECHR ...to constitute a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland”.
Of course, the arguments for and against a Bill of Rights have been debated extensively in the 15 years since the Belfast agreement was signed. I will just give a few examples: there was the Bill of Rights forum that followed the 2006 St Andrews agreement; and there was also the advice offered to the previous Government by the Human Rights Commission in 2008. Among other things, that advice proposed extensive so-called socio-economic rights, including
“the right to an adequate standard of living...the right to work, including fair wages”
and it even included
“the right to have the environment protected”.
Following that, there was the ensuing Government consultation, and the current Government published responses to that consultation in December 2010. The then Minister of State for Northern Ireland—the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire)— described the consultation as having demonstrated widespread
“opposition to a wide-ranging Bill of Rights and support instead for a more limited set of rights... This divergence of views was also reflected in the submissions made by political parties in Northern Ireland”.—[Official Report, 16 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 131WS.]
In fact, as the hon. Member for Belfast East said, there are few issues in Northern Ireland that have caused such divided views or that have been so thoroughly examined and debated as the subject of our debate today.
Despite that, however, 15 years on from the Belfast agreement, it is clear that there is no consensus on how to move forward, and I am afraid that there is no sign of one emerging in the immediate future. That was the case under the previous Labour Government, and I am afraid that it has remained the case under the current Government.
My predecessor as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson)—had numerous discussions on this matter with political parties in Northern Ireland and with other interested bodies. As we have heard, in September 2011, he wrote to party leaders in Northern Ireland, setting out the possibility that the proposed Northern Ireland Bill, which is being discussed upstairs as we speak today, would give the Assembly
“the power to take forward, or even legislate, in this area”.
I am told that he received no responses from the political parties to that part of his letter.
Since last September, when my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I arrived at the Northern Ireland Office, we have discussed a Bill of Rights with a number of organisations and people, including the Irish Government and the Tanaiste. Like our predecessors, we have found little—if any—common ground among them, but that has not been for lack of trying. We have certainly engaged extensively on this matter.
Of course, a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland would be a matter of constitutional significance. As such, it would be very important to secure cross-community support if it were to have any chance of succeeding. It is not something that could, or should, be imposed over the heads of the people of Northern Ireland by the UK Government acting unilaterally. That position is reinforced by the fact that the main impact of any Bill of Rights unique to Northern Ireland would fall on the devolved institutions. So, before we could make a move towards a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, there would have to be broadly based cross-party agreement. The Government would like to see this issue resolved, given the role that the Government played in the Belfast agreement, but we cannot simply conjure consensus into existence.
I should add that the chances of achieving broad agreement on additional rights for Northern Ireland might be better served if some of the advocates of a Bill of Rights were more realistic in their ambitions. Clearly, proposals from some organisations that focus extensively on socio-economic rights are very unlikely to gain cross-party approval in Northern Ireland. However, if that was the route that Northern Ireland wished to go down, the impact on the rest of the UK would also be a factor to consider. For example, there would be complex issues to resolve around the interaction of welfare-type human rights with the principles of parity that currently operate in relation to the benefit and welfare systems. Matters of cost would need to be carefully considered.
As the hon. Member for Belfast East said, this debate is primarily about the means, or process, to deliver a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, rather than the content of such a Bill. However, I welcomed her thoughts on the Alliance views on these matters. As she said, it certainly makes sense to focus on a realistic and flexible approach to any future Bill of Rights, which is capable of adapting to Northern Ireland’s changing circumstances. She is right to say that we should proceed with caution against anything that entrenched a particular and restrictive view in relation to identity and against anything that made it more difficult to resolve the sectarian divisions that sadly persist in Northern Ireland society. So I listened with interest to her thoughts on those matters.
Having looked back at some of the statements that the Alliance party has contributed to the debate, I note that there is acknowledgement that significant hurdles are still to be cleared in arguing why Northern Ireland needs to have a fundamentally different human rights regime—especially from other neighbouring jurisdictions. I also acknowledge that party’s statement that the aim of policy makers should not be to preserve Northern Ireland as a place apart, requiring special measures. Those sentiments would be worth considering in terms of a way forward on a Bill of Rights.
The intervention by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted some of the difficulties here. For example, were abortion to become tied up in the concept of a Bill of Rights, that would be an intensely difficult issue to resolve using a Bill of Rights as a mechanism. That illustrates the difficulties in the way of reaching a conclusion on this matter.
Although there are reasons why further progress on a Bill of Rights will not be easy to deliver, I hope that I can provide some reassurance regarding the protection of human rights in Northern Ireland. It is important to emphasise that Northern Ireland has an extensive, well-developed system of human rights protections, through existing UK-wide legislation—not just the legislation that happens to be labelled directly in relation to human rights, but statutes dealing with matters such as discrimination. For example, fair employment legislation places obligations on employers that are unique in the United Kingdom. In particular, section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 imposes a statutory obligation on all public bodies to carry out their functions with regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity for everyone. Of course, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has emphasised that it puts respect for human rights at the heart of all its work. That is an important part of policing practice in Northern Ireland. So I hope that no one will seek to say that, without a new Bill of Rights, Northern Ireland is somehow left as a human rights desert. That is certainly not the case.
Looking ahead, if there were agreement on additional rights for Northern Ireland, the Government would examine how best to take things forward. We remain open to the suggestion that work on this, including legislation, could be taken forward by the Assembly. In our 2010 manifesto, we called for the replacement of the Human Rights Act 1998 with a UK Bill of Rights. Although that proposal did not make it into the coalition agreement, were it to be revived in future, the relevant legislation could include a separate section to cover supplementary rights in Northern Ireland, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast East.
In the meantime, both the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor have said clearly that, if the Conservatives win the next election, we will seek radical reform of current human rights law. That would include re-examining our relationship with the European Court of Human Rights. However, in considering the future of human rights legislation in the UK we would, of course, give careful consideration to Northern Ireland’s position. We are happy to include debates and ideas on a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland as part of our general consideration of the future of human rights rules in the UK as a whole.
Jim Shannon
Just for the record, as I mentioned in my intervention on the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), consensus is far from being reached in Northern Ireland. The largest Unionist political parties and other sections of the community are opposed, in part or in whole, including the Roman Catholic Church. Will the Minister confirm that nothing will go forward without the overall agreement of the largest Unionist parties—the largest section of people—and one of the largest Churches and religious groups in Northern Ireland?
Mrs Villiers
I can give the hon. Gentleman reassurance of that nature. As I have said, it would be virtually impossible to adopt a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland without extensive cross-party support. If it were not possible to persuade the major political parties of the merits of the Bill of Rights, I do not see how it would be possible to deliver one.
In conclusion, this has been a worthwhile debate. I noted the reference made by the hon. Member for Belfast East to the Richard Haass working group, which starts its work soon on parades and flags and the past. Naturally, if it wishes to look at Bill of Rights matters, we will consider what conclusions it reaches. The Government will continue to examine seriously any other proposals to resolve the issue. Yet this issue should not deflect us from other important objectives for Northern Ireland that we are focused on, particularly in light of the weekend’s events.
We have to continue our efforts to rebalance the economy and help Northern Ireland compete in the global race for investment and jobs. We need to press ahead with the implementation of the economic package agreed at Downing street last month, between the Prime Minister, myself and the Deputy First Minister. And we must continue working with the Executive to tackle sectarianism and build a genuinely shared future for everyone in Northern Ireland.
The riots that we have seen on the streets of Belfast and other places in Northern Ireland over recent days are disgraceful. It is important that we start to address the underlying social divisions that can contribute to tensions around issues such as parading in Northern Ireland. I look forward to addressing the House on that matter in about an hour’s time.
Shale Gas (Lancashire)
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
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to be given the opportunity to introduce this Adjournment debate on community interests in shale gas in Lancashire, and it is a great pleasure to do so under your chairmanship, Mr Benton.
It is important for Parliament to hold regular debates on shale gas, because there is considerable potential for it to impact on the constituencies of many right hon. and hon. Members. The title of my debate in the Order Paper suggests that I would like to focus exclusively on the financial benefits that shale gas could bring to communities in Lancashire following the recent announcement of a community benefits package by the Treasury and the Department of Energy and Climate Change. As we are still in the early stages of shale gas development, however, I firmly believe that further work is still to be done on a range of other related issues, most notably on regulation, community engagement, the development of a UK supply chain and the suitability of potential sites.
I have consistently campaigned on the regulation of the shale gas industry. In my Adjournment debate in October 2012, I addressed the need for a body to be formed to oversee the workings of the regulatory bodies on matters relating to onshore oil and gas development, because it is imperative that shale gas development takes place only if we have robust regulations in place. I pay tribute to the previous Minister with responsibility for energy, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), for responding to those and other issues that I raised in my Adjournment debate and for establishing the Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil.
The Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil must take on responsibility for ensuring that the existing regulatory bodies, namely the Health and Safety Executive, the Environment Agency, DECC and Lancashire county council as the planning and mineral rights authority in Lancashire, work together to deliver a world-leading, gold-standard regulatory framework. It is the responsibility of the office not to become a regulator but to ensure that those that are empowered to be regulators are doing so to an exemplary standard.
I also urge the Minister to ensure that regulations are robust and are developed to ensure the highest environmental safeguards, as opposed to what is simply convenient for the industry. The focus should be on robust regulations and we should try to get away from using words such as “streamlining.” When people hear about streamlining, they interpret it as the watering down of regulations, which I am sure is not the case. Were it the case, it would not be acceptable to me.
I welcome the decision to make environmental impact studies compulsory for shale gas development sites, regardless of size, which is an evolution from where we were two years ago. Regulation is not what is written on a piece of paper; it is about what is enforced. I therefore urge the Government to ensure that we have regular, on-the-ground visits by regulators and inspectors, some of which must be unannounced so that shale gas development sites have the authority of operating to the highest environmental standards and no one is beyond reproach. In order to achieve that, it is important that regulators are provided with sufficient resources to fulfil their role.
We must be able to anticipate future developments as the industry progresses, if shale gas development does take place. We must be fleet of foot to ensure technical changes as the industry evolves and that the regulators and regulations are fit for purpose. For example, it would be inconceivable for regulations on shale gas developments in Lancashire to be entirely enforced by the HSE from Aberdeen. The HSE is based in Aberdeen for various obvious reasons, and therefore if and when the shale gas industry develops in the north of England, it is important that it responds accordingly, with regulators based in a much more localised area. Consideration must therefore be given to the creation of a regulatory hub to monitor the development of shale gas at a local level so that anyone who puts in a freedom of information request or writes to the Minister to discover what he is doing can have confidence that this is being taken seriously and things are being done diligently.
In my first Adjournment debate, I stated my strong opposition to the suitability of the Anna’s road site for potential shale gas extraction. My position remains unchanged, and I welcome the announcement from Cuadrilla that it has put on hold any potential development of the site. Decisions will be taken not by Members of Parliament but by elected county councillors, and therefore I do not plan to say any more on that in this debate.
Finally, I urge the Minister to ensure that there is rigorous monitoring of the traffic light system that was put in place following the seismic tremors in Lancashire in 2011, because it is important that public confidence is absolutely maintained in the system. Much work was done to ensure that the traffic light system was put in place prior to the resumption of fracking, that it is indeed fit for purpose and that we constantly monitor and review it to ensure that it does the job for which it is intended so that we see no repetition of the seismic tremors that we experienced in Blackpool.
Public engagement in any controversial sector is critical, but in something as new and controversial as shale gas it is absolutely paramount. I therefore want to see engagement with the local community at the forefront of what is done by the Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil, the regulators and the industry itself. Although the industry has done some work to address that, it is an area that needs substantially more work as the industry evolves and potentially develops.
When the Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil was established earlier this year, one of its main roles was to support public engagement and to help people to understand the facts about unconventional gas and oil production and what that could mean if it takes place in their area. With such a central role to play in the future of shale gas development, it is important that the office has the necessary resources to help drive public engagement.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
I am sorry that I cannot be here for the whole debate, but I have to go to a meeting on the Keogh review rather urgently. Does my hon. Friend agree that the community engagement fund that is being created for the benefit of local communities has to be transparent in its governance and cannot just be dominated by local government interests? Has he considered what types of community organisations could be brought in to ensure that the fund is truly reflective of the local communities that are meant to be benefiting?
Mark Menzies
My hon. Friend is a champion of transparency like no other, and he pursues transparency in other areas of his work. I know that he has now turned his attention to ensuring that shale gas is also transparent. I will touch on some of those issues later in my speech, and I know that other hon. Friends will do so, too.
It is inconceivable that the Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil has a single page on the Government energy and climate change website. I might be wrong, and I stand to be corrected, but this is an opportunity for the Minister and the Department to create an interactive online portal where my constituents and my hon. Friend’s constituents can go to seek information, a myth buster that is scientific, evidence-based and impartial.
I get many questions from constituents, which are often highly technical and which I simply cannot answer. I am a Member of Parliament not a geologist, and I have no background in the oil industry, so I need somewhere I can go to get those questions answered. I pay tribute to the people at DECC who for three years have been studiously answering letters, often through Ministers including the current Minister, but a community interactive portal where people can post questions and in the fullness of time—they will not get instant responses; it may be days, weeks or potentially longer—get impartial, independent and science-based replies would help to take away some of the fear, the unknown and the uncertainty that shale gas currently has for many people. Information and transparency are key.
I thank Duarte Figueira, the recently appointed head of the Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil, for taking the time to discuss with me in more detail many issues relating to shale gas development. He has always found the time and always been courteous. I encourage that sort of attitude and ethos within the office, so that no one can be in any doubt about its willingness to engage and answer questions.
Community involvement is not just a role for the Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil; ultimately, companies must take responsibility for it. I urge them to ensure that they are sufficiently resourced and have the right people in place to deliver quality, effective and impartial community engagement, to tell people what they are doing and when and to take people with them. Ultimately, that is a challenge not for Government but for developers, but I want the Government to oversee it and ensure that they do so effectively.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we must carry communities with us on projects such as this. It cannot be done to communities; it must be done with them. The experience with wind energy, for instance, has not been good when we have left it to the industry to carry communities with them. All too often, the industry expects Government to pass unpopular laws that second-guess the planning system. Does he agree that we need to consider ways to share the economic benefits directly with local communities, for instance through reductions in their electricity bills or rebates in their council tax?
Mark Menzies
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct that what is important is not that the local council, the Treasury or the companies benefit; they would all benefit from the development of shale gas. Ultimately, it is vital that ordinary people in areas hosting sites see meaningful, tangible, long-lasting and substantial benefits. I will touch on that, and I know that the Government have made an announcement on the subject.
Moving on to the development of the UK supply chain in shale gas, some people criticise the Minister for wearing two hats: energy and business. That criticism is short-sighted. Having experience in both makes him absolutely the right person to ensure that we take the right decisions in developing the infrastructure and supply chain across the whole energy sector, and particularly within shale gas.
There has been much speculation in the press about the number of jobs that could be created by shale gas. If shale gas is developed in Lancashire, it is imperative that local people get maximum employment opportunities. From speaking to those in the industry, I understand that a significant number of jobs in shale gas come not from drilling for gas but from developing the manufacturing supply chain and supporting industries.
I urge the Minister to seek close Government working with the industry to ensure the development of a UK—indeed, a Lancashire—supply chain. It would not be acceptable for the equipment to be manufactured overseas when we have UK businesses with a strong engineering heritage and a highly skilled work force in Lancashire. This is a great opportunity to use those skills to develop a manufacturing base in the region to supply equipment for the shale gas industry. In the long term, an offshore shale gas industry could ultimately develop, and that could drive a considerable amount of highly skilled, well-paid, leading technical jobs. It is important that the north of England does not miss the opportunity or shirk the challenge.
I also urge the Minister to ensure that local enterprise partnerships, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the gas companies undertake a scheme to co-ordinate with local colleges and schools to ensure that apprenticeships are offered to those keen to enter the industry and retrain where applicable. People are key, and it is vital that local people get the benefits and do not miss out.
My hon. Friends who have intervened have mentioned community benefits. On the financial community benefits from shale gas, I broadly welcome the overall shape of the proposed package. It is absolutely right that communities that host shale gas pads should also be the primary beneficiaries. I know that the Government and the Minister have put in a lot of work on that issue. I thank the Minister for his work. It is not an easy task.
I also want to make it perfectly clear that the £100,000 paid must be per well fracked and not per shale gas pad. I have read some ambiguity from commentators in the press, although I never believe everything that I read in the press. It is therefore important for the Minister to give some clarity that it is £100,000 per well and not per well pad site. As he is aware, a pad can contain up to 20 wells, so it is therefore imperative that we have clarity in order to avoid confusion in future.
I welcome the principle that communities benefit from a percentage of revenue generated. At the moment, 1% is proposed; I know that some of my hon. Friends wish to speak about that. If it remains at 1%, the money must be highly localised. If, however, a desire to spread the money over a wider area becomes the prevailing mood, we have no option but to seek a higher percentage level, as I am not prepared for the benefit to my communities hosting shale gas pads to be diluted. That is the decision that we must take.
It is right that a significant proportion of revenues—I believe the figure proposed is one third—should go to the county council, as the mineral rights authority. However, I would like the rest of the money to be placed into a community endowment fund to ensure that the communities that host shale gas sites benefit for generations to come. I know that the Minister is driving much work on the issue, and I look forward to seeing the final results. I like the thought of a National Trust-style model, where the money is awarded to causes that benefit the community in the long term. Those could even include major infrastructure projects. However, it is also important that individual people benefit. Options including direct cash payments or money in the form of energy bills must also be explored. My constituents who host such sites, and my hon. Friends’ constituents who will host them in time, must be their prime beneficiaries.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that it is a slight problem that we do not actually know how profitable the shale gas industry will become? If we set the deal too early, we may lose some of the benefits that could accrue to us.
Mark Menzies
If my hon. Friend were sitting closer to me, I would think that he had read my notes, but as he is an honourable gentleman and far enough away, I know that he has not. He is absolutely right. We are in the early days—indeed, the infancy—of the industry. If it goes ahead, we still have questions and uncertainties to get through. It would be wrong to set too firm a percentage level at this stage, but we also need clarity that when a company says that it will pay 1%, or whatever percentage it turns out to be, it cannot renege or change its mind when the ink is barely dry. With the best will in the world, companies change chief executive. They can be taken over. Governments also change. The intentions being set out honourably at this moment in time could change in future.
We also do not yet know how profitable it will be or how much money it will cost to extract the gas, or what future gas prices may be. It is therefore important that the level set is sustainable for local communities and everyone else who has a stake, including the Government and the operators. It is in no one’s interest for the benefits to yo-yo and fluctuate to such an extent that no one knows what they are getting.
Some colleagues have called for a statutory underpinning for the agreement, so that the industry and Government cannot renege. I will put my trust in the work that the Minister is doing at this stage, but I seek assurance that were a company to renege on its commitment, the Government would not shy from being direct with it to ensure that the community benefit package was not lost to the people whom I represent.
Shale gas is controversial, but the Government are engaging with the issue and taking some tough decisions. I will be a critical friend of the Government. If they are not getting the regulations right or not engaging with the community, I will highlight that to the Minister. Similarly, the industry should not expect an easy ride; my colleagues and I will be emphasising anything that we regard as shortcomings. Any attempts by the industry not to adhere to regulations, not to engage with communities or not to ensure that communities are financial beneficiaries, and we will hold its feet to the fire.
We will return to this subject in many debates to come, Mr Benton, but I thank you for your chairmanship today.
Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)
Before we proceed, I assure Members that the air conditioning is working as effectively as possible. It is very close, but it will not get any better, I am afraid, so please feel free to remove your jackets, if you so wish.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I will take you at your word, Mr Benton, and, as it is customary to say, it is a great pleasure and delight to serve under your chairmanship. It is also a great pleasure and delight to follow the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), who is my constituency neighbour and who placed the arguments and his position with his usual sense and robustness. I will do my best to follow him.
The hon. Gentleman said what ought to be the theme of this afternoon’s discussion: the regulations must be robust and to the highest environmental standards. He rightly passed a warning shot—if I may put it that way—across the Minister’s bows about the use of language, and I shall return to that later in my contribution. The focus needs to be on “robust”, not on “streamlining”, and I entirely concur with what the hon. Member for Fylde said.
I also agree with what the hon. Gentleman told the Blackpool Gazette—that he would be
“inflexible on the point that there must be a gold standard of regulation reached before any potential move to the extraction phase.”
That is a position with which I wholeheartedly associate myself.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), who speaks for the Opposition, also holds that position. He will speak for himself shortly, but in an article for PoliticsHome, when the survey by the British Geological Survey was published, he warned about too much hype:
“For many who are against renewables, shale is the silver bullet. For some who advocate green technologies, the extraction of unconventional gas is catastrophic for the environment. While it may help generate lurid headlines, an absolutist position does little to ensure a realistic assessment of the role shale and other unconventional gas could play in our energy mix.”
That is an important position to set out.
Coverage in the national media has become extensive, not least since so many people outside Blackpool and the Fylde were alerted to the matter by the famous occasion of the earthquakes, to which reference has already been made. I think that I am speaking for all hon. Members in the Chamber who represent constituencies in or near the Fylde when I say that there is a wide variety of views, ranging from absolutism at both ends to scepticism on either side of the frame. Those views were picked up well in a recent article in The Observer by Robin McKie, a distinguished science editor there for many years, who has dealt with the issues in a solid way.
The balance must be struck between the prospectuses of the companies concerned, which will necessarily be expansive, and the realities of the science on the ground and of the amount of gas that is actually extractable. The amount is a key issue, because, as the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) rightly identified, that might affect any arguments or discussions about the amount of money available at a future stage. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to get the balance right. At the end of the day, they will set the regulations—I concur with the hon. Member for Fylde that what DECC has done has been proportionate and measured—but I caution the Minister to continue in that line, not least in the context of the Chancellor’s remarks, because the Treasury’s position to date has been far too gung-ho in cheerleading for the industry.
The hon. Gentleman talked about unwarranted criticism of the Minister for wearing two hats, with his ministerial responsibilities for energy and for business. I am worried not so much about two hats as about the possibility of three—the third one appearing if the Minister were to follow his Treasury colleagues and become simply a cheerleader for the fracking industry. It is important that he remembers his quasi-judicial role as we take forward sensitive decisions. Language, whether emanating from him or from his civil servants, is particularly important.
Community benefit is the frame in which this afternoon’s debate is taking place, but which communities and where? There are communities of interest, reasonably so, in the development and the possible production of jobs, but also in the residents of the area and—not to be sneezed at—in the visitor and tourism industry. When we discuss the benefits or where the jobs will come from, we must look not only at what Cuadrilla or British Gas, which has now joined the enterprise, say about the numbers of jobs that might or might not be created—there can be lots of arguments about that—but at the impact on existing jobs, particularly in tourism, and on green issues. The number of jobs and the effects that those jobs will have on the local area from a positive point of view need to be balanced against the potential—that is all I say at the moment—for things to develop in such a way that tourism, the environment and the continued enjoyment of the Fylde area by residents are jeopardised.
I therefore move on to geographical communities, as well as communities of interest. Blackpool has not thus far been the site of any drilling experiences, but it was Blackpool that got the earthquake. In Blackpool, we were able to provide the definitive answer to the often-asked question, “Did the earth move for you?”, because it certainly did, and in some measure. Seriously, if such things are to have an effect on the reputation, image and attraction of Blackpool, then Blackpool must also be included as a potentially benefiting community, as well as the other areas of the Fylde.
I have mentioned the potential adverse consequences on seaside and rural tourism, and they should not be treated lightly. More independent assessments of the amount of work and jobs that might be created would be welcome. For my part, I so far remain fairly sceptical about some of the numbers produced by Cuadrilla, as I remain sceptical about some of its estimates for the amount of extractable gas available.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has seen the Institute of Directors report, which was published about six or eight weeks ago, but it was interesting. It modelled what a pad might look like, how many jobs might be involved in the supply chain and so on. If he has not had a chance to look at that, it is worth doing so, because it is a substantial piece of work.
Mr Marsden
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As a former member of the Select Committee who believes in evidence-driven policy, I will look at the Institute of Directors report, as I will look at many of the other bits and pieces that come before us. We can have as many reports as we like, but at the end of the day the issue will remain one of judgment and proportion. What I am urging on the Minister and the Department and what I think largely echoes what the hon. Member for Fylde said is that they should proceed with caution. The precautionary principle should apply. I make no complaint against some of the people who propose the change because they want their business to succeed, but in the famous words of Mandy Rice-Davies after the Profumo affair, they would say that, wouldn’t they? Some people in other business areas will look at it through their end of the telescope, but it is not our job as Members of Parliament to look at it through their end of the telescope. Our job is to look at the effect on our constituents.
With that in mind, I strongly urge that we proceed with caution on the precautionary principle and probe laser-like into what the benefits will be and how broad they will be, and perhaps even to look at the impact on rural and seaside tourism, which are and should be interlinked. Our primary concern as Members of Parliament in the area must be for our residents’ well-being and environment. The Fylde is not like Arkansas or other areas of the United States that are relatively large and sparsely populated. The concern, whether justified or not, about contamination of the water table and other negative effects experienced in the United States would be much more profound and pronounced in the UK.
This morning, I went to Tate Britain for a quick peek at the wonderful exhibition of Lowry’s paintings of industrial Britain. He had the ability to summon up a terrible beauty from the destruction and marred landscape of the industrial revolution. We should take care in our House and in our deliberations not to be overborne by hype or business prospectuses. I would not want to see some of that terrible beauty visited on the Fylde in the 21st century.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on securing this debate on this important topic. I am not a Lancashire MP, but I stand here as a member of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, which has looked at the issue in some detail, and as chair of the all-party group on unconventional oil and gas.
I have worked on this issue in some detail and discussed it at great length with a wide variety of stakeholders throughout industry and beyond. There is great consensus on the community benefit and we have reached the stage where no one is disputing or discussing whether we should have a community benefit scheme; we are simply discussing the detail. There are various reasons why an effective scheme is important and it may be best summed up in a phrase that many hon. Members have heard before: the industry requires a social licence to operate. A community that hosts shale gas resources and could see shale gas development take place is entitled to ask two legitimate questions: is it safe, and how will our community benefit from the process? It is incumbent on the Government and industry to answer both those questions
Today’s debate is not about safety, except that, echoing hon. Members who have spoken, we must take this forward with the highest environmental standards, in keeping with the gold standard that we already apply to oil and gas regulation in the UK. Today’s debate is about the benefit to people and communities in Lancashire. It is their gas; it is not Cuadrilla’s gas or Centrica’s gas, and it is certainly not the Government’s gas, although the law may imply that it is. I am not a socialist, but as far as I am concerned, it belongs to the people of Lancashire, and it is important and absolutely right when developing a domestic UK shale industry that the local communities who will host that industry and new development should benefit from their own natural resources.
Loosely speaking, two benefits can accrue from a large-scale infrastructure project. One is the natural or organic benefit: the jobs, supply chain and activity from the very process of the investment and flow from the activity without intervention from the Government. The other, which is what we are principally talking about today, is the artificial cash benefit that can be put in place by the industry through voluntary agreements or by the Government to ensure that some of the profit and revenue stream from the industry are shared locally.
I want both forms of benefit to accrue to the people of Lancashire. On the first point, it is essential that the maximum benefit in jobs and investment accrue as locally as possible to the operation of the shale gas pads. Employing local people and developing a local supply chain is fundamental to making the industry part of the community instead of it being an outside industry that comes in and does things to the community.
In Aberdeen and the surrounding region, for example, the offshore oil and gas industry supports 137,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs. We may not see quite the same number of jobs in Lancashire, much as we would all love to, but the highly detailed report by the Institute of Directors estimated that there is potential for up to 74,000 direct and indirect jobs nationwide from developing UK shale gas. Not all the jobs will be in Lancashire, but many will, and it is important that when the industry and particularly the supply chain go forward with their plans, they do their best to maximise the number of jobs that stay locally within the region.
On the artificial cash benefits, the proposals currently under discussion have been alluded to: £100,000 per exploratory well and eventually 1% of revenue from the development phase going to the local community. Over the lifetime of a shale gas pad, that could amount to a considerable sum, and I agree with those who have already noted that we should remain flexible about community benefits to ensure that, as the industry’s profitability becomes better known and we have more information, we can ensure that the benefits remain at a suitable level.
I share my hon. Friend’s concern about one fundamental and important question. How does one define the community? Most of our present discussions about community benefits boil down to the question, who is the community? The judgment call on exactly who should receive a direct benefit is often spoken of in terms of municipal level—parish, district or county—but it is important to note that people do not necessarily mean the parish council, the district council or the county council. They use those words as shorthand for the municipal level to which the community benefit should go.
If the community is defined too narrowly, it may create division rather than consensus, and I have seen that in my constituency. When campaigning in Curdworth as a young parliamentary candidate not that many years ago, I asked what the village’s main issue was and someone said, “Them on that side of the village got compensated for the Birmingham northern relief road and we over here, one road over, weren’t.” The compensation package had caused division in the village because the definition of who should benefit was too narrow.
However, if the definition is too wide, there are two concerns. One is simply that if the benefit is diluted too much, it may not provide a genuine benefit. Another danger is the message sent about the impact of the industry. If someone living 10, 15 or 20 miles from a shale gas pad is told that they will receive a community benefit to compensate them for having it in the area, are we not pandering to a myth, because someone 15 or 20 miles away may not notice that it is there? The evidence is that there will probably be no impact more than a few miles away from a shale gas pad.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
There is an interesting historical point behind the name of this debate: what is Lancashire?
Graham Stringer
For the purposes of this debate, I think Salford can be Lancashire and that there will be immediate benefits there.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that apart from immediate local benefits, there will be general benefits for the whole country if the exploitation of shale gas is successful because the real impact will be a lowering of energy prices?
Dan Byles
I absolutely agree that it is important not to forget that Lancashire is part of the wider UK economy and that there are potentially significant benefits to not only Lancashire, but the whole UK economy. The jury is still out on how much shale gas might bring energy prices down, but it is certainly true that it might help to prevent them from rising as much as they might have done, which is, in effect, the same thing.
The majority of the members of a community who will be impacted by such development will be affected not by the actual activity of drilling for gas, but by the wider construction activity. In that respect, shale gas development is no different from any other infrastructure development. More people will probably be affected by things such as truck movements than by the activity of drilling for the gas.
When the Energy and Climate Change Committee visited Hinkley to discuss the Hinkley Point C power station, we had a long discussion with local parish councils about their concerns. I was struck by the fact that not one mentioned the fact that a nuclear reactor was going to be parked at the side of their town as a concern. They were concerned about truck movements, dust, noise, vibration and, interestingly, which pubs the itinerant work force were most likely to drink in.
When we look at the wider community benefit, and at how wide we go, therefore, it is important that we do not give the impression that somebody who lives five, 10 or 15 miles away from a shale pad requires compensating because of some activity that takes place there.
Others wish to speak, so I will say no more, other than that there is widespread agreement over the principle we are talking about. I do not think anybody here disagrees with the broad thrust of what community benefit will look like. We are now down to the definitions. What amount are we talking about? How should we levy it? Which community will benefit? Later, there will also be the practicalities of how moneys will be disbursed and to whom. We are in a good place, given that we are discussing the mechanisms involved in getting these things right, rather than whether we should do them. There is wide consensus that we should do them, and I think that is right.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I congratulate the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on the lucid and clear way in which he introduced the debate.
There are many views of fracking. Some, I do not agree with, although I respect them. The Tyndall view of fracking and shale gas is simply that getting them out will add to the greenhouse gases circulating around the globe, so they should be left where they are. I do not agree, for reasons that may or may not be correct, although I believe them. Principally, I do not think that our energy consumption will fall much over the next 20 years or that renewables will be sufficiently developed by that stage to plug the gap. Other alternatives also seem pretty unattractive. One is the extensive building of nuclear power stations. Buying ever cheaper coal—coal is becoming cheaper—is another. Importing gas is probably the favoured alternative, and we will probably face a choice between using Russian, Kazakhstani or Qatari gas or shale gas, which we have in appreciable abundance in Lancashire—the shale there is much deeper than in many parts of the United States, where shale gas is being exploited to some effect.
I have the advantage of having visited one of the exploratory wells and seen the precautions taken to ensure that what happens is not environmentally intrusive or damaging. I therefore have a better feeling about the regulations the industry must currently abide by, although we are looking at a tougher regulatory environment in the future. We already have extensive planning controls and health and safety regulations, as well as oversight from the Environment Agency.
Clearly, good regulation is crucial to the successful development of shale gas. I say that because I have also seen some slightly alarmist anti-fracking propaganda. We have probably all had sight of “Gasland”, with the taps that catch fire and so on, and we have probably all heard the exaggerations about the chances of pipes fracturing, threats to the water supply and subsidence. People have also exaggerated the number of wellheads we need, and they have talked about traffic densities and movements that are unlikely to materialise—producers are unlikely to want to move gas around by lorry if they can find a better way to move it. To be fair, a lot of the people who object would object if all those concerns were set aside; in other words, they have the same fundamental objection as the Tyndall climate change group—they think shale gas is not something we should dally with and is not something for the future.
Against that argument, there are clearly powerful economic arguments. If shale gas materialises as Cuadrilla and others hope it will, that will be good for the country’s balance of payments and it could have huge implications for the north-west’s economy. My constituency, which is on the edge of the Bowland special protection area, will, I hope, benefit in some way. I am not holding my breath on that, because we have seen false dawns locally before. Gas was discovered in the bay, and the production facilities can be seen from Southport beach. We hoped that that would have enormous benefits for the local economy, but it led to Hamilton Oil sponsoring a few events, and that was it. When one of the few fibre-optic cables from America came on land on Southport beach, I dreamed of Southport becoming not the Aberdeen of the north, but the silicon valley of England, but, somehow, that did not happen; we just got a quietly humming shed on an industrial park and little in the way of local employment. I am not, therefore, holding my breath, but I am none the less encouraged by the fact that the shale gas industry has made some pretty good opening moves, which will, I hope, move us in the direction of rebalancing the economy and provide some local community benefit.
Through the Treasury, the Government are concentrating principally on incentivising shale gas development. I am in favour of that, and we certainly need to explore it, because this business could be hugely profitable. The issue then is, what will happen to all the profits? Will they simply leach out to the south-east or wherever the company headquarters are, or will we feel the benefit locally? If I can throw my two pennies-worth on the table, I would like to see a levy that is channelled towards investing in permanent renewable energy in the area. At some point, the shale gas, like all other such energy sources, will run out. Other Members have other attitudes and other proposals. The hon. Member for Fylde talked about the supply chain, and I agree with what he said about that. He also talked about energy rebates, and none of my constituents would be unhappy to receive them.
We are at the beginning of what will probably be quite a protracted discussion with the Government and the industry, but it is important that we discuss these issues among ourselves. Those of us who are embittered northerners have too often seen wealth generated in the north accumulated and spent somewhere else. That is the one thing, above all, that we wish to prevent.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called after the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh). As a Member from the embittered north, may I say that I am really pleased that Salford still regards itself as part of Lancashire? I am even more pleased that north Warwickshire now regards Lancashire as part of the United Kingdom. It is nice to know these things.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), whose constituency I have to drive through every week to get to a third of my constituency, on getting the debate. As he said, this is the second debate he has initiated on this issue. I have managed to get only one, but he has managed to get two, which shows the power he has. However, I have a part share of the debate on shale gas on Thursday, so perhaps things are more balanced. On Thursday, I will talk more about safety matters; today, in view of the time, I will talk principally about the compensation system.
In our earlier debates, virtually all of us stressed the need for the Government to commit, at least in principle, to some form of community compensation when a possible go-ahead with extraction was announced. In that sense, we are pleased with where we have got to. We have had the announcement that the compensation system will be established. We have learned that it will be run by the United Kingdom Onshore Operators Group. We have learned it will provide £100,000 per wellhead at the exploration stage, and I will be interested to hear the answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde about the distinction between wellheads and pads. We have also had the indication that, once production starts, 1% of all revenues generated over the lifetime of the well will be allocated to the local community. The suggestion is that one third will go to the county and two thirds to the local community, which I assume means the district.
In one sense a good start has been made, and I compliment the Minister on the work he has done to get things to that stage; but we want more clarity and certainty. We also want a guarantee of additionality, and ideally we want more money. I will begin by talking about clarity. At the moment the UK Onshore Operators Group has said that two thirds of the revenue generated will go to the local community. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) raised the question of what the local community is. There is a question in relation to the wellhead: that because of the engineering that could be used in Lancashire it will go down vertically and then horizontally. Will the local community be defined in relation to the extent over which the gas is extracted, or just where the wellhead is? I am not splitting hairs: those things will be brought up locally, for Members of Parliament to answer.
As to the figure of two thirds being directed locally, does that refer to the district councils, such as Wyre, in my case, or Fylde; or does it mean a unitary authority—Blackpool? My major concern is about what happens if those councils take the third or two thirds. What commitment do we have that that will really be seen as additional to the normal process of local government revenue grants? I have absolute faith in my right hon. Friend the Minister and, indeed, in the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), but let us think of a future time, when other Ministers have come along. What if Lancashire county council, or, indeed, the district councils, are gaining a fair amount of money just on the basis of the 1%, and they apply for the normal general grant? Or what if there are regional growth fund applications for the area? Will not a future Minister say, “Well, Lancashire has that money; it does not need this other money”? That is my argument about additionality. We need some guarantees about it—that the money will be additional, above and beyond what the localities would normally expect under the local government or business funding systems or whatever, and they will not be disproportionately treated because there is extra money.
We are all struggling to find the right vehicle and I am sorry that none of us has the perfect answer—the hon. Member for Southport and others hinted at one—to whether the money should go into something like a sovereign wealth fund for Lancashire, or, indeed, a trust fund. That might be managed by professionals, but open to applications from the districts, parishes and counties for funds—and major, structural funds. My other argument will be that 1% is not enough. Big profits will be made. I understand the strictures of the hon. Gentleman: we are at the beginning of an industry. However, perhaps there could be a rising scale as the profits mount up. There is a serious issue about 1%: it is not enough. If the predictions about the productive capacity of the Bowland shale are right—and it stretches across Lancashire and parts of Derbyshire, and even that other county called Yorkshire—5% would be a substantial amount of money, which would guarantee to the people of those areas that something would be left after the shale gas was gone, as it eventually will be. That something might be renewable energy; it might be all kinds of things, but that is the kind of vehicle that I suggest.
There are other examples of such things, and we can learn from mistakes that have been made. I understand that the Shetland Charitable Trust has got itself into trouble over what it can and cannot fund. The Alaskan funds are quite interesting because of the dividends that they have been able to pay out, on top of the future capital investment that will be available to ensure that when the oil goes Alaska will be left with something. That is what we are looking for. It is certainly what I am looking for: to be able to tell people in Lancashire “We will be prepared to put up with all this”—because I am not sure there will be too many jobs in it—“as, at the moment, we, or some of us, are prepared to put up with wind farms out at sea and on the hills, and possibly a new nuclear power station, if some long-term investment will be coming back to Lancashire, and it will not be used as an excuse to deny Lancashire other funds.”
That is the principle that I would like the Minister to consider. I know he cannot give us direct answers today, and I am grateful for how far he has got on the question. There will be future meetings, until we reach a system. Members of Parliament of all parties from the part of the world in question need to prove that serious investment will come back to the boundaries of our county, however we define them, and those of other counties that will be affected in the future. Then, provided all the safety and environmental measures that we may debate on Thursday are secure, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde has stressed, there is absolute clarity and transparency and independent regulation, we can give our support and make a vital contribution to the United Kingdom, in the way that Lancashire has always been prepared to do.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Benton. I congratulate the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on obtaining the debate. It is not really a surprise to many of us that following the announcements that formed part of the spending review—or rather announcements of announcements, as I anticipate more detail soon—there is heightened interest in the broad subject of shale gas and fracking, with two debates this week.
Some hon. Members who will take part in Thursday’s debate are not here today, and I hope that they will read this debate before then. What has been good about it so far is the degree of thought and rationality that has been applied to wider issues of community benefit, and not just the specifics. Those thoughts have come, not surprisingly, from Members of Parliament from all parties in the affected area; they have the right and responsibility to speak up for their constituents. As many have intimated, even if they have not said so explicitly, we do not yet really know what we are dealing with. We can know only after some exploration, when we find out what is being extracted and what will be got out of the ground. We can then make further judgments; but we can get to that stage only if there is public confidence and acceptance.
The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) referred to a social contract—I am pleased to hear he is not a socialist; that gave me some comfort. However, the idea of a social contract is vital. The technology is not new, but an existing technology is being given a new or different application, and it is not surprising that there is anxiety and concern about the impact. That is not least because people have seen reports and films about the experience in other parts of the world, notably the USA. It is right for Government and the appropriate authorities to take those things seriously; because confidence is necessary. That is why the hon. Member for Fylde was right to begin his remarks by talking about regulation. I hope that he does not mind my saying that he was right to point out that the issue is not just the robustness of the regulation; it is also the comprehensiveness of monitoring. Having all the right regulations does not necessarily guarantee that what should happen does happen. That is not to cast aspersions on any individuals or companies that may be involved in the future: it is a question of public confidence.
The reality is that for a number of months, following the cease in activity after the earthquake, or earth tremors, that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) referred to, many of us were waiting for the Government response to those issues. Despite the comments of some hon. Members—who are not here today but who have an interest in the area—who thought that that it was a dereliction of duty for the Government to have that pause on activity, I think it was exactly the right thing to do in order to assess properly what was happening. I take the geological survey published a couple of weeks ago as an aspect of that evidence base that needs to be assessed, but it only tells us what the theoretical resource is and not what is recoverable.
We had a debate in Westminster Hall on the Energy and Climate Change Committee’s initial report into shale gas, which the hon. Member for Fylde was not able to take part in at that time, as he was a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then energy Minister, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry). However, I seem to recall that the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), who have spoken today, were present and took part. Since then, a lot has happened and things have moved on, but in March last year, we set out a number of conditions, from the Opposition perspective, that we thought needed to be in place in relation to regulation. I am sure that we will delve into these matters much more on Thursday, but I want to highlight what we suggested those conditions should be, because they speak to the wider point about the way in which the whole issue continues to develop.
We said that the chemicals used must be restricted to those that are proven to be non-hazardous with mandated public disclosure of all the chemicals to be used, including their toxicity levels. The integrity of each well must be assured to prevent water contamination, with independent assessment of the well design, the cement bond between the casing and well bore, in addition to the composition of the casing to determine its ability to resist corrosion. Seismic monitoring should be put in place with a traffic-light system, to which the hon. Member for Fylde referred earlier, as has been the case in the Netherlands and Germany. The level of methane in groundwater should also be assessed prior to any drilling, because a criticism that has been made a number of times relates to potential contamination. Sometimes it goes further, and some people claim contamination of groundwater from methane, when, as we are all aware, methane can occur naturally in groundwater. Unless there is initial monitoring of it as a baseline study, we cannot tell whether anything untoward has happened. We said—the hon. Member for Fylde also made this point—that all potential shale exploration should be subject to an environmental impact assessment, given that previously, smaller applications did not necessarily need to be. We also said that we believe the monitoring should take place over a 12-month period to allow sufficient time to gather the evidence required to make an informed decision to proceed with exploration.
I am pleased that late last year, the Government broadly accepted, or came up with, a very similar set of conditions. Those conditions are comprehensive, although there are still some gaps in regulation that the Government need to fill, which I will come on to later in the week. But, as others have said, the regulation needs to be robust, and I am sure that that is exactly the intention of both the Minister and the Department. I repeat the point about language, and using language that suggests, even if it is not the intent, that the regulation will be streamlined—which can mean a number of different things to a number of different people—is not necessarily the best choice of language in this regard.
I move on to community benefits, on which some important points have been made so far this afternoon. I take a broadly similar position to the hon. Member for Southport. When making the case, there are people who have legitimate concerns about a number of areas that need to be addressed, while some are against shale exploration and have a principled, ideological position. It is fair enough for people to take that position, but there is a need to separate those ideological objections from legitimate environmental concerns, and that is exactly what the regulation needs to do.
In terms of community benefits, the Government have acted on onshore wind, and, given the ongoing discussions, I am sure that we will get more on community benefits in relation to nuclear in the near future. We have had a broad acceptance that there is a degree of disruption, that there is a need for that to be recognised, and that there should be some community benefit and support. However, it is not as straightforward as it initially sounds. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South made the point about what local impact is, how that is best defined, and where community benefits are. The Minister is well aware of the issue. I read a comment from him that must have been made at the time of the announcement; he was talking about what might impact on a particular community, but if that community uses a swimming pool that needs to be rebuilt in an adjacent town, how can that line best be drawn? We really need to get into the detail of that over the next period, because there are potentially significant financial benefits, quite apart from the impacts that others have discussed in terms of jobs and economic activity.
I want to reiterate a point that has been made. I have, in front of me, documentation from the United Kingdom Onshore Operators Group, when it put out its community engagement charter. The point about whether it is a wellhead or a pad is important—the language used by the UKOOG refers to it being per well site. That language in itself is slightly ambiguous, in terms of it being a well site, as opposed to a wellhead. Will the Minister try to clarify that important point?
On the wider point about community benefits, we know that in relation to the foreshore, the Crown Estate has established a system of community benefits. Not a huge amount is flowing into that fund at the moment, but it will in future in relation to offshore activity. The fund is effectively administered by the national lottery and it is appropriate for a number of community bodies, as well as local authorities, to apply. Will the Minister say more about consideration of that type of model or of that as part of the model, as opposed to something being run by an industry group?
There is a wider point in relation to Shetland, which the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood referred to. In one of my previous lives, I was a local government officer in Scotland. It always used to gall us that, every year, when the 32 local authorities in Scotland got their audit reports, Shetland got the worst one in terms of sustainability of funding, but it was okay, because it has that huge amount of money there. In fact, with what is happening west of Shetland, it probably has quite a lot to be able to rely on well into the future. However, there is a point about long-term sustainability as well, which I think needs to be reflected in the wider community benefit picture. The Minister is well aware of the issue, and he asked how we stop funds being swallowed up by the local authority social services budget—I think that was what he used as an example of a local authority budget that is always under pressure, where there is the temptation to plug the gap, if there is additional revenue. However, this really needs to be something additional. We do not know the scale yet, as the hon. Members from Lancashire have made clear in their contributions.
I shall finish by reiterating a point that has been made about regulations. Regulations need public confidence and wide acceptance, and the same goes for the community benefits package and arrangements. Communities need confidence in them and they need to know that they will be appropriately and fairly dispersed and applied. They need to see that the benefits are there for them to use in recompense—although not formally in recompense—for the disruption there may be during the activity that may or may not happen in Lancashire or elsewhere in the years ahead.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
May I join colleagues in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr Benton? I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on securing an important debate on this subject and on his constructive approach. If I may say so, I congratulate Members on the tone that they have adopted throughout their contributions. I will try to answer the various points that have been raised.
My hon. Friend began by rightly raising the interests of communities, and the debate has clearly demonstrated that community interests have a number of dimensions and apply to all potentially affected communities across our country. I will group my comments into four areas: first, local communities should be clear on the Government’s policy on shale; secondly, they should be clear on when they will be engaged locally and by whom, and have access wherever possible to objective information; thirdly, they should be reassured about shale development and that it will be carried out safely and in a way that protects the environment; and finally, they should know exactly what benefits should flow from hosting shale gas developments. I will tackle each in turn.
As a Government, we believe that shale has the potential to provide this country with greater energy security, an incentive to growth and more jobs. Through the co-ordination of the Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil, we are creating the framework to accelerate the development of shale responsibly. Looking at the big picture to see how our various energy sources fit together in the market as we transition to a low-carbon future, we quickly realise that oil and gas will form a key part of our energy requirements for some decades to come. We need to recognise that shale gas development is part of a historic continuum in the development of our domestic resources. Over 2,000 conventional oil and gas and coal bed methane wells have been drilled in the UK. Fracking, of course, is an established exploration technique used around the world. I see unconventional resources as a part of the bigger picture and continuum.
As Members will know, the British Geological Survey has now estimated the total volume of gas in the Bowland-Hodder shale, which includes Lancashire, at some 1,300 trillion cubic feet. Effective exploration of that resource is necessary to help us understand how much of that gas is technically or economically recoverable. We are therefore encouraging the safe and environmentally sound exploration that will help us determine that. With robust regulation now in place, there is nothing to prevent licensees from bringing forward new drilling plans and seeking the necessary permissions. In Lancashire, Cuadrilla has recently announced further plans for exploration, and of course we welcome Centrica’s recent investment in its licence in the area. We are therefore likely to see Lancashire lead the way in the exploration phase, which if proven will provide local communities with real benefits and opportunities.
Early community engagement by companies in the industry is essential to gaining public acceptance of and support for shale gas development. We have worked closely with the industry to encourage strong engagement that addresses local concerns. We are therefore pleased that the industry—through its trade body, the United Kingdom Onshore Operators Group—has recently collectively adopted a community engagement charter. One of its objectives is to identify and proactively address local issues and concerns. In addition, each operator will engage with local communities and other stakeholders, beginning in advance of any operations or any application for planning permission. For our part, the Government have a role to play in supporting public engagement by ensuring access to evidence-based information that can address the questions raised and inform public debate.
My Department is looking urgently at how we can swiftly take forward the suggestion from my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), which has also been touched on this afternoon, to ensure that we provide clear information to the public on the myths that tend to surface about shale, so that we can help the public to separate fact from the fiction. An objective of the Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil is to help people understand the facts about shale gas, and that includes supporting local authority engagement with communities where it can assist in resolving issues and allowing projects to proceed where appropriate. Officials are developing plans for how we can do that in practice and will be engaging with local authorities—particularly Lancashire, at this stage—on what assistance is needed from central Government to best deliver support.
Some of that is already happening. The Lancashire shale gas forum, established by the Environment Agency, already brings together county and district councils, regulators including the Health and Safety Executive, my Department and the Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil to discuss strategic shale gas issues and matters of concern to local communities. That forum is meeting today.
Mr Marsden
The Minister will have heard my comments about the effects in Blackpool. He referred to district and county councils. Can he tell us whether Blackpool council, which is of course a unitary council, is included in that group?
Michael Fallon
I am not able to confirm that immediately, but I may be able to do so shortly. I certainly understand the question. My information was that the group included Lancashire county council and the district councils, and my assumption was that that would include Blackpool. If I am wrong, I will let the hon. Gentleman know as swiftly as I can.
I turn to regulations that ensure safety and protect the environment. In our country, we have more than 50 years’ experience regulating the onshore oil and gas industry. Our system of regulation is comprehensive and fit for purpose for exploration, but we are not complacent. We want continuously to improve it, and local communities will expect no less. A number of regulatory bodies and Departments are involved, including the Environment Agency, the HSE, my Department and the Departments for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Communities and Local Government. The Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil, which has no regulatory functions, co-ordinates activity across Government on unconventional gas and oil, including on the regulatory process, while ensuring that shale development remains safe and the environment is protected. We are making good progress. The Department for Communities and Local Government will shortly publish planning guidance for industry, mineral planning authorities and local communities on how shale gas developments should proceed through our planning system.
For its part, the Environment Agency recently published a statement of actions to simplify the regulation of exploratory activity by the oil and gas industry while maintaining environmental protection. As a first step, it will publish draft technical guidance for consultation by the end of July, setting out its requirements on operators and giving them, local communities and stakeholders more certainty. The Environment Agency and the HSE have already agreed to work closely together and have developed a joint approach to inspecting new exploratory shale gas operations under a memorandum of understanding, which directly addresses one of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde made. That means that they have agreed a joint programme of inspection for the next series of fracturing operations in England and Wales. They will meet new and first-time operators, advise them of their legal duties and conduct a joint inspection of key operations, including cementing and the verification of cementing and the main hydraulic fracture.
In addition, the Department of Energy and Climate Change will check that the HSE and the Environment Agency, or its Scottish equivalent the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, have no objections before it consents to drilling operations. Furthermore, if hydraulic fracturing for shale gas is intended, we will require measures to address the risk of induced seismicity, namely prior analysis of geological risks and the submission of a detailed fracturing plan, including a traffic light control protocol.
On the community benefits, I think we all agree that it is vital that communities that host shale benefit from the developments. As part of the recently published charter, the industry has set out its benefits proposal, which is, as has been said, to provide communities with £100,000 per fracked well site at the exploration stage and 1% of revenues at the production stage. The industry estimates that that amounts to as much as £5 million to £10 million per pad, and some £1.1 billion overall for communities in the UK. We welcome the offer from the industry. It represents a good deal for communities at this stage in the development of the UK shale industry. I am pleased that the industry has pledged to keep the offer under review and to consult communities about it in the light of operating experience.
At this stage, the operators group envisages that community funding will be split, with two thirds going to a local-level community fund and one third to a wider fund at county level. That need not mean the local authority itself; it might be a charitable or other foundation operating at county level. The operators have pledged that at each stage they will work with the local community funds to set out what level of benefits would be provided on a per household basis, so that even though communities may choose to use the funds to pay for community-wide measures residents will understand what their share of the benefits is at the household level.
The industry plans to publish further details of the proposals later this year, setting out more on the funding allocation and on how the charter will operate in practice. As the industry develops the details further, it will engage with interested parties and the local authorities involved, so I urge interested Members also to engage in the process and to help shape the proposals further. I assure Members that we in the Government will continue to work with the industry to ensure that it delivers on its commitments and, importantly, to keep the offer under review as we learn more about how the industry is likely to develop in the UK.
Finally, one of the potential benefits of shale gas production is job creation. My hon. Friend referred to the importance of the supply chain. Building partnerships to encourage job creation and growth is part of the work being led by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills under the Government’s growth strategy, and DECC will work closely with BIS to assess the need for skills development.
The oil and gas sector strategy has already identified how the sector and the Government can work on the skills challenges the offshore sector faces, and it points out that links could be made with opportunities in other sectors, including that of shale gas. Work on supply chain mapping is also being commissioned. To improve the responsiveness of the skills system to the needs of business, BIS is promoting much greater employer leadership and closer collaboration between business, higher education and further education colleges. We are already seeing signs of that in Lancashire, and I hope that other companies and institutions will follow the lead of Cuadrilla and the university of Central Lancashire.
In the brief time remaining, I want to respond to the points that have been made, but if I cannot cover them all I hope that colleagues will allow me to write to them in detail. I was asked how we will monitor seismicity. The monitoring system will include a prior assessment conducted by operators. A fracking plan will have to be submitted. There will be a traffic light warning protocol and real-time monitoring, and if any activity over 0.5 on the Richter scale is detected the operation will be halted and further steps taken. The British Geological Survey has a national earthquake monitoring system that will, of course, alert us all to any changes in natural background seismicity.
I was asked how we would maximise local job opportunities and improve apprenticeships. The industry commits in the charter to encouraging that wherever reasonably possible. I was also asked about greater public engagement by the Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil, which I have already mentioned. We are developing plans, as has been suggested, and we are committed to reinforcing how the public can have access to more independent information.
On transparency and the type of organisations involved in enjoying community benefits, I was asked whether we should share benefits directly, for example through reductions in bills. I have already said that I welcome the industry’s commitment to flexibility, to engaging with communities and to consulting them over the autumn. Even if it is decided to take the benefit more generally—the new swimming pool that was mentioned, for example—I want local households to be clear what the benefit would be if it were a reduction in their individual bills, so that everyone understands the contribution that shale gas can make. The operators have committed to publishing each year how they are adhering to the charter, once the system of benefits starts to operate. The information about each local arrangement will be made public, and the next community down the line will be able to see it and decide whether it wants a similar package.
I was asked whether the benefit is per well. In the charter offer it is per well site, but that is one thing that the industry will consult on in the autumn. The disruption and the impact of the whole operation is at the well site, but the length of horizontal drilling means that some of the activity takes place a long way from the site. That is one of the issues that will be clarified a little later on.
I hope that I have responded to the main points that were raised, but I undertake to pick up any others later. I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. I think we have shown that it is perfectly possible to approach the development of this entirely new industry as neither zealots nor victims but in a practical, constructive way, working through the issues one by one and ensuring that our communities get the benefit of what is potentially a very exciting development.
St Raphael’s Hospice
(10 years, 9 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
Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I appreciate having this opportunity to address the House on an issue that is of major concern to my constituents, to the many staff who work at the very valued institution of St Raphael’s hospice, which is in north Cheam in my constituency, and to the staff who work at the adjacent charitably run St Anthony’s hospital.
I suspect that when the Minister saw the title for the debate, he turned to his officials and said, “What on earth am I doing a health debate for?” I can well understand that reticence and puzzlement as to why a Health Minister was not invited to respond. I want to use the debate to explain why I am grateful that a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister is responding. The issues are not so much about health care as they are about accountability, transparency and the responsibility of trustees in discharging a public good and a common purpose. The debate requires an intervention or some involvement from the Foreign Office.
I ask the Minister to intervene on behalf of my constituents to safeguard the future of a much valued hospice and a widely respected hospital. I ask that our ambassador to the Holy See make officials at the Vatican aware of the concerns I am expressing. I will explain why. The Congregation of the Daughters of the Cross of Liege is a Catholic charity that owns and runs St Anthony’s hospital and St Raphael’s hospice, both of which are based in north Cheam. Together they employ 900 local people and are much loved, much admired institutions with a strong tradition of volunteering, which is very much at the heart of the hospice movement.
The trustees of the Daughters of the Cross are six Catholic nuns, who have decided to sell St Anthony’s hospital to a commercial concern, bringing to an end more than 100 years of care and Christian mission for the sick, the vulnerable and the dying. Their decision confounded and distressed those who work at the hospital and the hospice, as well as many of my constituents and many in the wider community who benefit from the work of the institutions. The decision is all the more perplexing because the Daughters of the Cross charity, according to its latest accounts, has more than £80 million in cash and investments, even before selling off the hospital. Lack of money is not the problem and should not be a justification for what is being done.
Worse still, the Daughters of the Cross have so far failed to explain why a proposal for a new Catholic charity with new trustees could not form the basis of a gracious and negotiated passing of the baton to a new generation of trustees. Instead, Daughters of the Cross are insisting on the withdrawal of all the existing funds currently held by St Anthony’s hospital—some £35 million in all—as well as a capital receipt for the disposal. In my meetings with the charity, the trustees talk about the money being their money. There is no recognition that the money is held in trust, or that it is the result of co-production between the Daughters of the Cross and those who work in the hospital and hospice.
The issue I am raising is not a religious one. It is about the behaviour of a charity and the reputational damage that is doing. The Daughters of the Cross is a congregation of pontifical right. It does not come under the temporal or spiritual authority of the Catholic Church in England. It is answerable directly to the Vatican in Rome, and critically it has not yet obtained permission from the authorities in the Vatican that oversee decisions to dispose of assets held by the Catholic Church. The body with the decision-making authority is called the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, whose secretary is Archbishop José Rodríguez Carballo. As part of the charity’s governance, it has well-established advisory committees that bring together community and expert opinion to guide the trustees’ decisions, to ensure that the right investments are made and that the right development of services takes place. Sadly, that expertise has been sidelined in this matter and not given the weight it deserves.
The chairman of St Raphael’s hospice, Dr Ron McKeran, has written to Archbishop Carballo, imploring his committee to exercise its oversight role and use its discretion to stop the sale and instead fully explore and take forward the creation of a new Catholic charity. Dr McKeran and many others believe that the sale of St Anthony’s will destroy the very special Christian character of the hospital. In his view, the actions of the charity’s trustees seem to be devoted to turning charitable assets into greater financial reserves, rather than to turning public donations into charitable activity. I believe that Dr McKeran’s analysis is spot-on.
The sale will expose St Raphael’s hospice to financial uncertainty. That is critical. At present, the hospital, as part of the same charity, provides a hidden subsidy of around £1 million a year. There is a symbiotic relationship between the two institutions. The hospital provides vital services, including IT, payroll, catering, and site services. Cutting the hospice free of its ties to the hospital, eventually to become a stand-alone charity, would leave it facing the prospect of a million pound funding gap.
There is an alternative: a proposal to spin out a new charity to take St Anthony’s and St Raphael’s forward together, maintaining the Christian mission that has flourished on the site in north Cheam for more than a century. The trustee nuns of the Daughters of the Cross have so far not explained why they are unwilling to appoint lay trustees, as other similar charities have done. There could be a managed transition with new trustees taking up the reins when the nuns are no longer able to exercise their responsibilities as trustees. That is more in keeping with the ethos of the charity, but the trustees are confusing their worries about their own mortality with the bigger picture and the purpose of the charity they founded. The trustees have offered no explanation as to why the reserves of £80 million and the moneys from the disposal of a very valuable site in Chelsea cannot be used to achieve their ends.
As a result of all that, the hospice finds itself in limbo, uncertain of its future and reliant on words of good intent, but no guarantees. I hope the Minister understands the concern that I and many of my constituents have about the future of St Raphael’s hospice. My concerns have already led me to write to the Charity Commission, asking it to investigate how the charity has conducted itself, the lack of due diligence and the risk of financial and reputational damage. It cannot be right for a charitable purpose to be subverted by the personal concerns of the trustees about their own long-term involvement in the charity. Nor is it right for the trustees to set aside the expert opinion of their own advisory boards, as well as the views of the staff, volunteers and the public. Their goal should be to secure the long-term future of the charity. That is why I am asking the Minister to act: not to interfere in matters spiritual, but rather to set out those concerns to the authorities in the Vatican who have the final say.
Will the Minister ask our ambassador to raise the matter, urging that it be carefully considered, and that the representations from Dr McKeran, myself and others are properly taken into account? At the very least, will he ask our ambassador to draw the attention of the appropriate authorities in the Vatican to this debate? There is no authority in the UK that can prevail upon the Daughters of the Cross to change its decision; only an intervention from the Vatican can hope to protect the future of the much loved and cherished St Raphael’s hospice.
I finish by quoting from a letter from June Whitfield, who is a doughty fundraiser for St Raphael’s hospice. She recently wrote to Sister Veronica Hagen, who is the chairman of the trustees of the Congregation of the Daughters of the Cross. The letter ends with these two paragraphs:
“And I urge you to reconsider the proposal of the Management, staff and supporters of the hospital and hospice to instead create a new charity encompassing both St Anthony’s and St Raphael’s.
The Daughters of the Cross established St Anthony’s Charitable Hospital in 1904 and then built St Raphael’s Hospice in 1987. Their ethos and faith have served the people of both Sutton and Merton well for over a century, it would be not just sad, but unforgivable if you and your current colleagues are the ones to extinguish these beacons of hope and faith in an increasingly difficult world.”
That is absolutely right, and I hope the Minister can help.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
May I begin by expressing my pleasure at serving under your guidance this afternoon, Mr Benton?
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) on securing this important debate today and on setting out his case and concerns, and those of his constituents, so eloquently. I pay tribute to the role that he has played in supporting his local community on this challenging and difficult issue, and I am struck by the strength of local feeling that clearly exists about the future of St Raphael’s. This is clearly a great concern for many people, given the excellent and dedicated work that has been undertaken—both recently and over a significant period—both by St Anthony’s hospital and St Raphael’s hospice.
In particular, the work of the hospice exemplifies the huge support that exists for the hospice movement across the whole United Kingdom. St Raphael’s clearly plays a very important role in the lives of many people within the community of Sutton and Cheam. Indeed, hospices such as St Raphael’s have a crucial role to play in providing a dignified environment for people with serious or terminal illnesses throughout the United Kingdom.
Of course, my right hon. Friend will be aware of the additional £60 million in Government funding that was awarded to hospices across England earlier this year. A total of 176 hospices will benefit from that fund. It will not only help to improve conditions within hospices themselves, but support the care that hospices provide to people in their own homes, which is a crucial factor that he personally focused on when he was a Minister in the Department of Health and for which he deserves enormous credit.
Given today’s debate, I am particularly pleased about the award of more than £500,000 to St Raphael’s hospice, which I understand will help towards building its new extension. Investment in hospices is vital, not least because more and more people are using their services. Hospices need support to provide the care that is so desperately required. Such additional funding will enable hospices to modernise their premises, to improve further the facilities and care that they provide to patients and—significantly—to give increased support to patients’ families. The importance of that support and the continued provision of compassionate and dignified care at what is a very difficult time for both patients and their families should never be underestimated.
St Raphael’s can be held up as an excellent example of the strong role that faith groups can play in contributing to wider society. St Raphael’s ethos of accepting people of all faiths and, indeed, people of no faith is admirable; that is exactly the sort of model for interfaith relations that the Government are keen to promote. It is also important to say that this role of religion and faith within communities makes a vital contribution to national life, by not only guiding the moral outlook of many people but providing help for those in need. Compassion and the desire to provide assistance to those who suffer are excellent principles for faith groups to focus on.
Across the country, people from different faiths are working hard, not only in countless churches but in countless mosques, temples and synagogues, as well as in charities and community groups, to address problems in their local communities. The Christian Churches have an extensive national framework of buildings, expertise, volunteers and reach that can put them at the very heart of providing services, not only to the homeless but to others in need. St Raphael’s is a very good example of that in my right hon. Friend’s own community.
I will now turn to the future of St Raphael’s, which was the main focus of my right hon. Friend’s remarks this afternoon. I understand that, as he quite rightly pointed out, the trustees of the Catholic Congregation of the Daughters of the Cross of Liege are members of an international order of religious sisters based in Belgium. They help to provide health care and similar services, both in England and around the world. As he also quite rightly pointed out, the Daughters of the Cross are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales. Ultimately, they are subject to the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, based in Rome within the Roman Curia of the Holy See.
Given the strong local concerns for the future of the important health care and hospice provision provided by St Anthony’s hospital and St Raphael’s hospice, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is making representations to the relevant Holy See authorities, through the British ambassador to the Holy See. I will come on to the details of those representations shortly.
Our ambassador has also spoken to the apostolic nuncio in the United Kingdom, Archbishop Mennini. We understand that the archbishop would be delighted to meet my right hon. Friend, if he was willing to attend such a meeting, to hear his concerns and discuss these important issues. The papal nuncio, as His Holiness the Pope’s representative in the UK, is an appropriate vehicle for these concerns to be expressed and passed to the Holy See, as is, of course, our ambassador to the Holy See.
I can inform my right hon. Friend that only this morning our ambassador had a meeting in the Vatican with the secretary of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life, Archbishop José Rodríguez Carballo, and was able to brief him on the concerns of the local community about the future of St Anthony’s and St Raphael’s. I am delighted to tell my right hon. Friend that the archbishop was fully aware of the case and acknowledged receipt of the recent letter from the chairman of St Raphael’s hospice about the issues that my right hon. Friend has articulated today.
In the meeting this morning, the archbishop made it clear that the decision on the future of St Anthony’s and St Raphael’s was ultimately for the trustees. However, he assured the ambassador that the Vatican would look carefully at the case, as it does all such cases, and will do so over the summer. I can inform my right hon. Friend that there are similar cases, particularly across western Europe, as those who are providing the health care are ageing, as he described earlier. The archbishop also confirmed that, in general terms, guidance would be given to the trustees on the basis of the known preference of the Church that such good works should continue to be run on Catholic lines and that a reply would be forthcoming to the chairman of St Raphael’s hospice once proper consideration had been given. I hope that goes some way to placating the concerns that my right hon. Friend outlined, but I suggest that he follow up the offer of a meeting with the papal nuncio in the UK.
Paul Burstow
I thank the Minister and his officials for so rapidly and diligently pursuing this case on behalf of my constituents. I am sure that Dr McKeran will look forward with great interest to the response from the Church. May I ask the Minister to do one further thing, which is to ensure that the report of today’s debate is also passed to the papal authorities, so that they can be aware of our exchange?
Mark Simmonds
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I understand that the archbishop in the Vatican was made aware this morning that this debate was taking place. However, I will of course be happy to respond to my right hon. Friend’s request, to ensure that he sees the Hansard report of the debate passed through our ambassador to ensure that there is follow-up to this debate in the way that he describes.
With your indulgence, Mr Benton, I would just like to set out, for a couple of minutes, the importance of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Holy See. This debate exemplifies why it is increasingly important for the UK to maintain a positive, dynamic and energetic relationship with the Holy See. Not only for bilateral purposes but globally, there is significant mutuality of interest between the UK and the Holy See.
To that end, Baroness Warsi led an historic visit of seven British Ministers to the Holy See, where they were received at the highest level, including an audience with the Pope. This visit broke new ground, both in the scale of the delegation and the substantive nature of the talks, which covered issues as diverse as sustainable development, conflict prevention, Somalia and the ongoing process of reconciliation in Northern Ireland.
During 2013, we have worked closely with the Holy See in furthering our global agenda. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote to His Holiness Pope Francis in June this year, before the G8 summit, to brief him on our agenda and to seek his views. That is a reflection of the importance that we place on the influence and role of the global Catholic Church and the Holy See.
Of course, this has been a historic year for the Vatican, with His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI’s decision to stand down and the subsequent inauguration of His Holiness Pope Francis. The Government warmly welcomed the appointment of Pope Francis, and we strongly support his unceasing desire to tackle social and economic injustice, poverty and disease—issues that of course have been at the heart of our own G8 agenda.
I will conclude by reiterating the importance of the Catholic Church—along with so many other religions and faith groups—as a provider of much-valued and often unsung social services, including health care and hospice provision, support for the homeless and the marginalised, education provision and much else. The Government value the work of the Daughters of the Cross in running St Anthony’s hospital since 1904 and St Raphael’s hospice since 1987, and we understand their difficulties in maintaining these responsibilities. However, like my right hon. Friend, I very much hope that a solution can be found that satisfies all parties and that ensures the continuation of these vital services to the local community.
Women in Wales
(10 years, 9 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
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
It is good to start early on this hot, sunny July afternoon, Mr Benton.
Last year, I looked at the financial cost for women in Wales of the policies of the coalition Government. The study, which was based on parliamentary questions and Library research, revealed that, directly due to coalition policies, £1 billion would be taken away from Welsh women. It highlighted that more than £700 million would be lost to women in Wales as a direct result of pension changes; housing benefit changes, not including the ruthless bedroom tax, would account for more than £13 million; nearly £40 million would be lost due to changes in working tax credits; and public sector pay restraint would cut £300 million out of families’ pockets.
Have things got any better since then? Clearly, the answer is a resounding no. Things continue to get worse for women in Wales, whether because of the replacement of well-paid jobs by lower-paid ones, sustained attacks on public sector jobs, the increase in zero hours contracts and part-time working, cuts to child care, or direct tax or benefit changes, such as the bedroom tax. Whichever cut it is, women in Wales are being hit hard.
Why is this situation affecting women so badly? Women are, on average, poorer than men. Some 64% of low-paid workers are women and in later life women’s average personal pensions are only 62% of the average for men. Women also live longer, often spending the final years of their lives alone. Women are more likely to be the primary carers for children, older people, the sick or the disabled. Nearly three quarters of carer’s allowance claimants are women, confirming that women take responsibility for the majority of care. Women are also far more likely to be lone parents. Indeed, in Wales 95% of lone parents are women and that group is much more likely to be below the poverty line. Women are also more likely to be the victims of domestic and sexual violence.
Given that women use public services and benefits more than men, it is clear that when provision is cut it will hit women even harder. The fact that women are bearing the brunt of the Government’s deficit reduction plans is proven by Library research. Of the £14.4 billion raised in 2014-15, through changes to taxes, benefits, pay and pensions, £11.4 billion—some 79%—comes from women and £2.9 billion from men. In a Cabinet with three times as many men as women, it is hardly surprising that women’s voices are not being heard at the highest level.
Mrs Siân C. James (Swansea East) (Lab)
The cuts in the public sector are particularly affecting us in Swansea East, because we have high dependency on public sector jobs. Does my hon. Friend agree that the cuts are impacting much more strongly on women than on men, because more jobs are being developed for men, but not as many for women?
Jessica Morden
In terms of public sector employment and cuts to it, my hon. Friend is right. I will mention that later.
Let us look for instance at tax and benefit changes. The coalition Government and Ministers at the Department for Work and Pensions have consistently described their welfare cuts as fair. Clearly, they are unaware of or are ignoring the disproportionate impact they are having on women in Wales. A recent Office for National Statistics study on the effect that benefit and tax changes have had on incomes by household types demonstrates the negative financial consequences for women and families. That study, which covered the financial years 2010 to 2012, shows that a lone parent household with dependent children is £2,248 worse off. We have already established that the vast majority—95%—of lone parents in Wales are women. For other families, the situation does not get any better. A household with two adults and two children is nearly £5,000 worse off. The stress on parents who are trying to accommodate such an income fall, bearing in mind the huge hike in living costs, adds a great deal of pressure for people who are already working hard to keep their heads above water.
A recent report by the TUC showed that most jobs created since the recession have been in low-paid industries such as retail, the service sector and residential care. That was borne out by the ongoing inquiry by the Welsh Affairs Committee into the Work programme. Nearly 8% of the 587,000 net new jobs since June 2010 have been in sectors where the average pay is £7.95 an hour or less. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that long-term unemployment has increased by nearly 100,000 since May 2010, and a shocking 86% of that increase is among women. Young Welsh women are particularly struggling in the labour market, with one in five out of work. In the figures released in June, the overall unemployment rate in Wales remained unchanged at 8.4% but the number of unemployed women rose again.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is a particular problem for young mums in Wales? According to the House of Commons Library, a couple with a joint income of around £24,000 will lose £1,300 in benefits as a result of the changes to child trust funds and tax credits, particularly the baby element. An awful lot of people in Wales, including many of my constituents, come from households with a joint income of around £24,000. Young mums will be particularly vulnerable and will have very little money to spare for their children.
Jessica Morden
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Young families, in particular, will be hit by the cumulative impact of the loss of the child care element of tax credits, the child trust fund and maternity grants.
In Wales, most part-time jobs are undertaken by women; 27% of public sector employees work part time and 85% of those are women. Although it is true that many women want to work part time, many others have no choice.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I have some sympathy with many of the points that the hon. Lady has made on the welfare reform agenda. On child care, does she acknowledge that the Government have announced a constructive package that will help many young mothers? The figures suggest that 5,700 people in Newport would benefit. Child care is a particular problem, and the Government are taking action. In a spirit of fairness, I am sure that she would acknowledge that that should be recognised.
Jessica Morden
As far as I can see, the action on child care is too little, too late. Many families in my constituency are struggling with huge child care costs, which are bigger than those in many countries around the world. The Government’s proposals will take time to filter through and will have no immediate impact on those families. In addition, the little bit of help that has been provided for child care is totally offset by the huge cuts to tax credits.
According to the Bevan Foundation report “Women, Work and the Recession in Wales”, the number of people in Wales who work part time because they were unable to find a full-time job has increased by 79% to one in five of all part-timers. In addition, the burden of unpaid work still falls on women. Child care responsibilities or caring for older people mean that many women have little choice but to work part time. Contrast the difference between the Labour Government in Cardiff, who are doubling the number of Flying Start places despite losing £1.4 billion from their budget, with the coalition in Westminster, who have cut the child care tax credit by up to £1,500 a year for low paid women while giving millionaires a tax cut of £2,000 a week.
In Wales, women make up two thirds of public sector employees, so the steady and sustained attack on jobs in the public sector has affected women disproportionately. In addition, the pay freeze has worsened the pay gap between men and women; the full-time pay gap now stands at 14.9%. In many parts of Wales, particularly in places such as my constituency, the public and private sectors are completely intertwined. If money is taken from public sector workers, less money will be spent in the local economy, which in turn hits the private sector. By affecting so many women in such a way, the Government are directly affecting the Welsh economy.
The living wage is one that meets the requirements for a basic quality of life and reduces families’ reliance on Government programmes for additional income. In 2012, it was calculated that 24% of all working women earn below the living wage and 62% of those earning less than the living wage are women. How do we stand in Wales? Wales has the second-highest proportion of people earning below the living wage in the UK, the highest proportion of part-time workers earning below the living wage and, at 44.5%, the highest proportion of female part-time workers earning below the living wage.
In Wales, many women are on zero-hour contracts, which were the subject of a debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) in this Chamber last week. Recent UK estimates suggest that 97,000 people in Wales have such contracts, of which at the very least half will be women. I know from bitter experience, however, that Government answers to parliamentary questions on the matter are difficult to come by.
Labour wants universal credit to work, but even the impact assessment by the Department for Work and Pensions states that
“second earners may choose to reduce or rebalance their hours or leave work.”
As a result of pay inequality and time taken out of the labour market to raise children, fewer women tend to be primary earners in their households, so the policy will simply not work for many women. In addition, many people are concerned that women will be sanctioned because they struggle to find the child care to enable them to take a job. That question was raised in the Welsh Affairs Committee inquiry into the Work programme.
Government cuts are not only affecting women disproportionately but cutting off access to advice and legal support. At the same time as all the changes are being made to benefits, swingeing cuts are being made to advice services. Organisations such as Citizens Advice, Shelter Cymru and Consumer Focus Wales provide such services, but the sector is expected to lose approximately £3.36 million from various sources over the next 18 months, which is the equivalent of 50 full-time jobs. In fairness, the Welsh Government have recognised the importance of such services and recently provided £1.8 million of extra money to allow the organisations to adapt to the increased demand for their services.
My local citizens advice bureau in Newport, which does excellent work, has had 745 more cases this year than last, but that tells us only part of the story. The citizens advice bureau can only deal with the numbers for which it has funding and advisory capacity. The staff know that more demand exists, but they cannot meet that demand without additional funding. That is happening at a time when people need more help than ever before. As we all see in our surgeries, demand increases every week.
The changes to legal aid demonstrate yet again that the Government are willing to make cuts irrespective of their impact. I am already seeing heartbreaking cases in my surgery following the cuts to some family and civil legal aid. One mother of three children came to see me because her ex-husband had refused to return one of the children after a stay. The father has a high income but the mother is in receipt of benefits, so she sought legal advice but was informed that she does not qualify for legal aid. Because both parents are considered good parents, a court case will be required to solve the issue, but she does not have the money to pay for it. Her husband can have a solicitor but she cannot. She told me that
“the poor no longer have recourse to justice, only the well off.”
Unfortunately, she appears to be right.
Many victims of trafficking and domestic abuse will no longer be eligible for legal aid. According to research by Rights of Women and Welsh Women’s Aid, half of all domestic violence victims will not qualify for legal aid to help them and their children safely to separate from abusive relationships.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
In recent years, we have seen a welcome change in emphasis from the police on domestic violence, and more people are now willing to report domestic violence. If people are being asked, rightly, to come forward, but they are being failed when it comes to legal funding, the situation is serious. I would have thought that people right across the House would regard domestic violence cases as extremely important.
Jessica Morden
My hon. Friend is quite right. The changes to legal aid require a much higher level of evidence to be provided, and organisations such as Women’s Aid believe that as a result, half of women across Wales will not have access to legal aid if they need it.
There are so many areas in which women are disproportionately affected, and I have only talked about a few. I could have talked about the abolition of crisis loans, the bedroom tax, changes to tax credits or pension changes. Name a policy and it is likely to hit women hardest. When families are already feeling the impact of more than 7% inflation on energy costs, with Wales having some of the highest electricity bills in the UK, as well as more than 6% inflation on clothing and more than 4% inflation on food, people can see why it is important to address the inequalities.
Equality law states that whenever the Government propose new legislation and policies, they have to give due consideration to the impact that the changes may have on equality of opportunity between men and women. Time and again, it is clear that the analysis is either inadequate or being ignored, as women in Wales are disproportionately affected by the coalition’s policies. Rather than getting the analysis right, the equality duties were highlighted in the Government’s red tape challenge, and there are fears that they might be watered down or dropped altogether by the coalition.
It is now time for the Secretary of State for Wales to carry out an in-depth analysis of the impact of his Government’s policies on women in Wales, because no matter which way we turn or whatever policy we look at, the Government are letting down women in Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)
It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Mr Benton.
I thank the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) for securing this short debate on the important subject of women in Wales and the situation under this Government, or any Government. I thought I was coming in here to listen to a debate in the round on women in Wales, but—I hope she forgives me for saying this—in fact we were treated to a speech that was pretty similar to those we have heard in Westminster Hall and on the Floor of the House numerous times in the past three years: a general attack on cuts and welfare reform, dressed up as a debate about women in Wales. We could have been discussing the role of women in public life, higher education or the legal sector in Wales, or the efforts that we as a Government are making to help women in Wales smash through the glass ceiling and take their place on boards, running companies and being leaders in all spheres of life in Wales. What we actually had was a crude attack, if I may say so, on our welfare reform proposals and our approach to deficit reduction.
Nia Griffith
Does the Minister not accept that the full title of the debate is “Effect of Government policies on women in Wales” and that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) has cited specific statistics about the situation as it affects women and women in Wales? She made that point a number of times. It is about the actual effect on women in Wales and the lack of an impact assessment or, if there is an impact assessment, the lack of sufficient attention to it, because there has been a disproportionate effect on women.
Stephen Crabb
The danger when looking through any particular demographic lens—we could have been debating the impact of policies on young people, older people, disabled people or people from ethnic minorities—is that we are lured into making generalisations and over-simplifications. We have had a bit of that this afternoon, so hopefully I will inject some balance into the debate.
The starting point, of course, is the economic context and the enormous financial crisis that still faces this country. It is worth putting on record again—I know that Opposition Members will roll their eyeballs at this—that the reason why we are having to take very difficult decisions about public expenditure, and the reason why we are having to restore discipline to our national finances, is the financial mess that the Labour party left after 13 years in government. I will go further: future generations of women and girls would not thank us if we shirked our responsibility now and did not address the deficit and the debt. They would not thank us for the burden of debt that we might hand on to them if we did not take the difficult decisions that we are taking.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I say with all due respect that we have had three years of this Conservative-led Government, and the record is now wearing a bit thin. It is no longer valid, if it ever was, to blame everything on the previous Government. Surely to goodness the Minister can form a better argument in defence of what he has done.
Stephen Crabb
The context is important, and it is valid. I reject what the hon. Gentleman says.
The Labour party is committed at the moment to cutting £7 out of every £8 that the coalition Government are cutting. The Labour party has said that it is committed to that level of budget cuts. Of course, it will not say where. I listened to the hon. Member for Newport East give a long list of cuts to which she objects, but she will not say what her party would have cut. She is also not saying that her party, if it were in government, would actually increase spending on any of those services. I hope she will forgive me for saying this, but it is a little disingenuous to attack all the efforts that we are making to restore discipline to our national finances without also being up front by saying, “As a party, if we were in government, we would probably be cutting all of these things, too.”
Mrs Siân C. James
Let us move away from cuts and look at job creation. In Swansea East, the most recent figures show that between May 2012 and May 2013 female unemployment rose by 13.5%, yet male unemployment fell by 1.5%. Things are just not working for women, are they? That is really what the debate is all about. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) was attempting to say—and I think she said it very succinctly—that it is not working for women. What are this Government going to do on their behalf?
Stephen Crabb
There are communities in Wales in which unemployment among women remains a very serious problem, and I recently spent a day visiting various initiatives in the valleys, looking at job creation schemes and efforts to address long-term unemployment among men and women. I completely recognise the point that the hon. Lady is making, but let us step back and look at the bigger picture.
More women in this country went out to work today than ever before in history. There are now 13.8 million women in employment, which is more than ever before. Female unemployment actually rose under the last Labour Government by 30%. Under this Government, since May 2010, the number of women employed in the UK has increased by more than 350,000; in Wales, the number of women employed has increased by 21,000. The picture is not as gloomy as the hon. Member for Newport East presents. The employment rate in Wales among women is up by 1.2 percentage points, which is good progress. We are not complacent about that, and we need to be ambitious about improving it, but the trajectory is positive.
In the hon. Lady’s constituency of Newport East, there are now 2,400 more women in employment than two years ago. Surely she must welcome that. The employment rate among women in her constituency is up by more than 6%. Some positive things are happening.
Jessica Morden
Does the Minister appreciate that long- term unemployment among women and unemployment among young women have risen?
Stephen Crabb
I do not have the specific statistics to hand, but as I said to the hon. Member for Swansea East (Mrs James), there are certainly communities in which the trends are not as positive as the broader Welsh trend that I have presented here. We need to be more ambitious and redouble our efforts to see unemployment fall across all categories of women in Wales. I hope Members of all parties can agree on that.
Beyond just the positive signs we are seeing in the employment market, we as a Government absolutely recognise that many, many families face real financial pressure at this time. Many of those families, as the hon. Member for Newport East rightly says, are headed by single women, which is one reason why we are absolutely committed to assisting with the cost of living. We have seen some significant increases in the cost of living, which have placed huge burdens on families in recent years. That is one reason why we are doing one of the most effective things that can be done to put cash back in families’ pockets, which is to take the lowest-paid workers out of income tax altogether. We have now cut income tax for more than 1.1 million working people in Wales by increasing the tax-free personal allowance. By increasing it to £10,000 in 2014, we will lift 130,000 of the lowest-paid workers in Wales out of income tax altogether. Let no one be in any doubt: the majority of those 130,000 people lifted out of income tax—57%—will be women.
The hon. Member for Newport East spoke in great detail about some of our welfare reform measures. The introduction of universal credit is central to our welfare plans. Why are we reforming welfare? First, we cannot begin to think about cutting the deficit and the debt burden unless we are serious about welfare reform. Also, we all have communities in our constituencies where there are people who have not worked a day in their life—we have 200,000 such people in Wales, and worklessness is still a huge problem in many of our communities. If we care about those communities and are bothered by that, we must be serious about welfare reform. We as a Government are certainly bothered by it, which is why we are putting so much energy and focus on welfare reform.
Nia Griffith
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East said, we support the idea of making work pay, but it seems to us from the figures presented by professional organisations that universal credit may actually provide a disincentive for the second earner in a household to go out to work or take on more hours. Can the Minister take that back as a serious message to his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and ask them to consider it, so that the introduction of universal credit does not create a disincentive for people to go out to work?
Stephen Crabb
If that is a real concern and there is evidence to back it up, I will certainly take it to my noble Friend Lord Freud, the Minister responsible for welfare reform, and discuss it with him. I sit with him and discuss the impact of welfare reform in Wales, because I am concerned about it. The whole purpose of introducing universal credit is a more simplified system, which we want to incentivise more work. We hope that more women will choose to re-enter the labour market, partly on the back of the introduction of universal credit. Some of them will be in work already, but we want them to take on more hours if they choose to do so. We want people to be able to make the right choices for them in their circumstances at that point in time, and we want a welfare system that supports those choices rather than creating negative incentives that work against the interests of the families and individual women that we are discussing.
Households with single women and couple households will be better off on average after the introduction of universal credit. We are clear that that is what the modelling shows. Single women will receive an average increase in benefits of about £13 a month, and the figure for couple households will be £16 a month.
The impact of child care costs has been mentioned. We recognise that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) for putting on record some of the measures that we as a Government have taken to assist with child care costs, most notably the introduction of the tax-free child care scheme, which makes child care simpler and more affordable for parents to access. From autumn 2015, working families will be able to claim 20% of child care costs, up to £1,200 per child under 12. We believe that that will contribute significantly to helping women who want to go out to work in Wales by encouraging those who want to do so to get back into the labour market and take the jobs that are being created.
To respond to the point made by Opposition Members, I absolutely agree that more women than men have been affected by public sector job losses, due to the proportion of men and women who work in public services. Nevertheless, it is true—even in Wales, where Opposition critics said that it could not happen, because we were led to believe that the private sector was too weak—that more private sector jobs have been created in Wales to offset public sector job losses. Women are taking up those new jobs. Some of them will need extra skills training, and we are committed to helping provide that, but I genuinely believe that the employment situation is not nearly as grim as Opposition Members say.
Jessica Morden
Does the Minister accept that some of those jobs are lower-paid part-time jobs?
Stephen Crabb
There is a general problem in the economy at the moment that real wages are falling as a consequence of the recession. We are seeing that across sectors. Actually, a great many women want to work part-time. When I go around and talk to unemployed men, one common complaint that I hear is, “A lot of the new jobs being created are much more suited to women with families.” A great many women in Wales have been able to benefit from that structural change in the labour market.
We could also talk about pension reforms such as the introduction of the single-tier pension and tackling the historic inequality between men’s and women’s pension receipt. We could talk about the efforts that this Government are making to tackle domestic gender-based violence, a point raised by Opposition Members. We as a Government are absolutely committed to, and serious about, breaking down the barriers that women face in all spheres of life, so that women can play their fullest role in work and have equality at home, in educational institutions and—
Stephen Crabb
We will try to fix that. The hon. Lady will have to wait and see. On that point, I will end.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
R v Mouncher and Others (Disclosure Handling)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
On 26 January 2012, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, announced that he had asked Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Inspectorate (HMCPSI) to consider the way in which the prosecution team conducted the disclosure exercise in the case of R v. Mouncher and others, following the discontinuance of the trial on 1 December 2011. The HMCPSI’s independent review has examined and made findings on the following matters:
1. Whether the prosecution team (CPS and counsel) approached, prepared and managed disclosure in this case effectively, bearing in mind the history, size and complexity of the investigation and prosecution;
2. Whether the CPS and prosecuting counsel complied with their disclosure duties properly in relation to the extensive material generated in this case;
3. Whether the prosecution team CPS followed all relevant guidance and policy in relation to the disclosure in this case; and,
4. To make such recommendations as it feels appropriate in light of the examination and findings set out above, including, if appropriate, recommendations about CPS policy and/or guidance and CPS arrangements for handling of similar size and complexity cases.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has today published the findings of this review in full without any alteration or redaction and a copy has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The full review is also available online at www.cps.gov.uk.
The review concludes that despite the determination and hard work of the prosecution team (CPS staff and counsel), the approach to disclosure did not consistently meet the necessary standards. It notes that this was a very large case of about a million pages yet importantly also highlights that a great deal of unused material was disclosed to the defence and the number of disclosure decisions questioned at court represented a very small proportion of the decisions made.
The significance of the failure to disclose notes of police and CPS contacts with key witnesses was substantial. Other errors were less significant and some criticisms of the prosecution were unwarranted. While many of the mistakes or oversights did not disadvantage the defence or were capable of correction—and corrected—during the trial, their cumulative effect enabled the defence to undermine the confidence in the disclosure process.
The review also found some errors of principle—in particular, the prosecution took too narrow an approach to the disclosure test. The narrow approach was a failure of case management, particularly the lack of supervision of disclosure counsel’s work.
Finally, the review concluded that there was no evidence that prosecutors or police disclosure officers made decisions for any improper reason. Some mistakes were made in applying guidance but these represented a very small proportion of all the disclosure decisions that were made and many were discovered and corrected as a result of quality assurance exercises. More detailed conclusions can be found within the report including evidence of good practice.
The review recommends that more explicit guidance be included in the Prosecution Team Disclosure Manual including meetings with victims and quality assurance exercises as well as emphasising early CPS engagement with the police and how to consider the merits of an apparent defence.
The review also recommends the prosecution should prepare a written summary of the disclosure processes to be adopted including the rationale for the parameters used when applying the disclosure tests as well as the treatment of secondary source and duplicate material. The summary can then be served on the defence and the court. Finally, recommendations are made regarding the development of searchable IT systems to assist handling of disclosure in large and complex cases.
The DPP accepts in their entirety the findings and recommendations set out in the review. In January 2012, the DPP also ordered a complete overhaul of the CPS approach to modernise disclosure in serious and complex cases and since 1 March 2013 a new regime has been in place. This was designed to complement and support the Disclosure Case Management initiative launched by the senior presiding judge, Lord Justice Gross, on 3 June this year,
HMCPSI worked alongside the IPCC on this matter and their review is also published today.
National Fraud Initiative
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
I am today announcing that the Cabinet Office intends to take over hosting of the Audit Commission’s National Fraud Initiative (NFI) subject to the passage of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill.
The move to the Cabinet Office will allow the NFI to develop its existing work in line with Government activities to tackle fraud, error and debt. The programme will become part of the fraud, error and debt taskforce. I look forward to working with the NFI’s stakeholders to ensure that it continues to build on its existing success.
Officials in both DCLG and the Cabinet Office will work closely with the Audit Commission to prepare for a potential transition at the appropriate time.
National Insurance Contributions Bill
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
HM Revenue and Customs has published a draft National Insurance Contributions Bill.
I am placing copies of the draft Bill and accompanying documents in the Libraries of both Houses.
Counter-Terrorist Asset Freezing Regime
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
TAFA 2010 | EU Reg (EC) 2580/2001 | Al-Qaeda Regime UNSCR 1989 | |
|---|---|---|---|
Assets frozen (as at 30/06/2013) | £91,000 | £11,000 | £73,0001 |
Number of accounts frozen in UK(at 30/06/13) | 61 | 10 | 28 |
New accounts frozen | 4 | 0 | 1 |
Accounts unfrozen | 4 | 0 | 0 |
Number of designations (at 30/06/2013) | 39 | 362 | 290 |
(i) New designations (during Q2 2013) | 1 | 0 | 0 |
(ii) Delistings | 1 | 0 | 6 |
(iii) Individuals in custody in UK (at 30/06/2013) | 14 | 0 | 1 |
(iv) Individuals in UK, not in custody (at 30/06/2013) | 4 | 0 | 4 |
(v) Individuals overseas (at 30/06/2013) | 13 | 11 | 221 |
(vi) Groups | 8 (0 in UK) | 25 (1 in UK) | 64 (1 in UK) |
Individuals by Nationality | |||
(i) UK Nationals3 | 14 | n/a | n/a |
(ii) Non UK Nationals | 17 | ||
Renewal of designation | 0 | n/a | n/a |
General Licences | |||
(i) Issued in Q2 | (i) 0 | ||
(ii) Amended | (ii) 0 | ||
(iii) Revoked | (iii) 0 | ||
Specific Licences | |||
(i) Issued in Q2 | (i) 3 | (i) 0 | (i) 4 |
(ii) Amended | (ii) 1 | (ii) 0 | (ii) 1 |
(iii) Revoked | (iii) 0 | (iii) 0 | (iii) 0 |
1This figure reflects the most up-to-date account balances available and includes approximately $64,000 of suspected terrorist funds frozen in the UK. This has been converted using exchange rates as of 02/07/2013. | |||
2Includes EU only and joint UK and EU listings. | |||
3Based on information held by the treasury, some of these individuals hold dual nationality. |
LOCOG and Public Sector Funding
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)
In our final quarterly report on the games, published in October 2012, I said that the funds from the Olympic budget are still necessary in the transformation phase so we cannot provide an absolutely final cost, but it remains highly likely that the public sector funding package for London 2012 will come in under £9 billion.
The transformation phase is still in progress but with the voluntary liquidation of the London Organising Committee of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games (LOCOG) in train from 30 May 2013 now is a good time to update you on the latest position on the public sector funding package.
I am pleased to report that the anticipated forecast cost (AFC) of the Olympic and Paralympic programme has reduced from £8,921 million to £8,770 million, taking the total projected savings against the £9,298 million public sector funding package for the games (PSFP) from the £377 million that I reported in October 2012 to £528 million at end May 2013—an increase in savings of £151 million. The £528 million includes the handover to Government of a £20 million closing balance of non-grant income from LOCOG, effectively a repayment of grant.
The main reason for the increase in savings since end September 2012 is lower security costs :
a) A reduction in venue security costs from £514 million to £429 million, saving £85 million.
b) A reduction in policing and wider security costs from £455 million to £423 million, saving £32 million.
Taken together with spending on security for park construction by the Olympic Delivery Authority of £220 million, the cost of security met from the PFSP was £1,072 million. After taking full account of spending on venue security by LOCOG, this is a saving of £120 million compared to the provision and contingency announced in 2007 for the Olympic Delivery Authority and for policing and wider security.
The reduction in venues security costs follows LOCOG’s settlement with G4S.
LOCOG’s post-games risks were well managed, saving £30 million.
Details of the movements in funding requirement between 30 September 2012 and 31 May 2013 are set out in the following table :
30 September 2012 | 31 May 2013 | Variance | |
|---|---|---|---|
(£ms) | (£ms) | (£ms) | |
Olympic Delivery Authority | 6714 | 6711 | -3 |
Park Transformation | 296 | 296 | 0 |
Policing and Wider Security | 455 | 423 | -32 |
Venue Security | 514 | 429 | -85 |
Elite and Community Sports | 290 | 290 | 0 |
Paralympic Games | 111 | 114 | 3 |
LOCOG Park Operations | 78 | 70 | -8 |
Funding available to LOCOG | 224 | 230 | 6 |
Contingency held against LOCOG post-Games risks | 30 | 0 | -30 |
Operational Provisions | 137 | 135 | -2 |
Look of London and wider UK | 32 | 32 | 0 |
City Operations | 23 | 23 | 0 |
Domestic and International tourism campaigns | 4 | 4 | 0 |
GLA Olympic and Paralympic programmes | 13 | 13 | 0 |
PSFP contingency and other savings remaining | 377 | 528 | 151 |
Total | 9298 | 9298 | 0 |
The transformation of the Olympic park venues and infrastructure, apart from the Olympic village, is being undertaken by the London Legacy Development Corporation, a Mayoral Development Corporation, chaired by the Mayor of London and accountable to the GLA, rather than by the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA). The LLDC receives funding from the PSFP through DCLG and the GLA, to deliver the transformation programme (the £296 million for park transformation referred to in the table above).
The Olympic Delivery Authority remains responsible for the conversion of the Olympic village for residential use and for completion of the health centre and academy. This project involves the removal of temporary games-time elements and the installation of kitchens and other infrastructure to 2,818 apartments and the completion of sale of 1,379 of the properties to a social landlord, triathlon, for affordable housing and of the completion of sale of the remainder to a private landlord for rent. Good progress is being made and the first of the village blocks is due to be completed in time for occupation in summer 2013. The entire project will be completed in 2014, and when all remaining contracts have been closed out, the ODA will be dissolved. The LLDC’s programme is well under way. Key legacy users have been secured for all the venues on the new Queen Elizabeth Olympic park and the north section of the park is due to open in July 2013. The rest of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic park will open in spring 2014.
On completion of sale in 2014, the sale of the Olympic village private housing and associated land will yield over £550 million in receipts, as planned, keeping the costs within the £9,298 million PSFP. This includes returns to the Olympic Lottery Distribution Fund (circa £71million) and to the GLA (circa £30 million).
Any residual lottery funding held by ODA at the date of its dissolution will be returned to the Olympic Lottery Distribution Fund (OLDF) and when the OLDF is wound up in 2014 will be passed to the National Lottery Distribution Fund (NLDF).
The distribution of the net proceeds from the subsequent sale of land on the Olympic park is subject to a legal agreement between the Government and the GLA. It provides that after the first £223 million of net proceeds has gone to the GLA to pay off residual land debt, the next £900 million of net proceeds will be divided 75% to the national lottery distributors, and 25% to the GLA. Any further net proceeds will be divided 50% between Government and the GLA or LLDC. The first receipts to the lottery distributors from land sales on the Olympic park are expected to arrive in the mid-2020s.
On 19 July the Government and the Mayor of London will be publishing “Inspired by 2012”. This report will detail what has been achieved a year on from London 2012 across the areas of sport and healthy living, east London regeneration, economic benefits and growth, and bringing communities together.
MOD Annual Report and Accounts
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
I am today publishing the Ministry of Defence’s annual report and accounts 2012-13. It provides a comprehensive overview of the Department’s financial performance for the year, together with data on some specific areas of non-financial performance, including factual information on the Department’s progress against structural reform and business plan priorities.
Astute Boat 6
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
I am pleased to announce that the Astute class submarine hull 6 is to be named HMS Agamemnon. The boat is expected to join HMS Astute, HMS Ambush, HMS Artful, HMS Audacious and HMS Anson in service in 2022.
The seven Astute class boats planned for the Royal Navy are the most advanced attack submarines ordered by the Ministry of Defence, with improved firepower and communications, and the ability to operate stealthily for extended periods. The crew also benefit from greatly improved accommodation and facilities.
The boats will undertake a wide range of tasks in support of military operations worldwide.
Advisory Committee on Conscientious Objectors
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr Mark Francois)
On 22 March 2013, I announced to Parliament through a written ministerial statement, Official Report, column 60WS, the commencement of the triennial review of the Advisory Committee on Conscientious Objectors (ACCO). I am now pleased to announce the completion of the review.
The Advisory Committee on Conscientious Objectors is an advisory non-departmental public body (NDPB), sponsored by the Ministry of Defence. It provides advice to the Secretary of State for Defence on appeals from service personnel whose applications to leave the armed forces on the ground of conscience have been rejected.
The triennial review was conducted in accordance with Government guidance for reviewing NDPBs. Accordingly, stage 1 of the review considered whether there continues to be a need for the function, which the ACCO currently undertakes, to be delivered and whether the function could be more effectively delivered through a vehicle other than a NDPB. Stage 2 of the review scrutinised the current governance arrangements of the ACCO to ascertain whether it complies with the principles of good governance.
The review concluded that there continues to be a need for a body, independent of the chain of command, to provide informed advice to the Secretary of State about the status of service personnel who are seeking discharge from the armed forces, on grounds of conscience but whose application to leave on this basis has been rejected by the chain of command. The review considered that the most effective method of delivering this function is through a NDPB. Finally, the review considered that the ACCO complies with the principles of good governance, but made five recommendations, which the MOD will now consider.
The five recommendations are:
Recommendation 1 —The departmental board must strengthen its corporate governance arrangement and monitor the performance of the relevant advisory bodies appropriately in accordance with their nature, size and role.
Recommendation 2—The sponsoring department should strengthen the terms of reference by stating clearly that they are responsible for assessing the effective performance of the Committee.
Recommendation 3—The sponsoring department in consultation with the Ministry of Justice on behalf of the Lord Chancellor, to consider whether the chair should become involved with lay member appointments or reappointment, including the skills and experience required by the Committee.
Recommendation 4—The chair should be asked to confirm the members’ reappointment to ensure that no question of cause for non-renewal is raised, and this is then put to the Lord Chancellor to make the re-appointment. It would be unnecessarily burdensome to do this every year.
Recommendation 5—That the Register of Interests should be reviewed and regularly updated.
The report of the review will be now published in full in accordance with Government guidance.
National Employer Advisory Board
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr Mark Francois)
In June 2012, I announced in Parliament through a written ministerial statement, the commencement of the triennial review of the National Employer Advisory Board (NEAB). I am now pleased to announce the completion of the review.
The NEAB is an advisory non-departmental public body (NDPB), sponsored by the Ministry of Defence, which provides informed but independent advice to Ministers, the MOD and the reserves community about how it can most effectively gain and maintain the support of and for the employers of Britain’s reserve forces. The review considered the effectiveness of how the functions of the NEAB are currently delivered, whether there is a need for the functions and for the advisory NDPB to continue, and if so, how the function might best be delivered in future.
The review concluded that informed independent strategic advice that the NEAB provides to Ministers, defence chiefs and the reserves community is still required and that it should be retained as an advisory NDPB. The review also considered the governance arrangements for the NEAB in accordance with Cabinet Office guidance on good corporate governance. The report makes some recommendations in this respect that will be considered by the chairman and sponsoring division. The review was set firmly in the context of the review of employer engagement under the future reserves 2020 programme where there will be an increased importance in understanding and anticipating changes in the employer environment.
Tri-Service Recruit Trainee Survey 2012
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr Mark Francois)
Today I am publishing the 2012 recruit trainee survey annual report. All recruits and trainees passing through phase 1 and 2 training are offered the opportunity to participate in the survey, which is anonymous and administered independently on behalf of the services by an external contractor.
The annual report contains the views of recruits and trainees about topics such as the preparation for joining, their treatment during phase 1 and 2 training, food, accommodation, access to instructional and welfare staff and complaints procedures. Overall the results are positive and importantly, the findings are used by service training headquarters and units to monitor the training environment and make improvements.
I intend to place a version of the full recruit trainee survey 2012 annual report in the Library of the House.
Service Police Crime Statistics and Analysis Cell
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr Mark Francois)
During the debate on the Military Justice System that was held in Westminster Hall on 31 January 2013, I put on record my commitment to produce the most accurate information possible relating to sexual offences involving members of the armed forces. I then initiated further work with the service police provost marshals to explore practical ways of achieving this.
I am now able to provide an update to the House on the work of a Service Police Crime Statistics and Analysis Cell, which has been created within the Service Police Crime Bureau that is located at Southwick Park, Hampshire.
The aim of the Crime Statistics and Analysis Cell is to improve the quality of, and speed of access to, information relating to service police investigations. Initially, this involves creating a new standalone database to cover all sexual offences investigated by the service police since implementation of the Armed Forces Act 2006. Over the coming months, this database will be updated with information provided by service police units and other organisations that work within the Service Justice System. This, in turn, will provide the service police and the Ministry of Defence with more reliable and assured management information on which to base future thinking and decision making.
Although the initial focus of the Service Police Crime Statistics and Analysis Cell is on information relating to sexual offences, its role is being expanded to cover certain other offences (e.g. firearms, drugs, theft, fraud and those involving violence). The aim is to ensure that more accurate and reliable data are available from April 2014. In parallel, the service police are also taking forward work to enhance their existing crime recording IT system, with a view to auditing and assuring its data and enhancing its search capability by October 2014.
Sexual offences of any kind are not tolerated in the Ministry of Defence. The work of the Service Police Crime Statistics and Analysis Cell will enable the service police to monitor patterns of offending behaviour more accurately, and to allocate their resources accordingly.
More Affordable Childcare
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss)
Today the Government are publishing “More affordable childcare”, which sets out our plans for improving the supply of affordable child care.
Reliable and affordable child care is vital to giving parents the choice to get into and remain in work. We know that for many parents, before and after school and holiday care is the most difficult and costly to find.
“More affordable childcare” sets out the Government’s plans to help working parents access the child care they need when they need it, in particular by:
helping schools to offer affordable after school and holiday care, either alone or working with private and voluntary providers;
enabling nurseries to expand by reducing red tape and removing planning restrictions;
ensuring that childminders and nurseries that are good or outstanding can automatically receive Government funding for two, three and four-year-olds; and
supporting parents to access more informal care.
We want to encourage more schools to follow the examples of trailblazers like Harris Academies and the Free School Norwich by offering parents child care before and after school and during holiday times, working with private and voluntary providers if they want to do so.
Today, Harris Academies has committed that every new Harris primary academy that opens will offer a wraparound care service from 8am to 6pm as a minimum for the children that attend. The Free School Norwich offers child care for parents before and after school and for 51 weeks a year, all on a self-funding basis.
The Government want to make it easier for nurseries and childminders to expand by extending the planning relaxations recently introduced for state-funded schools to nurseries, such as using vacant office space.
All good and outstanding childminders and nurseries will automatically be eligible to receive Government early education funding from September. At the moment local authorities act as gatekeepers to this funding. This change will mean that over 80% of nurseries and over 70% of childminders would be able to receive this funding. Less than 10% of childminders currently offer funded places. This reform will help create a fairer market for childminders, which alongside the introduction of childminder agencies should see increased choice for parents who want high-quality home-based care.
This change will free up local authorities to work in concert with Ofsted to improve weaker providers and attract new strong providers to their areas.
We will also seek to address historic unfairnesses in funding by looking to introduce a national funding formula for early education in time.
In addition, we are proposing to streamline regulations, so that:
schools have flexibility to provide child care beyond term times and beyond the school day, making it easier for schools to offer provision from 8am to 6pm for three and four-year-olds and primary school children, in addition to enabling school nurseries to accept two-year-olds;
we will remove the unnecessary after-school learning requirements for children of reception age, who are already being taught during the school day;
there will be a single set of safety requirements for all children, with separate learning requirements for those not at school, in place of the three separate sets of requirements that currently apply;
nurseries and childminders do not need to complete paperwork such as “learning journeys”, meaning more time with children; and
we will support parents to make common-sense arrangements with their friends and neighbours by increasing the amount of time that a child can be looked after informally from two to three hours per day.
Copies of the report and consultation documents will be in Libraries of both Houses.
Marine Conservation Zones and Marine Planning
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
Today the Government are publishing a summary of responses to the consultation on creating a series of marine conservation zones (MCZs) around our coast and the Marine Management Organisation is launching a consultation on the first draft marine plans for the eastern inshore and offshore areas.
A total of 40,632 responses to the MCZs consultation were received, ranging from support for the designation of all 127 MCZs recommended by regional projects to objections to many sites and concerns from most marine industries about management of MCZs. A final decision on which sites will be designated will be made over the summer with the aim of making designations in the autumn. At the same time we will indicate our proposed approach to the next stage of work on MCZs.
We are doing more than ever to protect our marine environment and a wide range of marine protected areas already exist. Nearly a quarter of English inshore waters are already established as marine protected areas. In total the UK has 214 marine protected areas covering 73,890 sq km designated under the EU habitats and wild birds directives. Together, these protect important European marine habitats and species and seabirds, their habitats and foraging areas. New MCZs will supplement this network, as will further marine special protection areas on which consultations are planned for the autumn.
We are also improving the way we manage fisheries in European marine protected areas. This will ensure that key habitats are protected from damaging activities, delivering benefits both in terms of conservation and the associated wider ecosystem services. Any restrictions in fisheries must be proportionate, fair and not discriminatory. Outside 12 miles, co-operation with other member states is necessary to ensure there is effective management. That is why I am pleased that, with the Netherlands and Germany, we are working to submit to the European Commission joint proposals, designed in co-operation with the fisheries and NGO sectors, for managing fishing activities on the Dogger Bank special area of conservation, one of Europe’s largest marine protected areas.
The first draft marine plans for the eastern inshore and offshore areas will enable transparent and streamlined decision making, reduce regulatory burden and provide certainty for developers, while safeguarding our environment. In short, marine plans will enable us to manage competing uses of our seas and identify opportunities for sharing space in busy areas so that as many industries as possible can benefit.
Our ambitious marine agenda also includes reform of the common fisheries policy, on which I made a statement to the House of Commons on 17 June, Official Report, column 637. We have secured significant reform of the current, broken CFP. We stood firm during these lengthy negotiations to agree reforms that will make fishing more sustainable, decentralise decision making and eliminate the discarding of dead fish.
We are making good progress on implementing the shark, skate and ray conservation plan, which aims to allow depleted stocks to recover and those faring better to be fished sustainably. Finally, to protect cetaceans we have implemented measures to reduce by-catch, which we will continue to monitor through the UK’s cetacean by-catch monitoring scheme, recognised as one of the best in Europe.
Together, all these measures will contribute to achieving good environmental status in our seas by 2020, as required under the EU marine strategy framework directive. The Government remain committed to taking concrete action to protect our marine environment to safeguard sustainable, productive and healthy seas.
Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Taskforce
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
In my statement to the House on 20 May 2013, Official Report, column 54WS, I announced the publication of the final report of the tree health and plant biosecurity taskforce. I set out the Government’s initial response and committed to providing the House with an update before the summer recess, having discussed the taskforce’s recommendations with a range of interested parties.
Last week, I heard from over 80 stakeholders at a summit organised to discuss the taskforce’s recommendations and to report on progress since the report was published. There was universal acceptance of the need for urgent action and a range of constructive ideas about how we should take forward work to safeguard plant health using the taskforce report as a blueprint. The key messages from those discussions were:
We need strong collaboration across the UK and with the Republic of Ireland to ensure effective biosecurity;
At EU level, we need to take a tougher line, seeking protected zone status well before new pests and diseases arrive and only allowing new trades when we are sure that they do not represent an unacceptable risk;
We need to hold other member states to high standards of surveillance and enforcement to ensure that all are playing their part in keeping the EU safe from threats from other parts of the world;
All our actions need to be underpinned by a strong evidence base and effective horizon scanning.
The summit also provided an opportunity to report on action taken since May when I made a commitment to rapid progress on two of the taskforce’s key recommendations: producing a prioritised risk register and improving our preparedness and contingency planning. Stakeholders have said that this was the right place to start and that we need the risk register in place as soon as possible.
Work on the first phase of the risk register has advanced very quickly through several weeks of intensive work with stakeholders to capture the key risks to UK crops, trees, gardens and ecosystems from plant pests and diseases, and the pathways through which they are transmitted. Over the summer, work on the risk register will continue to identify threats against which new action needs to be taken. This will include where regulation needs to be tightened, where we need to fill gaps in our knowledge and where the current approaches are no longer cost effective and should be adapted in the light of new information. Over 700 pests and pathogens will be considered. The first phase of the risk register will be published for consultation in the autumn.
Work on contingency planning to ensure we are prepared to face new threats will get underway shortly, drawing on the risk register. Again, stakeholders will play an important role in helping us develop robust plans.
I will ensure that there is effective leadership for these vital activities. I am announcing today that I will shortly be launching an exercise to recruit a senior-level chief plant health officer in response to another of the taskforce’s recommendations. He or she will play a prominent and influential role in advising Ministers, industry and others about the risks posed by plant pests and diseases. They will also ensure that measures are in place to manage those risks and minimise their impact. In the event of an outbreak, the chief plant health officer will lead the operational response, providing clear leadership and accountability.
Stakeholders have told me that it is vital that the chief plant health officer has direct access to Ministers and the authority to act when necessary. I will ensure that that is the case. I have recently initiated monthly biosecurity meetings to assess the latest risks to plant health, animal health and from non-native invasive species. The chief plant health officer will report directly to Ministers and senior officials at those meetings and will be able to call on the resources needed to tackle threats.
Plant health policy is devolved, but the chief plant health officer will play a role in representing the whole of the UK in EU and international fora. I am writing to Ministers in the devolved Administrations setting out my plans and inviting them to consider how this new role might encourage closer collaboration to improve biosecurity across the UK.
The taskforce also recommended that we review the legislation and governance surrounding plant health. The first phase of work on that will begin tomorrow as we launch the next round of the red tape challenge, which will include a review of existing regulation on plant health and forestry. This will provide an opportunity for all with an interest to comment and identify gaps, overlaps and anomalies, some of which were highlighted in the taskforce’s report. This is the first step in developing a clearer and more effective regulatory landscape for plant health.
As we develop the right framework to safeguard plant health, I will continue to take action to improve our understanding and to tackle current and imminent threats:
We have recently consulted on a pest risk assessment on Cryphonectria parasitica or sweet chestnut blight, and are planning to introduce measures to ban its import from areas where the disease is present before the next planting season.
Since May we have completed this spring’s spraying programme aiming to eradicate oak processionary moth in Pangbourne, Berkshire, and are piloting new approaches to reduce its impacts in London, where tens of thousands of oaks have been treated at 200 sites;
We have recently awarded a £1.1 million research contract for a three-year study of acute oak decline which is present in the UK;
Large-scale field trials are now underway in the east of England to try to identify resistance to Chalara, dieback of ash, and potential treatments for Chalara will undergo field trials this summer;
We have secured funding from the EU Life+ programme to support the development of ObservaTree, a tree health early warning system using volunteer groups.
I will continue the dialogue with stakeholders over the coming months and provide an update on progress. I will publish a full response to the remaining taskforce recommendations later this year.
Afghanistan (Monthly Progress Report)
(10 years, 9 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)
I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, is today publishing the 29th progress report on developments in Afghanistan since November 2010.
The Prime Minister visited Afghanistan on 29 June accompanied by Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Baroness Warsi. In Helmand, they celebrated Armed Forces day with troops, witnessing the progress and changing role of British Forces as they move from a combat role to one based primarily on training, advising and assisting the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). In Kabul the Prime Minister and Baroness Warsi met President Karzai. The Prime Minister and President Karzai agreed on the importance of credible presidential and provincial elections, and the peaceful transfer of power to President Karzai’s successor, for the future stability of Afghanistan. They also discussed the peace process and Afghanistan’s relations with Pakistan.
On 18 June, the Qatari Government announced that the Taliban would open a political office in Doha for the purpose of talks with the US and Afghans.
On 14 June, President Karzai appointed a new Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission. Following the appointments, the chair of the Commission expressed her concern that some of the new appointees might not have the necessary expertise. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, expressed similar concerns, urging the Afghan Government to reconsider the recent appointments and reopen the selection process.
The UK has agreed a new programme in Afghanistan to strengthen Afghan women’s political participation, as candidates and as voters, in the upcoming elections. DFID has committed £4.5 million for the programme from June 2013 to December 2015.
On 18 June, President Karzai announced that the last of the 91 Afghan districts, covering 11 provinces and the remaining 13% of the Afghan population, will enter security transition. This fifth and final tranche of security transition means that the ANSF will assume lead security responsibility throughout the country, for all of Afghanistan’s 27 million citizens.
On 4 June, a written ministerial statement was laid in the House of Commons—Official Report, column 87WS, outlining the UK redundancy policy for locally employed staff in Afghanistan. This confirmed a package of training and financial support for our locally employed staff in Afghanistan, in recognition that as our presence in Afghanistan reduces our requirement for the support of local staff is also reducing.
I am placing the report in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the gov.uk website (www. gov.uk/government/publications/afghanistan-progress-reports).
British Council (Annual Report)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
Copies of the British Council’s annual report and accounts for the 2012-13 financial year have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It can also be found at the British Council’s website www.britishcouncil.org.
During the period the British Council received £171,500,000 Grant-in-Aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
British Council (Triennial Review)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will shortly commence a triennial review of the British Council. It is Government policy that all Government Departments are required to review all their non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) at least every three years. The review will be conducted in two stages. The first stage will examine the key functions of the British Council. If the outcome of this stage is that the functions performed by the British Council are still required and that it should be retained as an NDPB, the second stage of the project will ensure that the British Council is operating in line with the recognised principles of good corporate governance. Copies of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Gifting of Chemical Weapons Protective Equipment (Syria)
(10 years, 9 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)
As I told the House on 10 July, Official Report, column 377, we are faced with a growing and protracted crisis in Syria. We have to be prepared to do more to save lives. There is evidence of attacks using chemical weapons in Syria—including sarin. We believe that the use of chemical weapons is sanctioned and ordered by the Assad regime.
I explained on 10 July that we are exploring the possibility of supplying the Syrian opposition protective equipment against chemical and biological weapons use and yesterday I laid a minute before Parliament providing more detail on these plans. We plan to equip the moderate armed opposition with 5,000 escape hoods, nerve-agent pre-treatment tablets (NAPs) and chemical weapons detector paper.
Escape hoods protect against sarin gas for approximately 20 minutes, allowing a person to move away from an affected area but not enabling them to continue to fight. They do not require fitting or extensive training to be effective. Pre-treatment with NAPs gives a person who is exposed to a nerve agent, including sarin, a greater chance of reaching a place where atropine can be administered under medical supervision. Chemical weapons detector paper enables the basic detection of chemical weapons agents. The capability to detect quickly whether chemical weapons agents are present will inform decisions on whether or not to remain in an area and so potentially save lives.
The gift will be offered to the supreme military council of the Syrian National Coalition, which the UK recognises as the sole legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. The approximate total cost of the equipment in the proposed gift is £656,800 which will be met by the Government’s conflict pool fund.
It is normal practice when a Government Department proposes to make a gift of a value exceeding £250,000, for the Department concerned to present to the House of Commons a minute giving the particulars of the gift and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from making the gift until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.
In this case, making the gift is a matter of special urgency. The rapidly deteriorating situation in Syria and the urgent need to support the Syrian opposition means that the Government need to act as soon as possible. We put great value on the scrutiny provided by Parliament, but summer recess means that it is unfortunately not possible to allow 14 sitting days for the House to consider the gifting minute. In this case, we will not proceed with plans to make the gift until a period of 14 working days after the minute has been laid has expired. If there are no objections, we will proceed with plans to make the gift on or after 3 August 2013.
The use of conflict pool funds to cover the costs of this gift has been approved by the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for International Development. FCO and MOD officials have also assessed the gift against the consolidated criteria and the gift does not cross the risk thresholds in the consolidated criteria provided adequate measures are put in place to mitigate the risk of diversion. In assessing the risks of providing these materials, the FCO’s Counter Terrorism Department and the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism (OSCT) have been consulted and agree the recommendation to provide the gift. This gift is also consistent with HMG’s agreed policy on Syria.
This gift has undergone intense scrutiny to ensure that we are providing the best possible support to the Syrian opposition and that we meet all our national and international obligations.
Marshall Aid Commemorative Commission (Triennial Review)
(10 years, 9 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 Foreign and Commonwealth Office will today publish the report of the triennial review of the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission (MACC), which I launched in March this year. The review concluded that the Marshall scholarships make an important contribution to HMG’s foreign policy priorities through maintaining and strengthening the United Kingdom’s bilateral relationship with the United States. The review also concluded that the MACC should be retained as a non-departmental public body and that the Marshall scholarship process was well managed, had mechanisms in place to ensure sufficient accountability to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including on the handling of its finances, and benefited substantially from the pro bono input of the MACC commissioners.
Copies of the report of the review, and of the MACC management statement and financial memorandum, will be published online and placed today in the Libraries of both Houses.
Great Britain China Centre (Triennial Review)
(10 years, 9 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 triennial review of the Great Britain China Centre (GBCC) has now been completed. This review concluded that the GBCC has specific and valuable China expertise which benefits Government. The status of the GBCC as a non-governmental body is crucial to its effectiveness. The GBCC also leverages significant corporate and programme funding and the review concluded that the GBCC offers excellent value for money and should continue to exist in its current form. A full copy of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
British Citizenship Applications (War Crimes)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)
I have made the Equality (War Crimes etc.) Arrangements 2013 and the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) (War Crimes etc.) Arrangements 2013 to enable the Minister to subject applications from certain nationalities for British citizenship to more rigorous scrutiny than others for the purposes of determining whether the applicant has committed, been complicit in the commission of, or otherwise been associated with, the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.
The Equality (War Crimes etc.) Arrangements 2013 are made under paragraph (l)(l)(d) of schedule 23 to the Equality Act 2010, and replace the Equality (War Crimes etc.) Arrangements 2011. The corresponding Race Relations (Northern Ireland) (War Crimes etc.) Arrangements 2013 are made under article 40 paragraph 2(c) Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 and replace the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) (War Crimes etc.) Arrangements 2011.
The condition for subjecting these applications to more rigorous scrutiny is that the applicant is a national of a state specified on a list approved personally by the Minister for the purpose of the arrangements.
I have now reviewed and approved this list. I am satisfied that the conditions set out in the arrangements are met in respect of the countries on the list.
The arrangements will remain in force until revoked. I will review the arrangements and the list annually.
I am placing copies of the arrangements in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.
EU Directive (Categories of Migrants)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)
The Government have decided not to opt in at this stage to the Commission’s proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions of entry and residence of third country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, pupil exchange, remunerated and unremunerated training, voluntary service and au pairing.
The proposed directive would repeal and replace existing directives 2004/114/EC and 2005/71/EC which are concerned with the entry and stay of third country students and researchers. The UK has not opted into the existing directives.
The Government consider that policies regulating the admission of students, researchers and other categories of migrant covered by the new proposal are best determined at national level. They have concerns that the new proposal may undermine the reforms of the immigration system which the Government have undertaken in order to reduce abuse of the student route and protect the labour market while continuing to ensure that the United Kingdom continues to be an attractive destination for students from overseas. The measures may therefore undermine the UK’s ability to control immigration in the national interest.
It would be possible for the UK to seek to participate in the directive after its adoption if this were to change.
Scientific Procedures on Living Animals
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
My hon. Friend the Minister for Criminal Information, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, has today made the following written ministerial statement:
The “Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals—Great Britain—2012” (HC 549), was laid before the House today. Copies will be available in the Vote Office.
This annual statistical report meets the requirement in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) to inform Parliament about the licensed use of animals for experimental or other scientific purposes. It also forms the basis for meeting periodic reporting requirements at EU level. The next report to the EU is required in November 2015, which will be our 2014 statistics.
The 2012 statistical report shows that there were 4.11 million scientific procedures, which represents an overall increase of 8% over 2011. This increase is largely attributable to an increase in the breeding of genetically altered mice. Excluding the breeding of these animals, the total number of procedures actually decreased by 2%. The number of animals likely to be used in any given year is dependent on many factors, including investment in research and development, strategic decisions by funding bodies, global economic trends and scientific innovation.
The Home Office, as regulatory authority under ASPA, ensures that its provisions are rigorously applied and only authorises work that is scientifically justified and minimises the numbers of animals used and the animal suffering that may be caused.
The statistical report and supplementary information can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statistics-of-scientific-procedures-on-living-animals-great-britain-2012.
I am pleased to inform the House that I have also today placed in the Library the annual report of the Home Office “Animals in Science Regulation Unit” (ASRU) for the year 2012. The annual report can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/research-and-testing-using-animals.
The report describes how we have delivered our responsibilities under ASPA to regulate the use of animals, work to support the delivery of the transposed directive and provides information about cases of non-compliance with ASPA and the outcomes of those cases.
All establishments that carry out procedures on animals are subject to scrutiny by Home Office inspectors who play a key role in the implementation of ASPA. Inspectors implement a risk-based approach to inspection. Based upon an overview of risk across all licensed establishments, the chief inspector annually proposes a programme of inspection, agreed with the Minister, which best utilises the resources available. The risk-based approach and programme for 2012 is described in the ASRU annual report.
The transposition of directive 2010/63/EU into UK legislation during 2012 was a major undertaking. From the 1 January 2013 we harmonised standards with other EU member states where required and, where appropriate, maintained our higher standards whilst avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy and cost burden.
The programme for Government provides a commitment to work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research, an ambitious but achievable goal. We recognise that the use of animals in scientific research is a small but essential function in improving our understanding of medical and physiological conditions, the research and development of new medicines and the development of leading-edge medical technologies and is necessary to ensure the safety of our environment. Scientific advances in knowledge and new technologies present significant opportunities to replace animal use, reduce the use of animals, and, where animal use is unavoidable, to refine the procedures involved so as to minimise suffering (3Rs). It is key that we take these opportunities to ensure that replacement, refinement and reduction in the use of animals is integral to conducting animal research recognising that this not about baseline numbers. The statistics published today are evidence of a significant reduction in the use of animals for shellfish toxin testing. In 2009 the number of mice used in this test totalled 7,670 whereas in 2012 this has been reduced to 42. This is a prime example of successfully implementing a non-animal alternative.
In 2012, my predecessor announced the science-led programme being taken forward by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), which is primarily funded by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and I am pleased to report a number of significant advances in this area. Over the past 12 months, the NC3Rs has secured new funding which has helped launch the first 3Rs evaluation framework; made the biggest single investment in 3Rs research to date with new grant awards of £5.1 million; supported new approaches to replace animal use with £750,000 for interdisciplinary awards between toxicologists and mathematicians; and awarded four fellowships for exceptional early-career scientists developing models and tools with reduced reliance on animal research and improved welfare. The wider programme encompasses collaborative work led by the Home Office and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, between Government Departments and agencies, the Home Office inspectorate, the research community in both academia and industry, and others with relevant animal welfare interests. Significant progress has been made in developing a cross-Government action plan and we intend to provide a statement in the autumn that details our agreed plan and describes progress to date on the coalition agreement.
As the Home Office Minister responsible for ASPA, I was extremely concerned to read the allegations of non-compliance at Imperial College London (ICL) published by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV). The use of living animals in scientific procedures which may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm is strictly regulated under ASPA and I am determined to ensure that animal research is carried out humanely and only when necessary. The provision of a licence to an individual not only entrusts them to uphold their legal obligations but also to behave in ways which ensure the highest standards of animal care and welfare at all times. I take any reports suggesting that individuals or establishments are falling short of the high standards required by the Act very seriously.
I have met with the ICL establishment licence holder and other relevant senior individuals to discuss the independent investigative report that ICL have commissioned and agreed to publish. They have provided strong assurances of a rigorous inquiry. I have also had a meeting with the BUAV to assure them of the seriousness with which we are considering their allegations.
Visits by inspectors to licensed establishments, many of which are unannounced, are an important aspect of determining compliance with ASPA. An additional important role of inspectors is to advise those working under ASPA and encourage best practice with respect to the 3Rs. Inspectors have a right of entry to licensed establishments at all reasonable times and ready access to all records and it is, therefore, right and proper that they should investigate allegations when they are made. Home Office inspectors have been investigating the allegations against ICL at pace and I intend to publish a report later this year.
It is an imperative that lessons learned and broader issues for the wider community are taken from this incident. I have therefore requested the Government’s independent expert advisory body, the Animals in Science Committee (ASC), to review both the inspectorate’s report and the ICL independent report, when both are available, and to provide me with advice. The ASC report will also be made public.
Central to our work on openness and transparency is the review we are undertaking of section 24 of ASPA. Section 24 of ASPA provides for the protection of confidential information provided in connection with our regulatory activities under ASPA. A breach of section 24 can result in criminal sanctions. The requirements of section 24 are now out of step with our policy on openness and transparency and with the approach taken in other legislation, such as the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The solution we develop must improve the overall transparency surrounding research using animals, to create an environment which fosters informed debate leading to greater public trust, and also must protect personal identities and intellectual property.
The first stage of the review; engaging the full diversity of stakeholders in developing options has now been completed. The next stage of the process is to present those options in a wider public consultation, the outcome of which will further inform the direction of our work. We envisage completing the review and selection of the preferred option by the end of this year to enable us to present any legislative changes to Parliament in the new year.
Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
On Friday 30 November 2012, I made a written statement to Parliament—Official Report, column 39WS, announcing the triennial review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. I am pleased to announce the conclusion of the review and publication of the report today.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority is the Government body responsible for administering compensation schemes in respect of criminal injuries in England, Scotland and Wales as well as for victims of overseas terrorism. The authority’s aim is to compensate the blameless victims of violent crime or acts of terrorism overseas. Part of the Ministry of Justice, it was established in 1994 under prerogative powers.
The review has concluded that there is a continuing role for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. The functions it performs are necessary to the provision of compensation to the blameless victims of violent crimes.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority is currently classified as an Executive non-departmental public body. However, it is currently run, in effect, as an Executive agency of the Ministry of Justice. The triennial review report therefore recommends reclassifying it as an Executive agency, to better reflect its current operation and the changes made to its management structure made since the National Audit Office’s 2007 report, “Compensating victims of violent crime” (HC 100 Session 2007-08), http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/0708100.pdf. This will ensure that the improvements made in dealing with victims’ claims quickly and effectively continue, and that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority is more accurately classified.
As this reclassification is a technical change to CICA’s status, it was not necessary to undertake a stage two review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority’s governance arrangements. However, officials from the authority and from my Department are undertaking an informal governance review, and will feed its findings into a revised framework document for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.
The triennial review was carried out with the participation of a wide range of stakeholders and users, in addition to the body itself. The review was publicised on my Department’s website and stakeholders were invited to contribute through a Call for Evidence and a series of meetings. In addition to the project board, which oversaw the review, a critical friends group challenged the evidence used to make conclusions. Membership of this group included representation from the Cabinet Office and the National Audit Office.
I am grateful to all who contributed to the triennial review. The final report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Powers of Attorney (Fees)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
In October 2011, the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) increased its fees for Powers of Attorney (LPA) applications to enable it to deliver its transformation programme. A key aspect of this programme has been the development and implementation of a new IT system, supporting the OPG’s “digital by default” ambition and ensuring a more efficient and effective service for customers. The launch of a new digital tool, on 1 July, was a significant milestone in this programme of transformation.
As a result, the OPG will be reducing its fees for Power of Attorney applications with effect from 1 October 2013. The new fee will be £110 per application and £55 for a resubmission.
The proposed fee reduction only relates to fees charged for registering Lasting Power of Attorney or Enduring Power of Attorney applications. Further OPG fee changes will be made once the full transition to digital services is concluded during 2014-15.
Deaths of Service Personnel Overseas (Inquests)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
The Minister for the Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) and I now make our latest quarterly statement to the House on progress with inquests into the deaths of service personnel on active service overseas. First of all we wish to express the Government’s and the nation’s deep sense of gratitude to all our service personnel who have served on behalf of us all in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations. They are second to none in their continuous courage and their complete professionalism. We think of those service personnel who have given their lives, and we remember the families who are trying to learn how to live without them.
This statement provides details of inquests conducted by the Oxfordshire coroner, the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner and other coroners in England and Wales. The statement shows the position at 9 July 2013.
There is additional information to supplement this statement in tables which we have placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The tables give the status of all current cases. They include information about cases where a board of inquiry or a service inquiry has been held or has been directed to be held.
Our two Departments will continue to work together to ensure that our processes are timely and effective. The Chief Coroner for England and Wales is in post and his additional powers and duties in relation to service personnel inquests will come into force this summer. As we have previously reported. Section 12 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 came into force last year and enables deaths of service personnel killed abroad on active duty to be investigated in Scotland where appropriate.
Once again we offer our sincere thanks to coroners and their staff who are conducting inquests into the deaths of service personnel, and we will continue to support them. We are also grateful to everyone else who provides help and support for bereaved families as the inquest process goes forward.
Both Departments have made funding available for additional resources for the coroners in Wiltshire and Swindon and in Oxfordshire since October 2007. This helps those coroners conduct the inquests of service personnel who have been repatriated to airbases at RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire and RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire in their respective districts. The extra funding prevents any backlog of inquests and makes it easier for the coroners to take the service personnel inquests forward while still dealing with their normal workload.
Current status of inquests
Since we made our last statement a further four inquests have been concluded into the deaths of service personnel on operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. There have been a total of 573 inquests into the deaths of service personnel who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan or have returned to the UK and sadly died here from injuries sustained on those operations. In three cases there has been no formal inquest. One of these cases concerns a serviceman who died from his injuries in Scotland, where it was decided not to hold a fatal accident inquiry. The other two deaths were taken into consideration at inquests into the deaths of other service personnel who died in the respective incidents.
Open inquests
Deaths in Afghanistan
As at 9 July 2013, 45 inquests are open into the deaths of service personnel in Afghanistan. Four of these inquests concern deaths in the last six months.
The Wiltshire and Swindon coroner has retained nine of the open inquests, while the Oxfordshire coroner has retained 22. Coroners nearer to the next-of-kin have accepted jurisdiction in the remaining 14 inquests. Eight hearing dates have been set.
Deaths of service personnel who returned home injured
Regarding the deaths of service personnel who returned home injured but have sadly died of their injuries, three inquests are open and will be listed when investigations into the deaths have been completed.
We will continue to inform the House of progress.
Law Commission (Triennial Review)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
I have today published the report of stage 1 of the triennial review of the Law Commission. I have placed a copy in the Library. I have taken the unusual step of publishing the stage 1 report in advance of completing stage 2 as it is important that there is clarity about the future of the Law Commission while it is consulting on its 12th programme.
In line with the methodology established by the Cabinet Office, the Law Commission was assessed against the Government’s three tests: a) is this a technical function, which needs external expertise to deliver; b) is this a function which needs to be, and be seen to be, delivered with absolute political impartiality, such as certain regulatory or funding functions; and c) is this a function which needs to be delivered independently of Ministers to establish facts and/or figures with integrity.
The answers to these questions then enabled a fuller consideration of how these functions should be delivered in the future.
Stage 1 of the Law Commission triennial review found that there is a continuing need for its functions and that the NDPB model is most appropriate to maintain technical expertise and independence from Government. In particular, in the delivery of all its law reform projects, the Commission enjoys the support of a wide range of academics, research bodies and other experts who contribute to the Commission’s work—often on a pro bono basis—because it is an independent body producing impartial, evidence-based recommendations. Other potential delivery models were assessed, but were found to be less cost effective. The Government will now continue to conduct stage 2 of the triennial review, reviewing the control and governance arrangements in place for the Commission. I will report back to Parliament on the outcome in the autumn.
I am very grateful to all those who responded to the call for evidence. Their contributions and perspectives were extremely valuable.
Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (Triennial Review)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
Today, I have published the report of stage 1 of the triennial review of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB). I have placed a copy in the Library. I have taken the unusual step of publishing the stage 1 report in advance of completing stage 2 as it is important that there is clarity about the future of the Youth Justice Board ahead of recruiting a new chair of the YJB to replace the current chair when she finishes her second term of office in January 2014 and to ensure that the recommendations can be considered as part of my ongoing reform of the youth secure estate.
In line with the process and methodology established by the Cabinet Office, stage 1 of the review assessed the continuing need for the YJB to carry out each of its functions in their current form. The responses to the consultation have informed how these functions should be delivered in the future.
The report concludes that all of the functions remain necessary and makes 14 key recommendations relating to the delivery of these functions. It further concludes that it is appropriate for the majority of these functions to be delivered together as a critical mass of expertise. This decision recognises that the Government have repeatedly and recently stated their commitment to maintain a distinct youth justice system. Finally, the report concludes that the appropriate delivery model for the delivery of these functions is, at this time, as a non-departmental public body.
The Government will now continue to conduct stage 2 of the triennial review, reviewing the control and governance arrangements in place for the YJB with a particular focus on increasing ministerial accountability and a closer degree of control of financial management. I will report back to Parliament on the outcome in the autumn once this has been completed.
I am very grateful to all those who took the time to respond to the call for evidence. Their contributions and varying perspectives were extremely valuable.
Trident Alternatives Review
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
In the 2010 strategic defence and security review, the Government confirmed their commitment to maintaining a continuous submarine-based deterrent and to beginning the work of replacing their existing submarines. As part of the coalition programme for Government, it was agreed that the Liberal Democrats would continue to make the case for alternatives. As a result, in 2011 the Deputy Prime Minister and I jointly commissioned Cabinet Office officials to conduct a focused review into alternative systems and postures.
The review was designed at the outset to be a neutral, factual review of options, led by officials in the Cabinet Office but drawing as necessary on expert advice from other Government Departments, especially the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Its terms of reference were to examine whether there are:
credible alternatives to a submarine-based deterrent;
credible submarine-based alternatives to the current proposal, e.g. modified Astute using cruise missiles;
alternative nuclear postures, i.e. non-continuous at sea deterrence, which could maintain credibility.
The Cabinet Office has today published an unclassified version of the review, copies of which are available in the Libraries of both Houses.
Government policy remains as set out in the strategic defence and security review. We will maintain a continuous deterrent and are proceeding with the programme to build a new fleet of ballistic missile submarines. Final decisions on the successor submarines will be taken in 2016 at the main gate point of the acquisition programme.
Local Transport Bodies (Funding Allocations)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
Further to my statement to the House of 23 January 2013 I am today confirming to local transport bodies (LTBs) the funding allocations for local major transport projects from 2015. These are set out below and reflect decisions taken by Ministers in DFT and the Treasury.
The funding that the Government is allocating today is only one element of over £12 billion being made available to local enterprise partnership (LEP) areas between 2015-16 and 2020-21 through the single local growth fund, details of which were announced in a statement by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 27 June 2013.
Later this month, local transport bodies are expected to publish details of their prioritised schemes to be taken forward from 2015.
We would expect that those LEP areas that make a good case for further transport investment through their strategic economic plans will receive additional funding from the competitive elements of the local growth fund. Decisions on that will be made following growth deal negotiations with the Government.
In order to maximise the competitive funding available to LEPs for transport and other projects and programmes within the local growth fund, most LTBs receive confirmed allocations for four years at a level one third below the indicative numbers provided in January 2013. This is within the range of scenarios that the Department asked LTBs to consider at that stage.
Those LTBs/LEPs where the principle of 10-year funding has been agreed through city deals receive confirmed allocations for six years at the annual level indicated in January 2013. They also receive an indicative funding allocation for a further four years beyond the confirmed funding levels. This recognises that these LTBs are expected to be further ahead than others in strengthening their local decision-making arrangements and the previous consideration of transport needs alongside other priorities in city deal discussions.
In addition to the funding allocations announced today, the funding for existing DFT-approved local authority major schemes will also flow nominally through the local growth fund and we will need to ensure that any delay to these projects does not impact on the total funding available to LEPs on a competitive basis. We will confirm the detailed mechanisms for how this will work at a later date but the key principle is that this element of the funding is dependent on the schemes going ahead as planned.
Local Transport Body | Confirmed funding from 2015-16 to 2020-21inclusive | Indicative funding from 2021-22 to 2024-25 inclusive |
|---|---|---|
(£m) | (£m) | |
WEST OF ENGLAND | 44.9 | 36.4 |
WEST YORKSHIRE & YORK | 100.9 | 81.8 |
SHEFFIELD CITY REGION | 62.7 | 50.9 |
GREATER MANCHESTER | 110.0 | 89.2 |
Local Transport Body | Confirmed funding from 2015-16 to 2018-19 inclusive |
|---|---|
(£m) | |
BLACK COUNTRY | 18.4 |
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE THAMES VALLEY | 8.3 |
CHESHIRE AND WARRINGTON | 14.5 |
COAST TO CAPITAL | 24.2 |
CORNWALL & THE ISLES OF SCILLY | 8.9 |
COVENTRY & WARWICKSHIRE | 14.3 |
CUMBRIA | 7.9 |
DERBY, DERBYSHIRE, NOTTINGHAM & NOTTINGHAMSHIRE | 31.2 |
DORSET | 12.2 |
ENTERPRISE M3 | 24.3 |
GLOUCESTERSHIRE | 9.8 |
GREATER BIRMINGHAM AND SOLIHULL | 23.9 |
GREATER CAMBRIDGE GREATER PETERBOROUGH | 14.1 |
GREATER LINCOLNSHIRE | 11.9 |
HEART OF THE SOUTH WEST | 27.1 |
HERTFORDSHIRE | 18.5 |
HUMBER | 14.8 |
LEICESTER AND LEICESTERSHIRE | 16.1 |
LIVERPOOL CITY REGION | 23.7 |
THE MARCHES | 10.7 |
NEW ANGLIA | 26.0 |
NORTH EASTERN | 31.1 |
NORTH YORKSHIRE | 9.6 |
NORTHAMPTONSHIRE | 11.6 |
OXFORDSHIRE | 10.6 |
SOLENT | 19.2 |
SOUTH EAST | 65.9 |
SOUTH EAST MIDLANDS | 14.7 |
STOKE-ON-TRENT AND STAFFORDSHIRE | 16.3 |
SWINDON & WILTSHIRE | 11.3 |
TEES VALLEY | 10.6 |
THAMES VALLEY BERKSHIRE | 14.5 |
WORCESTERSHIRE | 7.7 |
Note: The allocation for Lancashire will be confirmed upon the agreement of the Preston City Deal. |
“Action for Roads: A Network for the 21st Century”
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
Transport is an engine for growth and our major roads are vital to the prosperity of our nation, connecting people to jobs and businesses to markets. However, our roads have suffered from a lack of investment in recent decades, and we face rising traffic in the years to come. Without action, this will place severe strain on networks that are already under pressure, worsening the experience of motorists and damaging Britain’s ability to compete.
That is why at the recent spending round we announced a transformational investment in our road network, with £12 billion for road maintenance and a trebling of investment in major road schemes, including the addition of over 400 extra lane miles of capacity, resurfacing 80% of the strategic road network and upgrading our most important “A” roads.
At the spending round Government also announced that they would turn the Highways Agency into a publicly owned corporation with long-term funding certainty and flexibility, backed by legislation.
Today I am publishing a Command Paper, “Action for Roads”, which builds on the investment commitments made at the spending round and outlines the reforms we are taking forward to ensure delivery, including:
Reform of the status of the Highways Agency to make it a publicly owned company.
Mechanisms for funding certainty and flexibility, to allow greater efficiency and to give suppliers the assurance they need to begin training new workers for delivering our future programme.
A clear, long-term roads investment strategy to provide a detailed view of what the Highways Agency will be expected to deliver.
New powers and independence, allowing the agency to operate with greater commercial freedom, deliver with certainty and cut costs.
A “motorists champion” to provide a strong voice for all road users, hold the new company to account and deliver the best performance and value for road users.
I expect these reforms to generate additional savings to the taxpayer of £600 million, while ending decades of underinvestment and uncertainty in our road network. And it will give the construction and maintenance industries the confidence they need to recruit and train skilled workers to deliver this increase in transport projects over the coming years.
When upgrading our network, the focus will be on cutting congestion and minimising the environmental impact of roads. That is why today I am also announcing £500 million by 2020 in additional funding for the Office for Low Emission Vehicles to advance ultra-low emission vehicle (ULEV) technology and encourage people to buy and use ULEVs. In addition, bridges and tunnels will be built to help cyclists and walkers to move between communities where motorways and major A roads make these journeys difficult.
The scale of additional funding being made available for strategic roads will allow more investment in environmental safeguards to help resolve and reduce long-standing environmental problems. These could include better landscaping, tunnelling, “green” bridges and noise barriers to improve roads’ environmental performance.
And the Government will tackle the backlog of maintenance on local roads, spending £6 billion over the next Parliament in addition to the money that councils spend from other sources to reduce the number of potholes. Our overall investment in maintenance will sustain over 11,000 jobs through every year of the next Parliament.
The Government intend to consult later this year on detailed plans for turning the Highways Agency into a publicly owned company.
The document is available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/action-for-roads-a-network-for-the-21st-century.
Related to the Command Paper, I am also today publishing “Road Traffic Forecasts 2013” and have placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses.
Access to Work
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)
This Government are committed to increasing the number of disabled people in employment and building on the important work of Liz Sayce to improve and strengthen the Access to Work scheme.
Last summer we established an expert panel to advise the Department on how best to take forward Liz Sayce’s recommendations. Today I wish to announce a set of improvements to Access to Work following the panel’s final phase of work.
We know that personalised support is key to securing successful employment outcomes for disabled people. Access to Work aims to offer all customers a tailored service, so we will grant advisers more flexibility and discretion to make personalisation a reality. Access to Work advisers will be able to:
Offer up-front payments to customers who need their award in advance in order to take up or remain in employment;
Build tolerances into awards where needed to give customers who require a more flexible package the confidence that support is available.
This Government recognise the important role work experience can play as a route into employment. While Access to Work already supports Youth Contract work experience, I can announce today that we will set aside £2 million from the access to work budget to support disabled people to access a range of opportunities that help them get ready for employment. These will include traineeships, sector-based work academies and supported internships.
We also want to support disabled people who seek out their own opportunity with an employer. Access to Work already supports disabled people undertaking a Jobcentre Plus work trial. To provide disabled people with more choice about their route into employment, we will extend Access to Work to individually established work trials where there is a realistic prospect of employment after the trial.
Liz Sayce described Access to Work as the best-kept secret in Government. We have undertaken a 12-month targeted marketing campaign and positive results are coming through. We will continue to market and promote Access to Work for young people and for people with mental health conditions. We will also continue to up-skill staff and raise awareness of the scheme within Jobcentre Plus.
We recognise that more needs to be done to help those who acquire a disability while in employment to prevent them from falling out of work. We have already announced plans for a new health and work assessment and advisory service in 2014. We will ensure that this service has full awareness of Access to Work as well as the means to conduct a smooth handover to the programme, where appropriate.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mike Adams OBE and the expert panel for their invaluable insight and contribution to the reform of this important programme. We will keep listening to experts and users of the programme in order to continuously improve its operation.
Equality 2025
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)
In accordance with the Cabinet Office’s guidance on public bodies a triennial review of the Equality 2025 advisory board (EQ2025) has been undertaken. It examined whether the functions the non-departmental public body (NDPB) performs are still required and, if so, what the most appropriate delivery model is.
I am today publishing the review, which concludes that there is a continuing need for independent strategic, confidential expert advice supplemented by lived experience of disability. It also concluded that this did not need to be delivered by an NDPB and recommended options for successor arrangements.
The current EQ2025 members’ contracts will come to an end at the end of September, and at this point the NDPB arrangements will cease.
I am very grateful for the excellent work of EQ2025 in advising on Government policy and in helping develop Fulfilling Potential, the Government’s disability strategy. It is crucial that policy is developed and implemented informed by expertise on disability issues and the lived experience of disabled people. I am committed to ensuring that Government have access to in-depth knowledge of disability, and see this review as an opportunity to get advice from an even wider variety of experts, individuals and organisations and broaden the regional scope of that advice.
I am today initiating a consultation seeking views of disabled people and others to help shape the way forward.
I will place a copy of the review in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.
Grand Committee
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Andrews)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells ring and resume after 10 minutes.
Energy Bill
Lord Oxburgh
“Long-term energy policyEnergy Investment Advisory Board
(1) There shall be body corporate known as the Energy Investment Advisory Board.
(2) The role of the Board shall be—
(a) to take a panoramic and long-term view of the country’s energy needs and opportunities;(b) to provide Parliament and Ministers in the department responsible for energy with advice in implementing Government policy objectives for energy, that advice based on the continuity and experience of its members.(3) The remit of the Board would include all energy matters including generation, distribution, energy storage, inter-connectors, and new energy sources and include implementation of the reformed energy market and early recognition of unforeseen problems.
(4) The Board should report annually to Parliament and the minutes of its meeting should be published.
(5) The Board should comprise four or five expert members appointed for their experience in or knowledge of the energy industries with the relevant Permanent Secretary in attendance; they should serve for staggered terms of five or seven years; and the Secretary of State and Minister of State for Energy may attend meetings of the Board at their discretion.”
Lord Oxburgh
My Lords, I think we can all agree that our energy system is a vital part of our infrastructure. It is a part that is technically and commercially complex, and it is long-term. It is slow to build but, when we have built it, it tends to last for 40, 50 or even 60 years.
Clearly it is for the Government to set objectives for energy infrastructure, but implementation strategy depends on expertise, experience and continuity at a high level within the department. Unfortunately, that is not something that is readily available at present. It is partly because there has been relatively quick changeover of Ministers in the past decade or so. Also, at a high level, among officials in the Civil Service, we have very capable people who move from department to department but are not specialists. This means that others in the department, who are working hard, lack a coherence of view that could come from an expert and experienced top-level group.
The complexity of an energy system is perhaps hard to explain to those who may not be fully familiar with it. However, in my judgment, it is probably more complicated than, for example, designing an aircraft engine. Who would like to fly in an aircraft whose engines had been designed by intelligent people working on the basis of consultants’ reports and public consultations but who had never done it before? This is, in essence, what we are doing with energy policy in general and, I might comment, with this Bill in particular.
I have suggested a solution to this problem. I will not elaborate on the problem, which I did at Second Reading. The solution I put forward may or may not be the right one, but I propose that we have an energy investment advisory board which, above all, brings continuity at a high level to departmental strategy. It would comprise people of commercial and technical experience and, most importantly, it would report to Parliament. This could be a very valuable resource for Ministers. It is the kind of body that could see problems coming ahead of time in a way that typically does not happen today. It could see implications across the system for a decision here and a consequence there. It could look at generation, transmission, interconnectors and energy storage right across the spectrum, not to mention the markets and market interactions. Reporting to Parliament would be extremely important because it would give Parliament confidence that this piece of infrastructure was being properly looked after.
Those who feel unable to support this proposal have three choices. One is to say that there is no problem. In that case, I refer them to Power Politics, the slim volume published in 2011 by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs. In it, he describes decades of struggling with bureaucracy over industrial strategies and the energy industry, and he is trenchant, indeed mordant, in his criticism of the present system. If people do not like that, they might look at the London School of Economics Growth Commission’s report on infrastructure, which comes to very similar conclusions. Alternatively, they might look no further than the pre-legislative scrutiny group of this House, which I had the honour to chair informally and which was extremely critical of the current situation. It is, therefore, hard to make a case for saying there is no problem.
A second option is to say, “Yes, there is a problem but we’re going to deal with it differently”. That would be great, as long as it is actually dealt with. However, it cannot be dealt with in the way that the Minister suggested in her reply to my Second Reading speech, in which she said that in the department there are lots of consultative groups helping the Government with EMR. That is not really what this is about; it is about something much more long-term and strategic.
Finally, it would be possible for the Government to say that they think that this, although perhaps not precisely right, is a possible way forward and that they are prepared to sit down and discuss ways of tackling the problem. Perhaps over the summer or before Report stage, an amendment could be introduced. It would need a degree of cross-party support and, indeed, there is significant expertise in this area—way beyond mine—on the Cross Benches.
This is an important area, and there is now an opportunity to deal with it. I am sure the Government would rather not deal with something such as this at the moment, but in one sense this is both the worst and the best of times, given that we face the problems arising from the lack of a body like this. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, who moved his amendment with great clarity and force, has discussed this with me, and I was a member of the informal group that he chaired on the draft Energy Bill.
I, too, at Second Reading reflected the increasing anxiety in this country over the security of supply over the next four to five years. Since then, the latest Ofgem capacity assessment report has confirmed the fears that we face several years of very low margins. This has been widely interpreted as posing a distinct risk of interruption to supplies. You need only two major power stations to go out of commission for even a few hours—as happened a few years ago with Sizewell B and Longannet—to create considerable alarm as to whether we have enough. If that happened again in a year or two years’ time, we would be in very serious difficulties.
This is what lies at the heart of the noble Lord’s amendment, to which I was very pleased to add my name: how on earth have we managed to get into such a perilous position? Is it something in the current structure of the electricity industry or in the current attitudes of the departments in charge? As the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, suggested, is it to do with the experience and expertise of those whose job it is to advise Ministers? Which of these has led to this difficult situation—or is it all of them?
I will draw a parallel. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and I were both co-opted on to the Science and Technology Committee to look at the capacity of the nuclear industry in this country for research and development. It is not an overstatement to say that we were dismayed by the very poor level of understanding among DECC Ministers and most of the officials who gave evidence to us. Happily, they appear to have read our report but some of the solutions remain to be worked out. This is not the occasion to go into the details of that but the experience convinced me that something has to change if we are not to face similar failures in the future.
Last month, my attention was caught by an article in the Financial Times by Professor Anthony King, who is, I have to say, a good friend of mine, and for whom I have a great deal of admiration. His sub-headline was:
“British government is no Rolls-Royce. It is barely motorised”.
He went on:
“British government used to be regarded as one of the wonders of the world: intelligent, decisive and sensible, with democratically elected leaders supported by a Rolls-Royce civil service”.
A lot of people think it is still like that, but he said that the only possible response to that attitude is,
“that of John McEnroe addressing a harassed Wimbledon umpire: ‘You cannot be serious’.”.
He then analysed what has happened. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, mentioned some of that. I particularly want to draw attention to what Professor King called,
“the resulting loss of institutional memory”,
which he described as “immense”. It used to be said that the Civil Service is the memory of the Government, in many cases going back not just decades but centuries. I have a horrid feeling that that is no longer so. Perhaps that is why we are where we are.
Turning to the issues before us, tributes have been paid, quite rightly, to my noble friend the Minister and the Bill team for their strenuous efforts to help us to get to grips with this very complex piece of legislation. Without them, we would have been in some difficulty. Thanks to the work of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, to which my noble friend Lord Roper drew our attention at a previous sitting, we have now been given a glimpse of just how much of a policy that is supposed to be enshrined in the Bill is left to regulations, which are still being drafted or in many cases are still being worked out.
I spent part of the weekend reading the DPRRC memorandum on Part 2 of the Bill. It sets out the position in lurid detail: 60 pages of descriptive material, complex tables of content and timetables, and nine detailed annexes. It filled me with a dreadful sense of foreboding. How can anyone possibly be sure that that will all work or even that it will be ready in time?
My noble friend will no doubt, as she did at Second Reading, give a description—but I hope a fuller one on this occasion—of the plethora of consultants’ reports, advisory groups and expert panels on which the department relies for advice on developing the very complex electricity market reform that is embodied in the Bill. I will certainly listen very carefully to what she has to say but I must warn her that she faces an uphill task in persuading us that Ministers have all the advice that they need and ought to have. I ask again: how is it, after years of taking all this advice from consultants, panels and experts, that over the next two or three years we face the possibility of cuts? To put it crudely, this country is not replacing the generating capacity that is being closed down. I gave a list of the stations that have been closed since only last December when I spoke at Second Reading.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I support this amendment. I will not repeat the much more eloquently phrased words of my noble friend Lord Oxburgh and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. All that I should like to say is that power generation is a long-term game. From start to finish, a major power plant takes between seven and, let us say, 12 years to get from conception to being able to produce power. For instance, Hinkley Point C, which is in my county of Somerset, has already been on the planning board for 10 years and probably has another nine or 10 years to go before it takes off—if it does take off—and produces any power.
However, Parliaments last for five years and Ministers almost certainly last for even less time. I notice that the current Secretary of State seems to be saying that there will be no power cuts in 2016. It is extremely likely that he will not be there in 2016 to lose face if there are any power cuts, or not to lose face if there are none. Meanwhile, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has put much more eloquently than I could, civil servants seem to come and go, seemingly without the baton being passed between them. No one is playing the long-term game. Therefore, this amendment is much needed because never again must we find ourselves drifting into the abyss of potential power cuts.
Lord Crickhowell
My Lords, this is the first occasion on which I have spoken on this Bill, although during the Queen’s Speech debate, I made remarks very similar to those made by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and others about the crisis that we face in the energy industry. On this occasion, I am prompted to rise for three reasons, all of which involve personal experience. The first has already been referred to by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. He served with me and the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, on the Science and Technology Committee, which looked at nuclear research and development. As he said, it was one of the most dismal experiences that many of us have had.
In our report, we spoke of the extraordinary discrepancy between, on the one hand, the view of some senior government officials and the Secretary of State and, on the other, the views of independent experts from academia, industry, nuclear agencies, the regulator and the Government’s own advisers. A fundamental change in the Government’s approach to nuclear R&D is needed. We went on to recommend an R&D road map and an R&D board. As my noble friend has already pointed out, it must be said that the Government went a good way to meeting a great many of our recommendations. Although they did not set up the advisory board in quite the way we proposed, as a quango, they did set up a body under the chief scientist armed with the advice of experts of just the kind that we were suggesting, with the power and duty to report in public and to make recommendations. On that particular issue, we have made progress. There is a considerable similarity between the recommendations that we made on that occasion and the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, has tabled: essentially, we need an independent expert body, not just to advise the Government but to advise them in public and on the record so that Parliament is aware of what is going on and can take some action accordingly.
I cannot emphasise enough the importance of advice given publicly. Reference has already been made to the plethora of consultancies. I have some knowledge about the work of these consultancies; I have good contacts with those who give advice in this field to the Government, and indeed to Governments around the world. One prominent firm says that it now dreads being asked to give advice to DECC because it realises that that will involve a great waste of time. What happens is something like this: the department is faced with difficult problems; there is a lack of long-term continuity and expertise, as well described by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh; and there is the agonised fear among the officials involved that they may be held responsible for any advice given to Ministers that turns out to be faulty, so they commission a consultancy. At long last and after due deliberation, the consultancy firm produces a report, which causes perhaps even greater consternation within the department because it actually gives advice and makes recommendations. Officials then think to themselves, “This is even more dangerous because this advice looks potentially extremely worrying, and we may be blamed even more for what we do”, and the whole thing goes on. Sometimes yet another consultancy is called in and the whole department gets bogged down in a sort of quagmire.
I know that the Government say that they are doing something about this. I am a member of the Constitution Committee and when the Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right honourable friend Francis Maude, came before us, I raised this issue with him. He said, Oh yes, of course we are aware that there has been a problem of this kind. We are aware that there are far too many consultancies and that the whole system is getting bogged down, but we are doing something about it. We are taking action, and it’s no longer going to happen. I wish I thought that was true, but I fear that it is not. It is therefore vital that we take steps to ensure that consultancy advice is given by real experts from outside the department, and given publicly.
In this context, I happened to notice in Country Life of 3 August an editorial on the setting up of the new arrangements for English Heritage and the so-called National Heritage Protection Service, which is taking over the principal advisory role to government. The leading article asks: who is effectively to argue its case? If heritage protection is to have any teeth at all, the article says, it now needs to return to the ministry. I cannot think of a more disastrous piece of advice. It is quite certain that if that happened, that would be the last that we heard of the advice, which would be lost for ever in the maw of government, and the work of English Heritage would be almost forgotten.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for missing the first couple of sentences of the introducer’s speech. I rise only to say that if the Minister were to suggest that there might be some contradiction between the work of the Committee on Climate Change—I declare my interest as its chair—and the work of this group, I would disagree. What is suggested here is an important part of the programme. One of the difficulties is that the Committee on Climate Change is asked to think forward to 2050, to ensure that Britain is able to reduce its emissions by 80%, and yet the necessary mechanisms for delivering that target often operate on a much shorter timescale. Indeed, the two most important proposals that are, or are likely to be, before this Committee, are both about that long-term timescale.
It is quite impossible to imagine a sensible parameter within which people can invest in the necessary improvements in our energy supply that does not go beyond 2020, which is why we propose a carbon intensity target for 2030. It is not possible, either, to continue with a situation in which we spend so little time thinking far enough ahead. My noble friend the Minister will not have had encouragement in this area, particularly from those concerned to ensure that there are no restrictions on what the Treasury may decide. The real problem is that that means the Treasury does not have a say in the long term, because in the long term these decisions are either made or they are not made at all.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin, who again contributed so much of value to this Committee, asked why—this may seem an unfair point, but I make it because it is burnt into me—in that terrible first energy White Paper of the previous Government, every single date was removed except 2050. In other words, every date to which any civil servant, or any Minister, could possibly have been held accountable, was removed—and we know that they were all in to start with. I remember that the White Paper answered none of our problems, because, for example, it would not even face up to the issue of nuclear generation.
If my noble friend looks for a reason, it is the whole of that White Paper and, above all, the attitudes that surrounded it. I do not blame the party opposite for that, although it might have put it right. I blame the whole atmosphere, which was that you must not nail your colours to any mast lest that ship did not sail in the hoped-for direction; you must never be tough about the decisions to be made because you might not turn out to be 100% right. This is the real issue my noble friend raised when he asked about the nature of the governmental process in Britain. Rolls-Royces work only when you have not only covered all the details and very small issues but forecast what the market will be like in five, 10 and 15 years’ time. It does not happen if you work on the basis of a day-to-day operation. I am afraid that we have become the kind of nation that finds it very hard to make long-term decisions. There is an awful phrase about selection, suggesting that we should not back particular solutions. If you do not back anything, you do not get anything in this long-term process. The reason that most people in government do not want to back things is because they are afraid that someone will hold them in some sense liable for it.
I therefore finish by expressing my deep concern that the British have become believers that if you do not do something, that is not a real decision—that real decisions mean doing things. It seems that we all have to learn again that not doing something can be just as serious a decision, with just as much of a long-term effect, as doing something. Yet we have built a system whereby the phrase, “Better not, Minister”, is heard more often than any other. I hope that when I was a Minister I made it clear that it was the one phrase that would never result in the response that was hoped for. My father taught me that there was no point in saying to him, “I want so-and-so because everyone else has it”. That meant I would never get it. I always wanted a cap-bomb, I remember, but I was never allowed it on the basis that I once said that everyone else at school had one. That meant I never had it. “Better not, Minister” is one of those phrases to which all Ministers ought to say, “That means we have to find a different answer from the one you are proposing”. I hope that my noble friend will take seriously the concerns that we all have about the fact that our system does not meet the demands of an energy programme that takes 20 years before anything comes to real fruition.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I must first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, for also having arrived a minute after he started. I admit that I am a sceptic about the amendment, but I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Crickhowell about consultants. For a very short period I was a consultant. Some of my best assignments were when we went into an organisation, they told us who to talk to—probably somewhere near the factory floor—we did so, they told us what we needed to do and then we told senior management what to do. They agreed, and it was a fantastic solution. All they really needed to do was talk to their own staff. They even knew that, but they did not have the credibility as management to do it. There are many lessons there.
There is another British disease, beyond what my noble friend Lord Deben and the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, have described: when there is a problem, you add another layer to the organisation without solving the fundamental problem. I have seen it in business and I have seen it in government. You do not have the guts, knowledge, determination and maybe the time to fix the real problem, so what do you do? You invent something else. When I used to deal with one of the world’s disasters, the common fisheries policy, they started off with quotas when they had a problem. They then started decommissioning, because that was not good enough. When decommissioning did not work, they introduced days at sea. When that did not work, they gave up for 10 years and finally decided to try another tack, which may give us the answer.
In Europe, when something is not quite right, they invent another body, such as the Committee of the Regions. That is an advisory committee, and I always get even more concerned when these organisations are advisory. If they have executive power, that means that you are putting your money where your mouth is: you are putting your belief behind an organisation and saying, “Yes, get on with it. We weren’t good enough. You go and do it”. At that point, you show commitment and it tends to prove that there is a real problem.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord of the regional advisory committees. Certainly, the North Sea RAC is probably one of the greatest successes of the common fisheries policy in the past 10 years. It really has worked.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
The noble Lord was talking about the common fisheries policy. The North Sea regional advisory committee has been a huge success, and probably is the greatest success, of the common fisheries policy in the past 10 years.
Lord Teverson
I absolutely agree that there are places for advisory boards. There are examples of where that works and I am a member of some advisory boards. However, they tend not to do quite what I believe this body is around to do. I accept much, although not all, of the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh. The issue is that we have to get a much better way of governing at department level. We probably have to reform how the Civil Service works in terms of corporate memory. I have spent much of my life in the private sector and my experience is that its corporate memory is probably far worse than that of government. Perhaps it is not true of some in the oil and energy industries, but certainly in many industries there is not a lot of corporate knowledge. Certainly, there is no more than there is in government departments.
It may have been more of an executive authority but in the rail industry, which perhaps has similar levels or timeframes for investment, the Strategic Rail Authority was brought into existence by the previous Government and abolished because it did not work in relation to departments. Ultimately, departments had to take control. Of course, we have now seen problems with franchising but I do not think that the SRA was the answer to that.
Another area in which I would criticise the detail of this amendment is that the list of areas it looks at avoids energy efficiency and demand management, which are fundamental parts of how we think about the economy. Although I agree that it could be varied in the way it is written, from the description of this committee, I worry that it will again look particularly at building or planning energy in terms of capacity and generating capacity. It is interesting and dispiriting that two weeks ago, when the National Grid asked for tenders for demand reduction and for the demand-side response to looking at the future possible energy crisis, there was generally a very negative reaction from the press and wider than that. That is exactly how we should look at this area. We should not necessarily look at planning for more and more plant, although that would be part of it, but look at the demand side as well.
As regards why we are in the situation we are, I suspect that we will get through it although I entirely accept that the margins are less than we would want them to be. Through the Climate Change Act and the whole area of the climate change challenge, we have changed direction quite substantially in what we expect our generating and our energy industries to do. With not a U-turn but certainly a 45-degree turn on what we expect from our generating industry, it does not necessarily surprise me that, through that policy change in areas where there are long gestation periods in investment and planning, we have this difficulty at the moment. That is not necessarily a function of the way in which government works—necessarily imperfect though it is.
My noble friend Lord Deben mentioned the climate change committee. To me, that is the most important committee in this area by far. It may not be a complete substitute and it clearly is not for the energy side, but the Government really need to take notice of it. On the broader agenda, the climate change committee as set up and put into legislation is a good way of doing it. In terms of infrastructure planning, the case is far from proven.
Lord Oxburgh
Before the noble Lord sits down, I am not clear from what he said whether or not thinks there is a problem. If he thinks there is, precisely what does he propose the Government do about it and on what timescale?
Lord Teverson
No, absolutely. First, this will not solve the problem that we have. There is not time to solve the problem that the noble Lord outlines to this Committee. As he said in his speech, given the timescales involved, we are already too late. What we are trying to do here is to mend the future. I think I said that what I felt should be done was not to add another layer but to fix the way in which the Government and the Civil Service work within departments. To me, that is the challenge, rather than putting a sticking plaster over the top.
Lord Roper
My Lords, my noble friend knows that I do not agree with all the views that he has just put forward on this amendment; indeed, I have my name to the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, has already moved. As the Committee will know, unlike others present I have extremely little experience of this matter. However, I believe that this as an additional body would be value added to the way in which the decision was made.
I came to that conclusion three weeks ago. I was having lunch in the Home Room and found myself opposite the noble Lord, Lord Tombs. I was talking to him about the Energy Bill and indeed this Committee, and mentioned the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh. He said, “Yes, the reason I am not really taking any part in the Committee is that I have been trying to solve that problem for a very long time and have never got anywhere with it. I had a number of debates every year in this House from 2002 to 2009 in which I argued for something similar, but never got anywhere”.
He then recommended that I should read his book Power Politics, which I did the following weekend. Having read it, I realise the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, set out: the lack of any long-term understanding of the problem by Ministers who, on the whole, spend a relatively short period dealing with these issues; and the fact that it is in the nature of the Civil Service that there is no specialised knowledge of both the economic and technical aspects of the industry’s problems. I believe that, as the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Jenkin have said, this would be a significant addition to the way in which the real problems to which my noble friend has referred would have a better chance of being solved. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to give a favourable response to what I think is an important idea.
Lord Dixon-Smith
My Lords, I will not take very long. I do not have the remotest idea what the Minister is going to say. Whether or not she finds what I say encouraging remains to be seen.
I have a concern about the amendment. I find it very difficult to believe that there has not been an increasing awareness of this problem over the past 15 or 20 years—indeed, almost a crescendo, rising nowadays to virtually a scream—on just this subject. It has been there all the time. Now we are talking about putting in another body that would be publishing its advice in public and so on. In the end, though, only one thing will matter and that is decision. No one has suggested anything that will take the decision away from the relevant Ministers. They have to face that fact.
If this were happening in the commercial world, a good many people in this field would have lost their jobs long ago. Unfortunately, that does not happen to Ministers. Still, that is what is going to have to happen. In the end, the Ministers in the department will have to make their minds up.
I have almost got to the point where I do not care what they decide so long as they decide something. If they make a wrong decision you can do something about it, but the one thing you can never do anything about is no decision at all—it is impossible—and that is what we have been forced to live with for a very long time.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
As I was so impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, on this issue at Second Reading, I feel emboldened to speak to his amendment even though I did not hear how he introduced it and I apologise for having come late. As an ex-Permanent Secretary, I strongly disagree with the advice just offered. My watchword was from Hilaire Belloc, who wrote:
“Decisive action in the hour of need
Denotes the hero but does not succeed”.
It is often a very good idea to take no decision, particularly if you think your Minister is about to take a silly decision.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, in his definition of the problem, as in his Second Reading speech. The inability to take the long view and the discontinuities between energy policy, environmental policy and policy on public expenditure and investment in infrastructure are such that these have come together to make a very real problem. I think that some sort of advisory board might be part of the answer. However, I cannot support the wording of the amendment put forward here because it has limited it. It talks of advice in implementing government policy objectives for energy. You have to go wider than that and you have to allow your advisers to advise you on what policy should be. If they are limited to advising purely on the execution of the policy that the Ministers have already announced, you are still stuck in the short term.
As an ex-Permanent Secretary, I also find it very odd that the amendment should state that although the board shall consist of,
“expert members appointed for their experience in or knowledge of the energy industries”,
the “relevant Permanent Secretary” shall be “in attendance”. What is he supposed to do? If the Permanent Secretary disagrees with his Minister, one of his prime jobs is to disagree with his Minister. He should do that in private. He cannot speak in public against the then policy of the Government. So he is in attendance, spending days sitting there listening to these guys. He cannot speak because the minutes will be published—he could not speak against the views of his Minister anyway. This is neither flesh nor fowl. I fear there is a danger that it might turn into a red herring. If we need independent advice, it should be independent. We do not want the presence of the Permanent Secretary and we do not want the remit of the board limited to advice on the execution of policy. We want it to tell us what policy should be.
I would put a long-term element into this as well, by putting five or 10 years somewhere in there, so that it is clear that the board is looking over the horizon. This would ease its relationship with government, because it would be clear that the timescale was not limited by the period of the then present Parliament. Therefore, I support the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, as he has correctly identified a very important problem, but I cannot support the wording of his amendment.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, for tabling this amendment and to the other noble Lords who have lent their name to it. It has been a springboard for a good and necessary debate this afternoon. In response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, on how we got here, I point out that under the previous Government, between 1997 and 2010, we saw 26 gigawatts of new capacity added to the grid. In the previous three years—2008 to 2010—we saw 7.8 gigawatts added. There was clearly a healthy investment system under the previous Government. What happened next is old news. We had a decision to reform the electricity market and in that process, which, let us face it, has been going on almost since 2010, there have been a lot of conflicting messages coming out of government. This has created an investment hiatus and an uncertainty that have led us to where we are today.
Let us not be overly dramatic. In 2010, we had historically high capacity levels. That has partly contributed to the hiatus and it needs to be cleared out for there to be a signal to the market to reinvest. Against the 26 gigawatts or 7.8 gigawatts that were added in the last few years of the previous Government, we have lost since then only 8 gigawatts of old coal. Much mention is made of this, but the LCPD—the large combustion plant directive—took out 8 gigawatts. That 8 gigawatts has already shut and the lights are still on. We must put this in perspective. I am convinced that there is an issue of long-term planning, but right now let us keep it in perspective. We are at the tail end of this Bill process, which has been going on an inordinately long time. Things, I am sure, should get better soon, but for that to happen we have to get this Bill right. I think that all noble Lords who have spoken today would agree that the key to get out of this now is to have a clear regulatory framework that will do the job of restarting investment in our energy infrastructure.
The other factors that have contributed to the hiatus, which I think it is fair to say no Government could have been fully aware of or on top of, were issues outside our control. One example is high gas prices. We have gigawatts of consented gas capacity in this country. Why is no one building it? They simply cannot afford to take that decision. Boards in energy companies all around the country are asking: “Will this pay back?”. They cannot give a definitive answer, because the price of gas is uncertain. They will also say: “We’re in the middle of an Energy Bill process. We’d be mad to commission something now. Wait until the dust has settled”. The Bill is partly in the Government’s control, but the price of gas is an unexpected issue that has arisen quite recently.
The second thing that has gone wrong, for which my party has some responsibility, is that we have dropped the CCS ball. We have been utterly hopeless at getting CCS away and demonstrated. That is partly because—and this where I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh—we have been relying on civil servants to devise a strategy for picking winners to develop CCS in this country. Quite frankly, we have failed. A succession of wrong calls has been made. Our first call was that it should be post-combustion coal, because somehow we were going to help China. Well, it turns out that that is not what we need, so, understandably, those projects have not gone forward. There is a great need to address the future of CCS and to have more market-based commentary on that and less control from the Civil Service.
The third thing to have happened, which, again, has been outside any Government’s control, is that the economics of nuclear have changed. Fukushima was a disaster that happened on the other side of the planet and public attitudes towards nuclear remained remarkably resilient, but in Germany it was a completely different story, with the phasing-out of nuclear. That obviously has an impact here because we have two large German utility companies in this county. Having pulled out of nuclear in Germany, quite quickly, they pulled out of nuclear in the UK. That could not have been predicted, but it definitely contributes to the situation that we are in today, where we are reliant on only one nuclear project, certain aspects of which have proven difficult.
It is fine just to look back and to try to explain why we are where we are today, so I go back to my statement that the way out of this is to get this Bill right. The way to do that is to think about the regulatory framework that it creates. I have some sympathy with the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, because there are echoes of it in the way in which we govern other aspects of our society. Perhaps the most obvious one is the Monetary Policy Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, pointed out, we also have the Committee on Climate Change. The creation of that independent body of experts, able to advise the Government publicly and to publish reports, was a major aspect of the Climate Change Act and one of its most successful components. It has depoliticised an issue that I am sure would otherwise have been more debated and undermined than perhaps would be appropriate.
There are, therefore, examples of how the creation of an independent advisory body can work, but I would argue that, if you are going to create such a body, you would want to give it clear parameters within which to advise. Advising on the totality of energy investment is a large task and I defy any group of experts, no matter how many are on the board, to get their heads around every aspect. Setting clear parameters within which you would require independent advice would help to give the body a purpose in providing the right level of scrutiny and advice for the Government.
The levers that the Bill creates are clear. We will have a capacity market, in which the Government will have to make decisions about the levels of capacity that they will try to secure through auctions. That could certainly benefit from advice. We have the decarbonisation obligation, which, I think it is fair to say, has not to date been handled in a suitable or effective way. The hard part has been put off, which is not what we want. I have great sympathy with noble Lords who have said that the tendency in government is to put things off; it is much easier simply to shrug your shoulders and wait for the next person to come and take the hard decisions. Unfortunately, that is what has happened with the decarbonisation obligation.
Another key parameter within which the Bill operates is the levy control framework and the amount of money that the Treasury has put aside. Again, that could do with some external scrutiny. It might be necessary for a body of experts to advise both the Treasury and DECC to depoliticise the issue and to create unity. The last parameter in the Bill, which we will discuss in more detail shortly, is the energy performance standard, which could also benefit from external advice to depoliticise it and underpin it with independent scrutiny and analysis.
Many noble Lords have commented on what such a body might look like and how it might operate. The key themes were that it should be independent, it should have a long-term view, it should issue its advice in public to both Parliament and Ministers and it should address energy efficiency—the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, spotted that that was missing from the list. I am sure that, as the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, would say, the amendment will stimulate debate and cause the Government to come forward with something more complete.
I think that the Government recognise that they need advice. They would not have created three specialist advisory groups commenting on aspects of the EMR and a technical advisory group to see them through this process if they thought that they had all the answers themselves or if they could go to Ofgem, the National Grid or any of the other agencies for advice. Clearly a deficit was recognised.
I hope that the Government will come forward with positive words about considering this proposal in greater detail, as we have heard eloquent arguments about why something such as this might be necessary. I hope that they will at least concede that they have created bodies to advise them. Those bodies have been doing a short-term task, but we are asking for the creation of a body that takes a slightly longer-term view, working within parameters. Perhaps they could also consider whether the bodies that they have created already need to be converted into something more permanent. If a clear process is established for what they will do, how they will advise us and the parameters within which they will operate, that would go a long way towards answering many of the concerns that have been raised today. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and all noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment, which proposes the establishment of an energy investment advisory board within DECC. We already have a number of advisory boards and I would like to go through my speaking notes and lay out why we think that, at this moment in time, this could add another layer, as my noble friend Lord Teverson said. I will also respond to some of the questions and points raised.
First and foremost, we attach great importance to ensuring that we consider the long-term views of the UK’s energy needs. DECC therefore has many forums for industry and energy experts to contribute and scrutinise policy on energy and climate change. I will highlight some of these to noble Lords. The main forum that DECC has with industry is the energy leaders forum. This is a quarterly event that brings the DECC Secretary of State, Ministers and senior officials, including the Permanent Secretary, together with the CEOs of vertically integrated and independent generators and suppliers. It is jointly organised by DECC and Energy UK, whose members make up the industry attendance. The high-level and wide-ranging discussions help government and industry to anticipate and respond to existing and future issues in energy policy. Importantly, the forum also discusses how industry and government can attract investment to the UK to ensure that we have secure low-carbon and affordable sources of energy now and tomorrow.
We have a flexible structure of academic and industry experts who are also able to advise the department on a much wider range of topics, including our major programmes from the Green Deal to the electricity market reform. For example, there are EMR expert groups for each policy area and we have set up an independent panel of technical experts to provide the Secretary of State with specific technical advice on the national system operator’s analysis. The Infrastructure UK unit within the Treasury exists to develop the UK’s long-term infrastructure priorities and secure private sector investment. Other important forums include the Science Advisory Group, which is a group of external academic and industry experts who challenge and support the Chief Scientific Adviser and DECC. It also helps to guide the department’s scientific priorities and strategy.
I welcome the noble Lord’s point about skills in the department. We are actively strengthening our systems for prioritisation of resources. We are developing key specialist skills, including ensuring that the department has sufficient corporate memory and leveraging the capability of our delivery partners. As set out in DECC’s annual report, we consider delivery skills essential as the department moves to implementation and delivery as well as policy development.
In addition, we have an internal governance structure. We have a departmental board whose role is to monitor performance and delivery of DECC’s work and to provide strategic and operational leadership for the department. The board has non-executive members who provide advice, support and challenge to the department. The board is supported by sub-committees, most notably the executive committee that closely monitors departmental strategy and delivery of objectives. In light of the existing structures that have proven successful, I do not believe that it is necessary or desirable to set up a new advisory panel.
I am also concerned that the introduction of a board with explicit responsibility for long-term energy strategy could reduce ministerial accountability. The department regularly reports to Parliament on the progress that it is making on energy and climate change. As we have discussed previously, the coalition agreement states that we will give an annual energy statement to Parliament to set strategic energy policy and guide investment. This must be laid before Parliament by 31 December each year. The statement provides a clear, succinct description of the Government’s energy policy within the context of DECC’s overall strategy. We also report to Parliament specifically on security with the statutory security of supply report and, on Report in the other place, we introduced a statutory annual update on EMR.
We report on climate change via the government response to the Committee on Climate Change’s annual report. The Committee on Climate Change consists of independent experts and is a statutory body established under the Climate Change Act 2008. Its purpose is to advise the Government on emissions targets and to report to Parliament on progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for climate change. I therefore reassure noble Lords that we already have in place forums and structures to deliver the significant changes that we need in the energy system.
A couple of points were raised during the debate. My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked whether we had enough capacity to keep the lights on over the next few years. My noble friend also asked about investment. I can reassure him and other noble Lords that through this Bill we are seeing the biggest reform of the electricity market in recent years and greater confidence from investors than ever before. Even with Ofgem’s new estimates, the risk of the lights going out is low and steps are being taken to ensure that sufficient reserves are in place in the short and medium term. Essentially the short-term measures are an extension of tools that National Grid and Ofgem have already used to contract additional short-term capacity in order to balance supply and demand.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell said that these days Ministers take advice from officials rather than making up their own minds about policy issues and are not often able to say no to officials.
Lord Crickhowell
With great respect, I do not believe that I said anything of the kind. However, I will read the text of what I really said tomorrow with interest, to discover how I was interpreted as saying that.
Baroness Verma
I stand corrected by my noble friend. I would, however, reassure my noble friend that decisions on policy are taken by Ministers; we have to take advice from officials, as well as other experts, but ultimately we will be responsible for those decisions.
Lord Crickhowell
That was the point that I dealt with in my speech, based on my own experience. I was going to intervene to say that I did not understand my noble friend’s comment that she feared that following the suggestions of this advisory committee might reduce ministerial responsibility. We already have the precedent of the nuclear advisory board; we also have the precedent that I described of the advice that my National Rivers Authority advisory board gave to the Government and then the National Rivers Authority itself. In none of those cases was there the slightest reduction in ministerial responsibility and I cannot conceive that a committee of the kind suggested could possibly have that outcome.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, if I choose to slightly disagree with my noble friend, that is perhaps a position that I will stand corrected on. However, given that we have so many forums and advisory groups in place, I do not believe that we need a further one. If I am allowed to get to the end of my speaking notes, noble Lords may be relieved to know that, having noted the significance attributed to this advisory group by noble Lords, I may go back and reflect on what has been said in Hansard. I see that the noble Baroness wishes to intervene at this point.
Baroness Worthington
It is just a small point, which is that part of the problem is the plethora of advisory boards. People are asking for a sense of cohesion to be created and a hierarchy, so that you pull one expert body together. Also, you try to create something with independence, because many of the advisory boards that you rely on today are, by necessity, made up of people with vested interests. Something more transparent, more publicly accountable and at a higher level would be beneficial.
Baroness Verma
The important thing is that noble Lords know how the governance of existing structures works as a whole. Rather than trying to explain the role of each forum now, I will, if the Committee allows, write to noble Lords on how each forum, advisory group and committee works to support one another in advising government. We have these forums under review all the time. We work to ensure that all views are taken into account. As I said, I have taken on board the seriousness of what the Committee has said and would like to go away and reflect on today’s debate, perhaps responding to noble Lords in writing. With those remarks, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Oxburgh
My Lords, I add my thanks to all who have taken part in this debate. I shall reply very briefly indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, missed the beginning of the debate, when I made the point that this was simply a cock-shy to stimulate discussion. The precise wording—the precise form that the body would take— was all for discussion. The noble Lord asked what the Permanent Secretary might get from attending meetings of this board. I would say simply: education. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was concerned about an added layer. Of course, he speaks as a consultant who has probably added layers in the past. This is not an added layer.
The Minister started with, I think, a total misapprehension. She said that the proposal was for a body to be established within DECC. That is precisely the point. It would not be within DECC. It would be outside DECC. It would be a parallel and complementary body to the climate change committee. It would in fact monitor and report on DECC’s performance, as well as giving advice. I agree that there is an immense amount of advice from a series of committees within the department. On the other hand, they do not have long-term continuity. They do not meet the strategic challenges that I and many noble Lords feel that we face.
The Minister has kindly said that she will take this away and think about it. If in 2015 or 2016 there is an electricity supply problem, it might be sensible for the Government to have said, “We saw that there might be a problem and we have begun to fix the long-term strategy”. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Oxburgh
Gas capacityPower to make gas capacity regulations
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the purpose of providing capacity to meet the demands of consumers for the supply of gas in Great Britain.
(2) Regulations under this section are referred to in this Chapter as “gas capacity regulations”.
(3) In subsection (1) “providing capacity” means facilitating and promoting the provision and use of gas storage infrastructure to secure the availability of gas at prices which are lower and more stable insofar as is reasonably practicable and mitigating the consequences of gas supply interruption.
(4) The provision that may be made in gas capacity regulations includes, but is not limited to, the provision described in this Chapter.”
Lord Oxburgh
My Lords, I hope that we can deal with this amendment a little more expeditiously, and that it will be more attractive to the Government.
I listened very carefully to the responses given by the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, in our previous Committee session. I think he used the expression “We put consumers first” no fewer than five times on that occasion. That is a sentiment to which we can all subscribe and this is precisely what this amendment attempts to do. Furthermore, it does not necessarily involve any expense, nor does it compel any Minister to do anything. In that sense, it is innocuous. It seeks to give Ministers the power to leverage the annual swings in gas price to consumer advantage; in other words, to facilitate the purchase of gas when prices are low in summer and to release when prices are high in winter.
I will give a little background. This is a new situation for DECC—and the country—because of two factors: first, the growth of the liquefied natural gas market internationally and its increase in importance means that today there is effectively a spot market, as there is in oil; and secondly, our increasing dependence on that spot market. I cannot remember the exact figures; I think it is around 40% that we need to buy of LNG, and that will progressively increase as the availability of North Sea gas declines. So there have been two changes.
As far as we are concerned, these have a good consequence and a bad consequence. The good consequence is that we shall probably never get really short of gas. We have two important gas terminals in the UK and should be able to import what we need. The down side is that we are exposed to the vacillation of global prices. For example, when Fukushima happened there was a massive spoke in global gas prices because people realised that Japan would require a great deal more gas. We would be exposed to other international pressures of that kind, as well as the seasonal variation of the surplus in the summer and the inadequacy of supply in winter.
I do not think that it is worth going into the economic detail of this at all today. However, one or more companies are interested in exploring this from a commercial point of view. I have discussed this with DECC officials, who were extremely helpful. It is clear that DECC, Ofgem and the national grid have been very concerned about supply availability. That has been their main concern, rather than the question of price, which has really come in in a big way recently. The first of two comments from DECC officials was, “We do not think that this will be commercial”. With respect, that is not their decision. If a business thinks that it might be commercial, that is what we should test. The other comment was, “We think we might be able to do this without an amendment anyway, with existing powers”, but I could not get a definitive decision on that.
The important thing is that we know from discussions with at least one company that, if there was something in the Bill which allowed the Secretary of State at his or her discretion to use the capacity mechanism or the contract-for-difference mechanism within the Bill to purchase gas under prescribed circumstances, that would be sufficient for the companies concerned to approach potential investors again with a better proposition, with a view to coming to the Minister to explore what might be arranged. It is not clear that this will be feasible, or that it will make sense to use this mechanism. It is simply a little bit of insurance.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that if the Government do not take this initiative, no one else will. Gas suppliers do not care. They simply pass on any fluctuations in the international gas price to consumers. This is therefore something that the Government could do to smooth and lower prices for consumers. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I was happy to add my name to the amendment. I see it more as a vehicle for promoting a short discussion, which I think we shall have, rather than something that ought to be added to the Bill; I think the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, has made that clear.
I have in the past debated in successive energy Bills the need for the United Kingdom to increase its storage capacity. We have far less than other countries. I have always been met with the argument, to which the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, referred, that we have so many different sources of supply that we do not need the same levels of storage as other countries. The mistake that we have been making, and I certainly plead guilty to this, is that we have seen it in terms of security of supply, whereas—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, makes clear and I would argue—we are really arguing about price, not supply.
If one looks at the UK gas market over the past two years, 2011-12 and 2012-13, it is pretty level for most of the season. The price rises slightly towards the autumn, and then in December, February and March there are sudden spikes and it goes up to sometimes two and a half times the normal rate. That is what happens to world gas markets during the winter: the demand substantially exceeds the supply and the result is that the price goes shooting up—not for long but it does—and the companies have no option but to pay it and immediately pass it on to the consumers in higher prices.
If you had a level of storage whereby you could build up the supplies during the summer and release them during the winter so that you are not dependent on the huge spikes in world gas prices, it would protect consumers. I see this whole question of storage as being much more about protecting the consumer market against sudden spikes in prices, rather than any shortage of supply. I do not see any risk of there being a shortage of supply but it is perfectly clear that we have had very substantial spikes in prices.
I took the advice of somebody who is very much involved in all this. I will quote what he said to me:
“If we had had sufficient gas storage last winter to maintain gas prices close to average winter prices (~70p/therm) rather than seeing prices spike to over £1.50/therm it would have saved costs to the UK economy of between £300-400 million. This is the sort of saving/protection that should be foremost in the Government’s mind”.
This is something that should not be ignored. I am not suggesting that there is any particular solution to this. If the market could be persuaded that this is a proper thing to do—I have heard of a project involving storage in a depleted offshore gas field; I think it is called Deborah—that could provide the vehicle for the kind of storage that we are talking about, which would save consumers the kind of price hikes that they have had to face in the past.
There is another interesting point. A very interesting study was published this morning—there may have been reference to it in the press—by a very well known academic, Nick Pidgeon at Cardiff University, who looked at public attitudes to all this. His synthesis report is called Transforming the UK Energy System: Public Values, Attitudes and Acceptability. It is a long report and I do not propose to read more than one sentence of the executive summary—well, two sentences—but it has relevance to the discussion we are having. The report says:
“While ‘energy security’ as a term was not salient to people, the range of concerns that it encompassed (geopolitical issues, energy shortages, black outs, unaffordable prices) did evoke strong reactions. Energy security is particularly closely linked in public perceptions to affordability because it relates to concerns about personally not being able to access energy services, while concern about national level insecurity in supplies of fossil fuels was seen as a symptom of the problems of fossil fuel dependency”.
In other words, security is not seen primarily as “We are going to run out” but as an issue of affordability. This is spelt out at some length in Nick Pidgeon’s report. It is the product of more than a year’s work by him and a team of academics, and it is something to which we should give some attention.
So, in addition to the general point that the question of storage relates to price rather than to capacity or the question of running out, so it is also associated in the public mind with affordability. That is why, if we can level out the prices by encouraging the industry to invest in more storage, we would find it valuable on both accounts: it would be valuable in terms of reducing cost but also in reconciling public opinion to some of the difficulties that we have faced in the past of sudden spikes in energy prices.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Oxburgh and Lord Jenkin, for tabling this amendment. I confess that this is not an area where I have a great deal of expertise, so really I just have some questions to add to the debate. I am sympathetic to the desire for government oversight to ensure that gas prices can be levelled out. Demand seems to be very seasonal and storage is an obvious way of helping to smooth out prices. I suppose my question is: to what extent has the department done any analysis of why the private sector is not doing this? It should be in its interests to secure cheaper prices, so you would expect there to be an incentive to invest in more storage.
My second question, which is related to that, is: to what degree do the powers of the regulator—our party’s views on the regulator are well known, but this is a genuine question—extend upstream? Does Ofgem have a power to look at fairness of pricing in the supply of gas, meaning before it reaches the distribution network? There is a high degree of vertical integration in the energy sector, and there are some companies that control the extractive processes, the distribution and then the use of the product. When you have that degree of vertical integration, there is the potential for unfair pricing, or self-serving that could lead to less transparent pricing. That is a genuine question. Does the regulator consider the potential for those vertically integrated companies, right the way up to extractive? Does it cover that? If it does not, it should. I look forward to the answer on that.
I am increasingly being exposed to ideas around renewable gas, by which I mean syngas, which is generated from other carbon sources than the hydrocarbons found in natural gas. This area seems to have been overlooked by successive Governments. It would be helpful to hear the latest thinking on renewable gas, particularly its role in helping to hedge against high natural gas prices. My understanding is that gasification technology and pyrolysis in particular are now maturing as technologies and helping to deliver alternative sources of heating gases for the variety of uses that you can use gas for. Those are my questions.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin for prompting the debate on gas storage. The noble Lords’ proposal is timely, coming precisely as the Government are thinking about these issues. The GB gas market is one of the best functioning and most liquid in the world, and has brought forward significant investment in the past decade. This has expended our infrastructure to the point where our input capacity alone can meet 189% of our annual needs, and it has spare capacity to respond flexibly to price signals to deliver gas to our market from a diverse range of sources and routes. It has also increased storage in terms of overall capacity, where we have seen a 25% increase in the past decade, and even more so in terms of deliverability—the amount of gas that can be delivered to the grid each day to cope with volatile demand. Once two recently completed fast-cycling storage projects are counted, along with a further two projects under construction, storage deliverability has doubled in the past 10 years. The growth in input, capacity and flexible storage delivered by the market provides the additional flexibility we will need to help meet variable demand for heating requirements on peak winter days in severe weather conditions, or for the power sector, where gas is likely to be called on to respond flexibly to intermittent generation sources such as wind.
The Government are not complacent or averse to making appropriate legislative changes to improve our gas security. Indeed, it was part of our coalition agreement to do so. In relation to gas security, the Energy Act 2011 conferred on Ofgem new powers to sharpen the incentives on gas market participants to secure gas supplies. Ofgem has been consulting on potential reforms and is due to announce its final proposals very shortly. We are also working within the EU to ensure adoption and implementation of a variety of measures to enhance gas security through a well functioning, integrated and transparent European gas market. For example, the implementation of the third energy package has already improved market integration across the EU, so that storage in other countries such as Germany can respond to price signals sent by our own market. In addition, the development of common gas codes provided for by the third package will facilitate further gas trading across borders according to pricing signals. The EU regulation on security of gas supply requires member states to undertake regular assessments of their gas security and prepare plans to mitigate the risks they face, as well as meeting supply and infrastructure standards.
New investments in physical infrastructure are being made available to enable gas to flow more freely around the EU. In addition, DECC is working to maximise sustainable gas production from our North Sea and unconventional gas resources. Furthermore, the Government have been conducting a detailed review of whether further reforms—in addition to those being considered by Ofgem—might be appropriate and we intend to announce our decision in the coming weeks. In reaching a decision, the Government will consider the physical and price security arguments for intervening in the markets and whether any of the potential interventions provide a cost-effective means of improving the security of our supply. Therefore, the Government may conclude that the interests of consumers are best served by not intervening in the market.
However, our assessment is that all measures being considered—these include the measures to promote gas storage envisaged by this amendment—can already be implemented using existing powers. In particular, Ofgem has powers under Section 7B(4)(a) of the Gas Act 1986 to introduce such licence conditions as it considers necessary or expedient, having regard to Ofgem’s duties, which include the promotion of the security of supply. It would also be possible for the Secretary of State to make a direction under Section 7B(5)(a) of the Gas Act 1986 setting out licenceholder obligations. Additionally, Ofgem can apply for an order to be made by the Secretary of State under Section 41C of the Gas Act 1986 to make a new activity such as gas storage a licence activity. Such an order made by the Secretary of State may also provide any consequential changes to primary and secondary legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, asked about the role of renewable gas. The Government have plans to maximise the production of gas from all sources: conventional, shale and renewable. She also asked whether the regulator considers vertical integration and impacts on pricing. Yes, Ofgem considers the impact on pricing in all its regulatory functions. Therefore, the Government do not consider these amendments necessary and I hope that, having found my explanation reassuring, the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, will withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I waited to intervene until I heard the Minister’s reply because this was a point raised in Sub-Committee D’s report No Country is an Energy Island: Security Investment for the EU’s Future. In paragraph 188, one of our recommendations was for the UK Government to examine the potential for a regulatory framework to increase gas storage. The Government’s written reply and what the Minister has said indicate that a lot of thought has gone into this, but for the whole of the energy sector it is about improving the flow and interconnectivity of supplies of all sorts of energy across the EU. Can my noble friend give us any further information from the Commission about what the EU is doing on this? I know that I am rather bouncing my noble friend—if she would prefer to write to me, I would be very happy for her to do so—but interconnectivity was a point that our committee was concerned about. Perhaps I could move from the storage of gas to the storage of electricity. Will my noble friend drop the Committee a line on that? If we could store electricity, there would be a much greater total energy supply and less need for the storage of gas.
Baroness Verma
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for allowing me to write to him and to the Committee, because inspiration is slightly slow in coming forward.
Lord Oxburgh
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken on this. I am certainly gratified to hear from the Minister how much effort and concern the department has put into the question of gas supply. However, we were more concerned about price security than about supply security. That is the important point to emphasise. The Minister said that she thought that additional powers were not necessary to achieve this, but I am not entirely clear from what she said whether that is the case.
In effect, we are proposing a mechanism by which the private sector can come to the Government and say, “Look, we can guarantee a certain amount of gas at a particular price over a particular period”. That would in fact be achieved by gas storage, but I do not think that the Government need to get involved in it; all that they need to do is make a deal with a company or group of companies to supply gas in particular quantities at particular times. That is why the capacity mechanism or the CFD mechanism would be extremely useful. I am not clear that the Minister has the power to use those mechanisms under the legislation as it is currently drafted, which is why I tabled this amendment.
A practical amendment could be extremely simple—probably much simpler than this one. If the Minister is concerned about the resource needed in DECC to draft an amendment properly, I have no doubt that industry would be willing to make legal help available to work under DECC officials to draft something acceptable. I am not entirely sure that the assurances that she gave me were quite relevant to this case but, that said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Teverson
“Part 6AGeothermal energyLicensing system
(1) Within eighteen months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall, after a period of consultation with industry, geological experts, the devolved administrations, local authorities, energy producers and other interested parties, put into place for the United Kingdom a licensing system and supporting regulations for the exploitation of heat from deep geothermal sources for both direct use and for the generation of electricity.
(2) The licences shall relate to—
(a) individual, geographically delineated areas of land; and(b) the heat held by rocks greater than 500 metres below the local surface level.(3) The licences shall confer exclusive exploration and production rights for the purpose of energy production to the licensee for that area, for a specific period of time for both direct heat and electricity generation.
(4) The Secretary of State shall put in place regulations governing the allocation of licences and the conduct of holders of licences.
(5) The Secretary of State shall undertake the first round of allocations within six months of the licensing system being put in place.
(6) Any organisation already in possession of—
(a) a water abstraction licence for the purpose of developing deep geothermal energy resources;(b) planning permission for the development of deep geothermal energy resources,at the time the licensing regime comes into force, shall be entitled to preferential bidding rights to that licence area and any licence fee or other consideration for that licence area as a part of the licensing regime will then be determined by arbitration under rules determined by the Secretary of State reflecting the fees or other consideration paid for licences deemed to have similar potential.(7) The holding of a licence for the exploration or exploitation (or both) of deep geothermal heat shall not convey any automatic rights to planning permission for surface development or surface access.”
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I have a sense of déjà vu about this amendment. With every energy Bill in which I have been involved since I was honoured to become a Member of the House in 2006, I have tried something similar. Each time I refine it slightly more until I think that it is perfect, but of course perfection is no use if there is no application. However, we will see.
I thank the Minister for the support that the department has given geothermal energy recently. It has been slow and difficult but it is getting on to the agenda, particularly in terms of the industrial renewable heat initiative and the contracts-for-difference strike prices. It is starting to appear far more regularly than previously without prompting, which is very good. Geothermal is a technology that works and I will not take a long time describing it because I am sure that Members are all well aware of it. Globally, it is a very important source of energy for hot water, direct heating and electricity generation. As we mentioned in a previous sitting of this Grand Committee, there have been discussions between Britain and Iceland over the use of geothermal energy from that area.
However, it is a lot easier when hot water comes to the surface of its own accord, as it does in many parts of the world, such as New Zealand and Iceland. It is different when one has to drill down five kilometres, 10 kilometres and sometimes a very long way in order to circulate it and bring it up. In the UK, there are examples of shallow geothermal energy but not much deep geothermal energy yet. This technology is credible and possible. It is a source of renewable heat that has a small footprint and acts as a base load rather than being intermittent, which is why it can be particularly attractive. Again, there is a choice between hot water and heating or electricity generation.
Why is this amendment necessary? It is because this issue is a bit like the oil industry. There are noble Lords here who know far more about the petroleum industry than me. However, basically, when you have put a major investment into drilling, as soon as you make your strike on a viable geothermal hot water well, you do not want someone 100 yards along buying the plot next door, extracting the water and then leaving you with all the exploration costs and only half the benefit. That is why a credible regulation infrastructure includes having a licensing regime over a suitable area of land. I particularly emphasise that this does not of its own right mean that there would be planning permission or surface access. That would all have to be sorted out by the exploration companies.
This is a major area where Britain, particularly the south-west but other areas of the UK as well, could benefit by building up its renewable energy resources of heat and electricity. For that to move forward, we must have a licensing system. I do not believe that there will be a great cost to producing this. It has already happened in Ireland and other parts of the world. In the past, we have had positive discussions with Ministers about this but they have never got far—hence this amendment. In due course, I look forward to hearing the Government’s thinking on this from the Minister. In the mean time, I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is to be congratulated on his persistence in tabling amendments on geothermal energy. He correctly identifies the huge contribution that this could make to the UK’s energy mix. I think this may be the third time that he has come forward with his amendment. The last time was in February 2011 during Committee on the previous Energy Bill. At that time, the Government had just slashed the remaining £2 million of a £6 million allocation for research from Labour’s time in office by 50%—plus ça change. Also at the time, the then Energy Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Marland, explained that two ROCs already in place were available for geothermal, which his department deemed to be sufficient to bring forward investment. However, of course, he rightly identified that it is not the ROCs that are important but the regulations to maintain the returns for the investor. At that time, the Minister spoke positively about this power source while saying that DECC would continue to work on the complexities of introducing a licensing system. That was well over two years ago. Perhaps the Minister will update the Committee today on how those regulations are proceeding.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Teverson has said, he has a longstanding interest in geothermal technologies. The Government share much of his enthusiasm and recognise that deep geothermal will have a part to play in the UK’s energy mix. We are keen to explore and to help realise this overall potential, both deep geothermal for direct heat use and those projects that are primarily about power generation.
Geothermal energy for direct heat use is a clear strategic fit with the Government’s planned transition to low-carbon heating. The Government’s heat strategy identified heat networks as having an important role to play in providing low-carbon heat to dense urban areas. Heat networks can have multiple sources of heat supply. Cities such as Manchester and Newcastle have identified deep geothermal as a possible future heat source for their networks. DECC is helping those cities to develop their heat network plans, including grant support for feasibility work and by creating a new heat networks delivery unit to add capacity and expertise to project teams in individual local authorities. The Government are also proposing a higher renewable heat incentive tariff for deep geothermal heat projects to support such developments.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and my noble friend Lord Teverson will recall that in 2011 the Environment Agency introduced changes to the abstraction licence procedures to provide greater certainty to deep geothermal investors for those projects accessing groundwater resources. This light-touch amendment to existing regulations was welcomed by the industry.
The department has been considering what additional support might be possible for deep geothermal power to help explore and test the resource for power generation. However, despite grant awards and eligibility for the renewables obligation, no deep geothermal power projects have commenced in the UK.
In response to this, the department has initiated a two-stage process to try to move the deep geothermal power sector forward. The first phase is an expert feasibility study to draw together all the evidence to explore and test the case for additional government support. Subject to the outcome of this first step, and taking into account value-for-money considerations, the various options for further support will be then analysed. The feasibility study, which is being undertaken by Atkins, will conclude shortly. We will need further analysis to help gauge the realisable potential of deep geothermal power and the extent of any support it may need.
My noble friend and, I know, many in industry argue that a licensing regime is required to underpin the expansion of this technology and to ensure that it can approach its full potential in the UK. At present the UK sector is at an early stage of development, which makes it difficult to gauge the impact of a licensing regime. The Government accept my noble friend’s argument that the impact is likely to be positive. The question is one of proportionality. At present, all parts of UK law are essentially silent on the subject of heat from deep below the earth’s surface. Any legislation would therefore proceed from a blank page, and full licensing regimes are complex to create. The legislation to do this in the Australian state of Queensland runs to more than 500 pages of primary legislation, which suggests that the call on the time of this House would not be trivial. The Atkins report will guide the Government’s position on how best we may be able to help support the geothermal sector, which will help to steer a future position on any new regulatory approaches.
I hope that my noble friend will agree with me that we must be guided by the Atkins report’s outputs and recommendations to help inform the Government’s position and next steps. I hope that on that basis my noble friend will feel reassured and withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very positive response. There are two things that I would like to say. First, in the county of Cornwall we actually have two planning permissions for deep geothermal projects, which were obtained with no local resistance of any significance, which was a very positive sign. Indeed, one of them received a grant from the regional growth fund but was unable to find the matching funding.
Secondly, I very much welcomed the Atkins report. When I was in a meeting with my right honourable friend Greg Barker, the Minister of State, the timetable was rather quicker than it is turning out to be. It is very important to keep the momentum going. I know this is nothing to do with Ministers but I get the impression that it has been rather tough going within the department. Let us get it to a conclusion and if the feasibility study says, “Let’s get to the next stage”, we should move it on. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Worthington
“( ) Section 47(1) does not apply to CCS plant until completion of the commissioning and proving period that shall last no longer than 3 years.”
Baroness Worthington
We are now discussing the part of the Bill that concerns the emissions performance standard. By way of background, I thought it would be useful to recount where these provisions arise from. It was in response to the Kingsnorth demonstrations, which were a green group response to the threat of a new unabated coal plant being built by E.ON. At that time, climate change concerns meant that there was a great deal of public opposition to the idea that we would be locking ourselves into many decades of unabated coal if a new plant were to be built.
The then Labour Government responded with a new planning restriction that meant that all new coal plants would have to fit at least 300 megawatts of carbon capture and storage, essentially closing the door on unabated coal. The then Opposition stated that they would move to rule out new unabated coal through the introduction of an emissions performance standard. That was prompted in part by a visit by one of the shadow Ministers to California, which is one of a number of US states that already have emissions performance standards in place. When he became Prime Minister, David Cameron stated that he would legislate—he would put an EPS into an energy Bill—and consultation on that began, in conjunction with the rest of the energy market reform package, in December 2010. Here we are today, talking about the detail of that proposal.
The Government did not get everything right in their first draft proposals. One loophole that was quickly identified was that the plan was to give exemptions to any plant fitting CCS. The fear was that this would mean that large plants could be built with only a small portion of the capacity being fitted with CCS. Representations were made. The Government did listen and have closed the loophole so CCS plants will now be caught by the EPS.
We have tabled a number of amendments concerning the EPS. This amendment addresses the concerns of the Carbon Capture & Storage Association. While accepting that plants with CCS will need to be compliant with the EPS, there is a fear that if the industry were required to meet those standards from day one, that would be unduly burdensome and could deter investors. The association has asked that a period of grace of three years be introduced during the commissioning and testing of the new plant, when there would be a derogation of the EPS. This amendment has been tabled to achieve that. We see that very much as part of a package of measures, in conjunction with the EPS. I will shortly talk to two more amendments that we support strongly, and I know that my noble friend Lord Hanworth is going to speak to his amendments too. There is much more to be said about the EPS, but this is a specific amendment and I beg to move.
Lord Oxburgh
My Lords, I declare an interest as honorary president of the Carbon Capture & Storage Association. This is an extremely important amendment if CCS is to go forward. It has not been easy to attract investment to this area; the investment required is heavy. This amendment simply minimises the risk for those who are introducing a new technology. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government’s decarbonisation plan is probably unachievable without CCS, so it is important that this kind of reassurance is given to the industry. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Deben
The Committee on Climate Change has made it clear that CCS is an essential part of the matters that we have to address if we are to meet our statutory responsibilities. I doubt if anyone on any side of the House would not agree with that, and I thought it generous of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, to say what she said about the past history of CCS.
That has been a pretty universal thing; we have not got it right. It is very difficult to get right, and I would not blame the Government for the difficulties. However, we have to solve those difficulties, and this amendment is a most useful way of making it that much more certain for the industry. If we want to use the resources that may be at our disposal—fracked gas, for example—we have to have CCS to meet our 2050 demands.
In a sense, that is less important to the British picture than to the world picture. The biggest contribution that we could make to the world picture is in the development of CCS because that would break through in a series of countries—the mechanism by which we can have the energy we need as well as protecting ourselves against dangerous climate change.
I hope my noble friend the Minister will understand that for us this is a central area, and if the Government are not able to agree to this perhaps they will come forward with some alternative mechanism to make sure that the ends put forward here will be met. I am sure that she will want to know that this issue has been widely tweeted, because it is seen as so important by so many different people across the field. It is very important that we give a proper response to the noble Baroness’s request.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
It is comforting to know that the tweets are flowing. The trouble is that CCS has not yet been made to work. I support this amendment. I supported the efforts of the previous Government and the present Government, in partnership with the private sector, to make CCS work. I supported the £1 billion that was on offer from both Governments. I supported the EU competition, which added yet more prizes that no one has managed to win. I was involved with two companies that tried very hard. No one anywhere in the world has yet made CCS work economically.
I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, but I think it is important not to make this a central part of the answer when we do not yet know if we can make it work. We have to find other ways of achieving the objectives that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has concerns about. Let us hope that this is made to work, and if these amendments increase the chances that it does, then fine. I am certainly not against the amendments and I think it is the answer. In fact, it has been the answer that people have seen coming for a long time, at least 10 to 15 years. I fear that it is still 10 to 15 years away, but by all means let us go on trying.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I say this with some hesitation and with great respect to the noble Lord who has just spoken. It is not right to say that there is no place in the world where CCS is working. A couple of years ago, some of us paid a visit to the BP research centre at Sunbury, where we were given a very interesting demonstration of their plant in Algeria. BP is extracting gas from very widespread gas deposits, stretching over perhaps 20 to 25 miles in various pockets. There is a substantial refining operation that includes CCS, and the resultant CO2 that is extracted is then pumped straight back into the gas reservoirs from which the gas has been extracted. The gas supplied for the market is then piped to the coast and goes across the Mediterranean. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, will perhaps be able to explain his gestures. It is a single plant, I accept that, but it has been made to work and it is economic for the company that operates that gas field in Algeria.
BP also made the point that there are CCS plants in the Far East. One does not know what the circumstances are, commercial or otherwise, but there is a lot of work going on internationally on this. I started by being sceptical about the Government’s competition and the £1 billion that they have put up. I have become persuaded that, although it has taken an incredibly long time to get underway, they now have two very firm takers that are going to develop CCS. I think therefore that the noble Lord’s guess of 15 years may be unduly pessimistic.
I absolutely agree with my noble friend Lord Deben that CCS must be an essential part of our armoury if we are going to get anywhere near our 2050 target. Anything that can encourage this must be right, and for that reason I, too, support this amendment.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I support the amendment. CCS is very important. While most of us here—I am happy to note that there have been some notable exceptions in previous Committee sessions—are in favour of decarbonisation and the UK becoming a leader of the world in renewable energy, I think we would all hope that we can become leaders in the world in CCS because, frankly, there are huge economic possibilities if we can pull it off. China is a very good example; contrary to the often-put theories of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, China is deeply concerned about climate change. The Chinese actually produce a new nuclear power station every week but still have more energy produced by wind than nuclear energy, and they are concerned.
Lord Deben
Did the noble Lord notice today’s announcement by the Chinese that they were considerably upping their investment in photovoltaics in order to make sure that there would be a great deal more sun power? This runs entirely contrary to the claims made by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, when he spoke to us on that particular issue.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for endorsing my point. I was going to say that, unfortunately, China’s ravenous need for more and more power means that it has found it difficult to produce that power without building more and more coal-fired power stations in the short term. China will be a really big marketplace for CCS if we can pull it off.
As I understand it, one of the future supplies of gas, underground coal gas, could be the cheapest way of removing the carbon dioxide—although, again, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, these techniques have yet to be proven on a large scale. Before the fuel is burnt, it becomes a largely hydrogen mix, which, as noble Lords will know, produces an effluent made up mostly of water. UCG—underground coal gas—could be a fuel of the future. If we can get CCS involved in UCG, it would be an economically beneficial project for the UK to carry off. We must support CCS to the best of our ability in terms not only of adequate funding but of latitude in the regulations to allow it to overcome its teething problems.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for introducing this chapter of the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will understand that when I first studied the Bill and saw that Clause 47 opens with a formula, I was rather bothered. Providing that we can all keep to layman’s language, I will try my best, but if we go into formulae, I may need more advice.
I thank the noble Baroness also for tabling this amendment, which seeks to provide carbon capture and storage projects with an exemption from the emissions performance standard during their commissioning and proving period, with any exemption limited to a maximum period of three years. I am grateful, too, to all noble Lords for their contributions to this interesting debate at the beginning of this part of the Bill. I continue to learn a great deal.
The Government believe that CCS will have a critical role to play in reducing emissions in our country, allowing coal and gas, including that produced from indigenous sources, to continue to be part of our future low-carbon energy mix. The Government share the noble Baroness’s enthusiasm for CCS and want to see it deployed at scale in the 2020s, competing on cost with other low-carbon technologies. Our CCS programme is designed to drive forward the rapid commercialisation of CCS and includes £1 billion of capital funding for the first projects under the CCS competition. I note that we have two preferred bidders, Peterhead and White Rose; obviously, we will need to consider their progress.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin talked about CCS working abroad. It is advancing particularly in America and Canada. Those projects are combined with enhanced oil recovery, which improves the economics of the projects. Some of the circumstances of Europe and this country may be different, but those examples suggest that progress is being made around the world.
The noble Baroness will no doubt be aware that the original draft Bill contained provision for giving CCS projects supported under our CCS competition an exemption from the EPS. The purpose was to provide CCS projects with some flexibility in relation to the limits imposed on the operation of a plant by the EPS in order to help manage the inherent risks associated with trials of a first-of-a-kind technology. However, during pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, concerns were raised around the scope of the exemption provisions, in that the use of broad exemptions could undermine the purpose of the EPS. The Government looked at this again and decided, on balance, that these concerns could be addressed by managing any EPS-related risk through the CCS project-funding contract issued to a project under our CCS competition.
However, there have been a number of developments since last year with our CCS competition, which has stimulated industry to bring a number of proposals for CCS projects. The Government are therefore keen to encourage the development and deployment of CCS, irrespective of whether it is part of the CCS competition, so we have already been considering options for how we might provide CCS projects with some flexibility under the EPS during the early commissioning phase.
The noble Baroness’s amendment is tightly prescribed and would limit the duration of the exemption so that it was explicitly consistent with the overall purpose of the EPS. Undoubtedly there are positive advantages to the approach reflected in the amendment. As I understand the way of things, therefore, I would like to give much further consideration to the amendment ahead of Report. I repeat my thanks to the noble Baroness and ask her if she will consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness Worthington
I thank the Minister for his encouraging response and for saying that he will take the amendment away. Today’s contributions have underlined the importance of CCS. Here we stand a chance of the UK really capitalising on our natural assets, in terms of both the storage capability that we have in the North Sea and our engineering prowess and experience in offshore matters. I am hopeful that we will see CCS projects coming forward in the UK very soon.
In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about whether or not CCS has been demonstrated anywhere, I refer him to the helpful report that the Government produced on CCS. Every three years the Government are legally bound to report on CCS developments. This Bill will actually repeal that but my noble friend Lord Grantchester is suggesting that the report should stay. In that helpful report we learn that investment is indeed going on today in CCS in the UK, and it details two plants that are very close to being commissioned in the US, due to come on stream in 2014. I am hopeful that then, at least, we will be able to put the lie to the idea to that CCS cannot be commercialised. If the US shows the way, I am sure that many others will quickly follow, including China, which, as we know, is investing in a number of CCS projects and, I am sure, is racing to get there too.
We need to up our game and get on with it, and this amendment is designed to ensure that there are no unnecessary hurdles in the way. I am encouraged by the Minister’s response so I am happy to withdraw.
Lord Teverson
Before the noble Baroness does so, the Minister mentioned 2020 in terms of commercialisation. Given the current stage of the tendering process, when might we perhaps predict that the first full-scale CCS demonstration project will be operating? Do we have a date for that now? I think we are all concerned. We all want this technology to win. We are aware, as the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, has said, that it has taken a huge amount of time to get momentum, despite all the good will that there is for it.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I thank my noble friend. My understanding is that we may be working on this as early as 2015.
Baroness Worthington
Baroness Worthington
This amendment would also amend the EPS regulations. The consultation document issued on the EPS back in December 2010 started out with an important premise that we could all support, which was:
“The objective of the EPS is to ensure that while coal continues to make an important contribution to security of supply, it does so in a manner consistent with the UK’s decarbonisation objectives”.
It is important to remind ourselves of that because it was a very good starting point for this process. I note that it mentions decarbonisation “objectives”, and the plural there is very important. We are not faced with a legal requirement to decarbonise in a rush by 2050. A series of legally binding carbon budgets is set for us 15 years in advance. We know that that is the primary framework by which the Government are bound to deliver a decarbonised energy system.
When the July 2011 White Paper, Planning Our Electric Future, came out, the issue of grandfathering the EPS—meaning that the limits created in law should be allowed to be unchanged for plants below those limits—was discussed. It was proposed that the grandfathering should last for 20 years. I am grateful for a briefing from the think tank E3G, which pointed out that at that time the regulators said that 20 years of payback for a gas-fired power station was actually quite a long time and that 10 years was usual for payback on investment. They therefore suggested that a 15-year window for grandfathering would be more appropriate.
Fast-forward to Saturday 17 March 2012 and the surprise joint Statement by Secretary of State Ed Davey and the Chancellor, where it was announced that the EPS limit would remain unchanged at 450 grams per kilowatt hour, all the way until 2025—a considerable increase on that level of grandfathering, against what the regulator proposed and what was initially proposed in the White Paper. Why was this? What had happened in the intervening months? Quite clearly a grand bargain had been struck between the department and the Treasury, and that grand bargain has been the cause of a great deal of uncertainty. Essentially, it has allowed for two competing philosophies and energy strategies to emerge. One strategy is a dash for gas—unabated gas—which is obviously the Chancellor’s preferred option, and the other is much more sensible: the department’s policy of a mix of low-carbon generation. Somewhere along the line, though, the department clearly lost out in the arguments, and now we have an EPS that allows for unabated gas all the way to 2045.
The amendment seeks to change that by reducing the excessively long grandfathering period to the year 2029. We believe that this is consistent with the decarbonisation trajectory that we need to be on, and indeed with the Bill, which, we are told, is supposed to be setting a decarbonisation objective—it is not clear that that will be done, but we anticipate that it will— in 2016. How that can be set with gas being allowed to operate unabated all the way until 2045 is quite unclear to me.
The length of the grandfathering period seems to go against the existing requirement that all new thermal plants over 300 megawatts should be carbon capture and storage-ready. That provision was put in there for a reason: we anticipate meeting our targets through the application of CCS on thermal plants. If a completely unabated dash for gas is allowed to operate unimpeded until 2045, why should plants be made CCS-ready? It seems illogical to have that requirement but then not to use it.
I am sure that the Minister will come back with lots of arguments about this being a backstop measure and other policies being in place essentially to prevent us from exceeding our budgets, but I will speak to those when we come to the final amendment in this group. Those arguments, which I am sure will be around security of supply, costs and the like, do not stack up. As I said before, the amendments that we are proposing to the EPS clauses act as a package. We have been very encouraged by the warm words and the acceptance of the logic behind the CCS amendment that we have just discussed, and this is a part of that process. It is not just about allowing CCS to have a grace period and a proving period; CCS needs to have a market, and the market drivers are going to be these regulations.
Left to their own devices, generators will continue to build unabated plants. That is the cheapest thing that they can do. They will fit abatement equipment only when they are required to do so. The quickest, cheapest, most efficient way of doing that is through these regulations. These are an essential component in the Government’s armoury to ensure that we meet our carbon budgets and our legally binding carbon targets. I hope that the Minister will see that this is part of a package, and might be similarly receptive to this amendment and the thinking behind it. I beg to move.
Lord Deben
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for his response to the previous debate, which was measured and extremely encouraging. My problem with the issue that the noble Baroness has raised is simply that were the late date to produce a very considerable amount of gas-fired generation set at so late a date, we are seriously suggesting that in six years we are going to meet an 80% reduction in our emissions; that is what we are statutorily required to do. I say to my noble friend that I have not yet seen any evidence that this helps the other. This, after all, is a statement by the Government. It is not a statutory requirement. We have a statutory requirement. I hope that my noble friend takes this opportunity to explain to the Committee how this particular date can possibly sit side by side with all the other commitments of the Government.
That is the issue. It is a very simple, quietly put, but absolute issue. If you look at all the other things that the Government intend to do, and insist that they are doing, they do not, could not and will not stand alongside this date of 2044. That is six years before we have to achieve a statutory requirement.
It is hugely valuable to have the opportunity of raising this question with the Minister. I recognise that he will not agree with the amendment; I know perfectly well that that is not what is on his lists. His problem is that the Government have so far been unable to explain the disconnect between these two. I would not like to follow the noble Baroness in her attempts to describe how this came about. The fact is that it ain’t gonna stand up. The great thing about the Bill is that we are trying to ensure that we have a real future basis for action in order to meet our statutory requirements and the increasing threat of climate change. Therefore, we ought to highlight to the Government that this is not a matter of passing interest—a day or two out, a year or two different. This is a fundamental flaw in the present circumstances. The Minister will regret his position, because the discussions should not be taking place here. This discussion should have happened when it was announced. Many of us remember that no discussion could have taken place because of the way in which the announcement was made.
Any policy which was consistent with a grandfathering situation leading to 2044 could not be consistent with the statutory requirements for the reduction in emissions. Any policy consistent with the statutory requirements for 2050’s reduction of 80% could not be consistent with this statement about gas grandfathering. Because I have a great desire that the coalition Government shall succeed in their claim to be the greenest Government ever—a desire which I have independently and as chairman of the climate change committee because I want any Government to reach that goal—I say to the Minister that we shall have to listen very carefully to what he says. So far no Minister who has attempted to answer this question has been able to make these two things consistent. As long as they are not consistent, Ministers cannot blame industry outside. They have to ask themselves whether there is a consistent policy or whether the policy is in fact right at its centre.
Lord Oxburgh
My Lords, I support this amendment and the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. It would be very interesting if the Minister could tell the Committee what he regards the implications of sticking to 2044 as a date would be, because it has totally excruciating consequences for the generation pattern in other parts of the system if our legal obligations are to be met.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. I will not repeat all the arguments that I and others have already given for the 2030 decarbonisation target. I seem to remember the Government’s response to that was, “Yes, probably a good idea but not yet”. Frankly, their emissions target of 450 grams per kilowatt hour in 2044 is just laughable. Bearing in mind that even if all our electricity is produced at that time by unabated gas, in 2044 our emissions would be around 300 grams per kilowatt hour. I cannot understand why this figure has been put in the Bill. It is absurd to set such a target for 2044.
To save me jumping to my feet on the next amendment we will discuss, I would like to say that I would prefer to see a target of 300 grams in 2029. I prefer to combine the two amendments, which would make a lot more sense. As the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, has said, we have to keep driving this CCS agenda. As I said in the previous debate, we have to be economically ambitious here, so I very much support this agenda and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I, too, have great concern about the very late date here. It seems that this, perhaps ironically, is the one area where I would hope to put a maximum, which might be 450, in primary legislation but give the Secretary of State discretion to tighten that standard through secondary legislation as years go by. I would expect to do that in most other areas of life, perhaps through European legislation for car emissions, white goods and all those things where we expect to tighten emission and efficiency limits over time. If a number is put in the Bill for the next 31 years, obviously it could be changed by primary legislation but that would take time and would be difficult. Rather than mess around with an EPS, we might as well just say, “We want to stop any coal generating after 2020 and we will let the rest of it do what we want”. That is the effect of writing the Bill as it stands.
Lord Deben
Does my noble friend find it rather curious that we are prepared to put a date 31 years from now on this issue when we find it so difficult to give any long-term assurance that we need on any issue relating to reducing our emissions? In other words, it seems that we will do this for something that manifestly undermines our aims but we will not do it, even to the point of 2030, on things that might support our aims.
Lord Teverson
Indeed, although we have the situation, as I understand it—my noble friend will be closer to this—whereby the Government have to agree carbon budgets as they go along, this is contradictory to that same thing. I agree with him completely on that. I hope we can find a way to follow this amendment or to take out this very late date for a fixed emissions limit as high as that. In any other area of machinery or equipment, we would not accept this level of longevity for an emissions target.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment, which has prompted a further debate on this additional aspect of EPS. During our debate so far, there has been a good deal of consensus among noble Lords on ensuring that the UK remains an attractive option for those looking to invest in a low-carbon electricity sector, and on the importance of gas generation. Noble Lords have also noted that the key to meeting that objective is providing investors with certainty about the regulatory environment that will govern their assets.
The Government’s gas generation strategy, published in December, set out our view that, along with low-carbon generation, we expect gas generation to continue to play a major role in our electricity mix over the coming decades as we decarbonise our electricity system, providing flexible back-up to increasing levels of intermittent generation. It also said that we are likely to need significant investment in new gas plants, in part to replace older coal, gas and nuclear plants as they are retired from the system, with much of that investment likely to be in the 2020s. It is therefore vital that we provide investors in new gas plants with the degree of certainty needed to ensure investment comes forward. Certainty over the EPS is part of that, and grandfathering the EPS limit until the end of 2044 will—
Lord Cameron of Dillington
A gas power station produces emissions of 300 grams per kilowatt hour, coal 600 grams. Hence we have the target of 450 grams. So, if we are trying to encourage more gas, why must we have an emissions target of 150 grams per kilowatt hour more than the 300 that gas emits?
Lord Teverson
Perhaps there is something I misunderstand here in the argument. This is not just about grandfathering, as I read it, it is about new plants in 2044. It will still only be 450. To get investor certainty, yes, we need the grandfathering, because once you have built the plants, as with cars, you are stuck with that. I would accept that once you have built them you would expect them to go through their normal life before any major refurbishment; you would expect that to stay at the emissions limit applying when that plant was first operated. However, this includes new plants, as I understand it, right up to 2044. That is not related to investor certainty, because plants at the moment would have grandfathering rights, but if we moved this date later on we could have different rules, and that would not affect investor certainty.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I thank noble Lords for their interventions. I think all will be revealed in due course.
I want to return to the matter of investors and business, because certainty over the EPS is part of that. The grandfathering of the EPS limit until the end of 2044 will, we believe, give investors in new gas plants certainty that the operation of their assets will not be constrained by the EPS for a period considered sufficient to make a return on their investment.
I am particularly mindful of what my noble friend Lord Deben said about business. It is important to note that business has made it clear that these grandfathering provisions are essential if the EPS is not to deter or increase the cost of investment in new gas plants.
Lord Deben
On that point, will my noble friend give way? I still do not understand the difference of view. The Government refuse to have a carbon intensity target for 2030 in order to give confidence to business to invest in low-carbon generation, but they insist that we have the equivalent for 2049, or whenever it is, because otherwise we will not get investment in gas. At least one of those arguments must be untrue. I cannot understand this utter conflict. They are two different arguments; my noble friend gave the one on the one occasion and now gives the opposite on this. We cannot really accept this argument on the basis of logic.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Let me quote the CBI, which is particularly supportive of the Bill’s proposals:
“The current EPS proposal should remain unchanged … It has been set at a level that will allow new gas plants to be built … and it contains strong grandfathering proposals out to 2045 which will give investors confidence”.
I say to my noble friend that this is what the CBI believes is necessary for business investment, which I think all noble Lords would agree we desperately need.
Lord Deben
Most of the members of the CBI have also asked for that on the question of carbon intensity in 2030, but there the Government have said, “It doesn’t matter what they say on this because we know best”. Yet when it comes to this issue, they quote the CBI and other industry bodies in favour of it. I come back to my point: we must have this approach either for both cases or for neither. If we are to have it for gas, surely we do not need it as far ahead as this. I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron: we need it not at this level but only at 300 grams, as no one has suggested that gas will produce emissions of 450 grams. Where is that extra 150 grams coming from? What is it for?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
As I say, I am quoting the CBI specifically on this matter, and it cites the year 2045. Although I understand what my noble friend is saying, I cannot renege on the fact that the CBI is specifically citing that particular year in the quote that I wanted to mention to the Committee.
There has also been a query, although we are going to discuss the 300 grams in further amendments, about the 450 grams. That figure represents a significant reduction in the emissions of a new coal plant. This level builds on and supports the planning requirement for any new coal plant to be equipped with CCS while being above the level of carbon emissions for a new gas plant. The 450-gram limit also provides some flexibility for CCS projects to help manage the uncertainties associated with first-of-kind technology. As I say, though, we will have a separate debate on this matter with the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth.
If I may continue, I say to noble Lords who may be concerned that we are locking in high levels of unabated gas generation well into the future, while grandfathering will give investor certainty over the regulatory regime under which their assets will operate in relation to EPS, it does not permit a right to emit. This is because as levels of low-carbon generation increase, with its use effectively prioritised due to its low generation cost, unabated gas generation will increasingly be displaced. The role of gas will therefore be to balance an energy system that includes greater amounts of inflexible and intermittent generation. Analysis for our gas generation strategy shows average overall load factors for gas plants at around 27% in 2030, based on achieving 100-grams-per-kilowatt-hour grid average emissions intensity.
The role of government is to strike a balance between the three objectives of energy policy: to decarbonise our electricity system, to maintain security of energy supply to the country and to keep costs to consumers to a minimum. I understand that the intention behind this amendment is to provide greater certainty for decarbonisation but, for the reasons I have set out, I believe that shortening the grandfathering period of the EPS would introduce uncertainty and risk to the new gas plants we will need to build up to 2030, and that the better way to balance these three objectives is through the approach that we are taking in the Bill.
I will study the references that have been made during this short debate, particularly my exchanges with my noble friend Lord Deben. As this is a technical matter, it would probably be better if I wrote to him and other noble Lords on this. I appreciate that the noble Baroness will be disappointed by my reply but I hope she understands that the Government cannot support her proposed approach because of the three objectives that we need to balance. On that basis, I hope that she will withdraw her amendment.
Lord Teverson
I know that I am stretching the patience of my noble friend but I want to get this clear in my mind. Does the legislation mean that in 2043 I can build a completely new gas plant as long as it emits under 450 grams per kilowatt hour, and operate it thereafter?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My understanding is that the answer to that is yes.
Lord Deben
Perhaps I might suggest to my noble friend that there is a way out of this, which is that we put into the Bill a statement that all this applies to plants built before 2025. The Government can then have all that they want but we do not have the ridiculous situation in which I can build a gas plant in 2043, seven years before we have to reduce our emissions by 80%, which would drive a wedge totally through that. Is my noble friend prepared to consult on whether the Government will accept an amendment put forward on that basis, which has been suggested to me by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, who has made a very sensible proposal?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I have said that I will study everything that all noble Lords have said. The point is that you would not have certainty, building in 2043, that the EPS level would stay the same beyond 2044. I think that probably helps to clarify that. However, I will consider all the points that my noble friend has made.
Baroness Worthington
I thank the Minister for his comments. It is incorrect to say that this amendment would introduce more uncertainty. It would introduce certainty of a different kind, one that is compatible with our legally binding targets on climate change. It is not introducing uncertainty because it is still primary legislation that tells the investor the framework within which they need to operate.
Are investors living on a different planet? Do they not know about the climate change targets that have been set for us, the legally binding carbon budgets and the planning requirements on the very plants that they will be building—that they should be carbon capture and storage-ready? Do they think that we are simply going to give up on climate change and ignore all this and that they can be merrily emitting for ever? It beggars belief that investors are saying that this is an absolute necessity for them to invest. Twenty years is ample to get a return on investment.
As I pointed out, when this was first being mooted, a 20-year grandfathering was suggested. Where this 31-year grandfathering came from, who knows? But it is not good enough for the Government to be quoting the CBI as if it is somehow the world’s expert on this. We know that it is not the CBI that has demanded this; we know it is the Treasury, and it comes back to the very point that I have been making throughout these proceedings, that there are two strategies at play in government on energy. There is uncertainty and a lack of clarity because of that. To argue that this amendment somehow introduces more uncertainty is quite rich, frankly, and completely inaccurate.
As your Lordships can tell, I am very disappointed that the Government cannot see the logic of this. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has pointed out, these two factors are incompatible. You cannot have unabated gas being built right the way out to 2044 and then suddenly meet your carbon targets. It is simply not possible.
You are creating a legal framework which lacks credibility. There is nothing more uncertain than that; if you ask any investor they will say that. This will be challenged and changed. Investors know that because they are not stupid and live in the real world where climate change is increasingly an issue that we need to tackle and we have a legally binding framework that insists that we do so.
I suggest that this is taken away and looked at again. The suggestion that came in at the end of perhaps putting a clause in which stipulates that this applies to plant built before a certain date is potentially a good way. However, I would say that this amendment is a perfectly good way of doing it, too. I am very disappointed to be withdrawing the amendment, and it is almost certainly something that we will come back to on Report.
Viscount Hanworth
Viscount Hanworth
My Lords, with the leave of the Committee, I will also speak to Amendment 51KA and to the other proposed amendments to Clause 47. In the process of doing this, I am sure that I will be echoing some of the things which have already been said. It has been revealed that the Bill is utterly inconsistent in this connection. It has been revealed that it is schizophrenic because there seem to be two opposing factions driving the Bill.
I will begin by examining the implications of Clause 47. It declares a formula for calculating an emissions limit for electricity generating stations that is the product of three factors. The first factor is the rate of CO2 emissions in the grams per kilowatt hour of a station running efficiently and at full capacity. The second factor is the maximum capacity of the station. The third factor represents the assumption that the plant will be operating for 85% of the available hours.
In the discussion of these matters, attention has been concentrated on the emissions rate but it is clear that this does not tell the full story. The other assumptions also bear some examining. It seems unlikely that, whenever it is running, the station will be operating at full capacity. It is also unlikely that it will be in operation for 7,746 hours in the year out of the total of 8,760 hours—that is, for 85 percent of the time. The Committee can imagine a host of stations operating for much less than 85% of the available time, all of which fulfil their statutory limits as defined in the Bill, and all of which have actual emission rates far in excess of the statutory rate. The consequence would be an average rate of emissions that, likewise, exceeds by far the so-called statutory rate.
The statutory rate of 450 grams may be compared with the emissions rate of coal-fired stations and of stations employing combined-cycle gas turbines. A DECC press release of March 2012 estimates the former at 800 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour and the latter at 400 grams per kilowatt hour. It follows that, whereas unabated coal-fired stations fall foul of the limits, the combined cycle gas turbine will fall well within them. Unabated coal-fired power stations also fall foul of European Union standards for limiting the emissions of nitrates and of sulphate particles.
In this country, the majority of these stations are reaching the ends of their lives. Therefore, we can assume that they have no future in their present form. Nevertheless, it will be essential to monitor the process by which these noxious stations are decommissioned. For that reason, Amendment 51KA asks the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament the strategy for phasing out unabated coal.
It is estimated that, currently, the power sector has an emissions intensity of just over 500 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour. The conclusion is that, after the demise of the coal and oil stations, nothing would need to be done to fulfil the emissions performance standard that is declared in the Bill. Therefore, the way is open for a second instalment of the so-called “dash for gas”, which would see virtually all new electricity generating plant taking the form of combined cycle gas turbine equipment. Moreover, it has been widely recognised that this is precisely the scenario envisaged by a powerful faction within the Conservative Government, which is led by the Chancellor, George Osborne.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I suggest that there is much here for the Government to think about seriously. We need a policy that is clearly consistent in its detail as well as in its broad thrust, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has rightly suggested that this is an area in which consistency is not readily obvious. We are looking to make clear to everyone the internal consistency that I am sure there is.
My noble friend rightly said that the key issue, as we have been arguing right the way through, is certainty for the future. Surely, if we are going to meet the obligations laid before us under the Climate Change Act, we need to make it possible for people to proceed along a sensible path. We have carbon budgets that take us all the way to 2027—that is where we are—yet we appear to have none of the underpinning activity to ensure that, side by side with that, the energy industry is able to meet the requirements of those carbon budgets. However, Parliament has passed those carbon budgets; they are part of the law of the land, as part of a structure that Parliament decided upon. We ought to make the point in this Committee that Parliament decided that as Parliament. It was not the Government who decided on the Climate Change Act but Parliament. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Scottish nationalists, Welsh nationalists, Irish Protestants and Labour Members together said, “This is a non-party issue. We as Parliament want this to happen”. I am sure that my noble friend will know that in the House of Commons there were but five votes against that Act, including the two tellers.
I am not by any means saying that the noble Viscount has exactly the right answer to this, but I say to my noble friend that we have to recognise that unless we do something in this area, as in the previous amendment, we stand challenged in defending the claim that we are keeping to the law of the land. That is the issue for this Committee. Our job is to ensure that we obey the law of the land, and the law is very clear here. It has targets and budgets up to 2027, and I do not see how you can meet those if at the same time you are continuing and creating energy sources that are manifestly not in line with that. I hope my noble friend will be able to say at least that he will take this away and look at it again. Any other answer puts this Committee into the real difficulty of having to remind the House of Lords that we have responsibilities in terms of our legal needs to meet the decisions that Parliament as a whole has already come to.
Lord Dixon-Smith
My Lords, I have hesitated to intervene in this section for some time, but I feel that I should follow my noble friend Lord Deben in this matter. The truth is that the 2050 target for the electricity generating industry is zero. That is the reality of the economy that we have to head into. To assume that we can have gas plants running at this level five years short of that is perhaps acceptable if they are constructed in the next short timescale, with a view to them going out of use in 2045, but it will not be acceptable for something constructed in 2040. It is as simple and basic as that.
The purpose of having a discussion in a Committee like this on a Bill like this is to enable Members to raise these types of inconsistencies and for the Government to say, and I hope that the Minister will: “There is actually a point here. We will go away and think very seriously about this”. If gas generation is to continue past 2050, it will have to have CCS fitted to it and will have to work pretty well perfectly. My opinion—I think I said this at Second Reading—is that we should stop messing about with CCS in coal because it is not going to get us there. It may get us there with gas, or we have to have other forms of generation. That is now the law of the land and we are not going to set that aside. Frankly, one would have to say to our noble friends speaking for the department that if they flatly reject this, they are asking for amendments to be brought forward on Report that will then have to be voted on, and I would rather they did not do that. They ought to be able to arrive at a more reasoned approach.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, in speaking to the amendments tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, I will not go over what I have previously said. I feel strongly that this aspect of the Bill has not had the degree of scrutiny that it deserves. Our Committee has gone through it in far greater detail than was achieved in the Commons, where only a cursory debate was had. With the number of noble Lords who have spoken, we clearly have expressed concern that the Government have not quite got it right in their current formulation.
One of the problems is that this is primary legislation with an equation, numbers and dates written into it. That makes it an incredibly inflexible tool that would need more primary legislation to change. I do not believe that the levels here were the product of a great deal of consideration, analysis and thought; I believe that they came out of a hurried meeting between two departments with different views, and to have them enshrined in primary legislation seems reckless. I encourage the Government to think carefully before pushing for these matters to stay unamended in primary legislation. Perhaps it would be better for them to be dealt with in regulation.
Given the wide-ranging powers that the Government have given themselves on everything else with very little detail, it is odd that this rather unhelpful set of prescriptions is in primary legislation. There are lots of things here to be taken back and thought about. I will speak more on the coal issue when we come to those amendments as there are considerable issues about unabated coal in the future, but there is definitely merit in taking this away.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for his amendments, which have given us a further opportunity to consider these matters. As I have said, with my noble friend the Minister I will obviously consider what has been reported in Hansard. That is the important part of what we are doing in Committee.
The EPS focuses on helping us to meet our commitment to preventing new unabated coal-fired power stations being built by limiting the emissions of any new coal plant to around half of what they would otherwise be. The EPS supports the planning requirement that any new coal-fired power station must be equipped with CCS on at least 300 megawatts of its generating capacity, and will ensure that any new coal plant is constructed and operated in a way consistent with our decarbonisation objectives. Setting the limit at 450 grams per kilowatt hour will allow some flexibility to assist the economic optimisation of CCS demonstration projects and to manage the uncertainties associated with first-of-a-kind CCS projects.
We are concerned about going to a limit level of 300, which is below the emissions level of even the most efficient and cleanest new gas plant operating at base load, as proposed by this amendment, because of the major implications it may have for this country’s security of supply and impact on consumers’ bills. The 300 limit would restrict the running hours of new and cleaner gas plant that are needed to replace ageing capacity retiring over the next decade, impacting on the commercial viability of new gas plant and so deterring the much needed investment we need or increasing the costs of those investments.
In addition to introducing a significant risk to investors, the 300 limit could, under certain scenarios, lead to increased emissions and costs. For example, if new gas plants were restricted in their operating hours by the 300 limit, that could lead to the need to use less efficient coal or gas plants to make up the shortfall in operating hours in order to provide power for the country. This is a scenario that I am sure the noble Viscount does not intend to create through his amendment, but I think that there is a danger of that. Setting the EPS at 300 would also increase performance risk for CCS projects and, as a result, would increase the costs of projects that are currently coming forward now under the Government’s £1 billion CCS competition.
The noble Viscount’s Amendment 51KA would insert a provision into Clause 47 that would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a strategy for the phase-out of unabated coal generation within six months of Royal Assent. The measures in the Bill form part of a suite of policies designed to deliver the Government’s strategy for reducing carbon emissions, as set out in the Government’s carbon plan published in December 2011.
The Government have also published a number of low-carbon technology-specific plans, including road maps for carbon capture and storage and renewables. A reduction in unabated coal generation is therefore strongly implicit in these plans and policies, so I remain to be convinced that a strategy of the type proposed by the amendment is required.
Viscount Hanworth
I regret that the Minister has been placed in a position of having to defend the indefensible. Nevertheless, I am pleased that he appears to have understood the fallacy inherent in the formula that is written into the Bill, which would indeed allow the rate of emissions to exceed anything that is reasonable if we presuppose, as we seem to be doing, that there is no role for renewables in this future scenario.
I shall indeed withdraw the amendment, but I give notice that I shall raise the issue again on Report. In fact, I do not think that I really need to make that assertion because I am pretty convinced that the same issues will be raised by many other people. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Teverson
“( ) for determining how the duty imposed by subsection (1) should apply to carbon dioxide emissions associated with the lifecycle of production and use of biomass fuels in all generating stations”
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I move into an area that on the whole is pretty contentious. I do so almost reluctantly because I am a great supporter of biomass. The question is: what should the characteristic of that biomass be? What is the truth behind the sustainability of that biomass? What does it mean in terms of major changes in the way in which we produce electricity, particularly from existing fossil fuel plants in the UK, in the context of the Bill?
We have already seen some of the effects of burning biomass. The major effect of course is in deforestation in developing countries. It was previously estimated that some 20% of global emission were produced by deforestation—by burning trees while they were standing in forests. That figure has been reduced to something like 10% to 12%, but it remains a major amount, and that is clearly adding to the stock of carbon in the atmosphere. More than half of it is accounted for by Brazil and Indonesia.
The low-carbon route map for our generation suggests that by about 2017 we will have some 6 gigawatts of biomass generation within the UK. Most of that will be around the use of coal plants as they are at the moment, co-firing or moving on to dedicated biomass generators instead. This is a major change to make while we are still trying to understand the whole-carbon cycle effect of that change. The amount of biomass required to feed that capacity of some 6 gigawatts is of course much larger than our own harvest of wood within the UK.
I do not necessarily oppose importing by ship from abroad. That is a very efficient and low-carbon way of bringing fuel into the UK, depending on where it comes from and on its road routes at either end. What concerns me is to understand the thinking of the Government on looking at the whole life cycle of biomass, in terms of it being used on that scale, within the United Kingdom. As I understand it, there is a rule before the ROCs can apply—and future financial benefits for renewable energy—stating that the biomass must be at least 60 % of emissions, as previously.
How are the Government looking at this now? Can the Minister describe the situation with European legislation, as I understand there are moves in this area to restrict or reduce the amount of fuel or biomass that can be used towards renewable targets? I want to understand how this Bill will fit within that potential scenario. Unfortunately, in many ways I am now convinced that it is not quite as straightforward as it was and that burning biomass is not a zero-carbon sum. If you reduce the stock of wood in the world, it will take some time to replace it. If that is within the current forestry limits or within the current limits in cutting down and using that wood, then that is sustainable. However, if we are going to increase it beyond that amount, then that sustainability becomes questionable. We need to pay rather more attention to these factors than we have done in the past, and I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of how the Government are looking at this and how we can ensure that this harvest is sustainable over its whole life rather than necessarily looking at it as a carbon-free, completely renewable resource for electricity generation. I beg to move.
Lord Deben
I should say to my noble friend Lord Teverson that having not perhaps been easy in my comments up to now, on this I say to him that this is a real and very difficult issue that I am sure the Government are thinking about very hard. This is because levels of sustainability differ in different circumstances. The Committee on Climate Change discusses this on a regular basis because it is extremely hard to keep up with the developing circumstances. What we do not want is to think that we have changed to a low-carbon alternative and discover that actually it is nothing of the sort. That is the worry that people have.
There is a second worry, which is that we are facing ever greater shortages of food. The one thing we do not want is to have a situation in which our battle against climate change—climate change itself causes some of the shortages of food—is then seen as a kind of competition with the provision of food. That is of course why biomass in those circumstances is so complex a matter. However, I say to my noble friend that no one has a simple answer to this and I am sure he is not going to give us one today; we would not expect one.
No one has a simple answer because we all started off on the wrong basis. For example, the green movement was very much in favour of biomass. It was therefore almost unquestionably a good thing until they began to recognise the potential downside. That meant there was a huge swing to the opposite direction. If we are not careful, we will find ourselves in extremes rather than finding some sensible place for the pendulum to stop.
It is also true that there are many vested interests in this area. The farming industry saw it as a wonderful way in which it could increase its opportunities of reaching markets because this was a new area that farmers could exploit. Of course, as food prices go up and their returns from food production become greater, it is a real issue for them too. While in the United States, I have to declare that I had a visit from the representatives of the so-called—“so-called” because I cannot prove this, as I will explain shortly—sustainable forestry industry. They came to explain to me, as chair of the Committee on Climate Change, that they were unhappy about what we had said about these issues. I said, “Do you have forests that are independently certified?”. “No,” they said, “but we know it’s all right”. I cannot accept that as a reasonable response. In the world out there, we must be careful about how we change our energy supplies and do not undermine the truth of what we are saying.
So I say to my noble friend: this is a difficult area. None of us expects him to have an easy answer, because no one else has. However, I hope he understands that we will have to look at this during the Bill and to come back to it on Report, simply because things are moving so fast that we need to be sure that we have done everything we can to protect the Government from later assertions that they have encouraged the substitution of one form of emission creation with another form of emission creation. That is what we have to guard against.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I, too, have been following this issue carefully. Before my noble friend Lord Ridley had a very provocative article published in The Times three or four weeks ago, I had quite an argument with him. He told me what he was going to write and I said it was rubbish. He duly wrote his article, and there were letters, including one from my noble friend the Minister, and from a number of other sources, which said that he was talking rubbish.
I am sorry that my noble friend is not here today: perhaps there will be another opportunity for him to defend his view here. However, I do not think I am doing him an injustice when I say that his view is based on the proposition that a biomass that depends on the growing of trees cannot in any way be regarded as a renewable source. I said to him that they grow again and that if forests are properly managed—and many of them are, not least by the Forestry Commission in this country but also in Scandinavia and so on—the turnaround is about 30 years. He said no, it is 90 years. He may well know a great deal more about this than I do. I have so far subscribed to the view that when a biomass source is used as a fuel for energy, if it can reproduce itself over a period—and of course, as they grow, trees reabsorb the carbon dioxide that they emit during combustion—then it is a renewable source.
I was worried at one point about the importation of timber and its threat to the health of our forestry, against the background of ash dieback. I arranged an interview with the head of the trade association in America that exports manufactured wood pellets, a large quantity of which come to this country. I have also talked to the companies that burn them, notably Drax, which is converting part of its coal-burning to biomass, as is Eggborough, a different kind of company but one also in the process of a substantial conversion to biomass. They base it entirely on the import of manufactured wood pellets from reputable sources in America or Scandinavia. I was completely satisfied that the manufacturing process totally eliminates the possibility of the importation of any funguses or other diseases that affect timber here. I have not heard any suggestion that if it is properly handled there is any risk in that direction.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, my name is attached to the amendment. I was not going to speak because of time, but the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has reminded me of a presentation that I had some years ago. I may have got the town wrong but I think it was Barnsley. It was in a coalfield area. The local authority there used coal for the district heating in its blocks of flats. I will always remember the description of the terrible mess that the coal dust made everywhere; the women who lived in the flats hated it because they always got coal dust in their curtains. The story is that they changed over to local biomass, which was interesting biomass because it was entirely what they gleaned from trimming and pruning trees and shrubs in the local area. Enough was produced, so it did not have to travel a long way but was enough to replace the coal in these blocks of flats, and the ladies with their curtains were delighted because they did not get soot any more. That has stayed in my mind.
When people first started looking at biomass, that is the sort of thing that they were thinking about. However, when you start to go into some of the ideas about bringing all sorts of things from America—we have just heard that they do not certify their wood either—then it is a completely different issue that we need to look at more carefully. Still, I thought the Barnsley system was pretty good.
Lord Grantchester
Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, we agree that biomass could make a significant and important contribution to the UK’s renewable energy thorough the use of sustainable feed stocks from waste. Again like the noble Lord, we agree that biomass should be sustainable.
The current plans would result in a rapid expansion of large-scale biomass electricity generation, principally through the full or part-conversion of existing coal-fired power stations. The EPS establishes a maximum level of emissions for electricity generated by a power station over a year. However, the only emissions that it recognises are those from fossil fuels, while biomass emissions are counted as zero.
As other noble Lords have argued, emissions from biomass can be interpreted as being quite substantial, as they should include emissions associated with the planting, growing, harvesting, processing and transport of biomass. This is in addition to the increase in emissions as a result of carbon debt—that is, the time it takes for tree regrowth and recovery of carbon stocks. Indeed, the sources of the stocks are also to be taken into account in sustainability requirements.
Many coal-powered plants are planned to be converted partially or entirely to biomass to extend their operating lifetimes and to benefit from the substantial subsidies available under the renewable obligations. A conversion to biomass under these amendments would trigger the EPS to cover the whole power station, including the life-cycle emissions from biomass. The amendments would complement the Government’s own proposals for sustainability standards for biomass generators, which include a life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions standard for emissions from harvesting and processing. We entirely support the intention that the EPS is triggered should any generation from biomass take place. If that is not to be the case, there is a danger that a plant close to breaching its limit might convert to a small amount of biomass in an attempt to remain under the threshold.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend for tabling the amendment, and all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. Whether it is for energy or, more particularly, their beauty, this country has a strong bond with trees. Although this is going off the subject, the tree diseases we have are particularly alarming and we need to do something about them.
I appreciate entirely the intention behind my noble friend’s amendments. They raise the issue of biomass for power generation and the need for appropriate measures to ensure that the sourcing and use of biomass are environmentally sustainable. The Government share my noble friend’s wishes in this respect and are taking steps to ensure that biomass can continue to play a sustainable role in a low-carbon energy mix.
Sustainability reporting is already applied to biomass plants under the renewables obligation. Generators using solid biomass and biogas feedstocks are asked to report on their performance against sustainability criteria, including a greenhouse gas life cycle target of 285 grams per kilowatt hour. The sustainability reports are published by Ofgem. However, under the current regime, if a generator does not meet the target, the consequence is solely one of reputational risk.
The Government have therefore consulted on proposals to enhance the existing sustainability criteria under the renewables obligation. The consultation includes proposals to: bring in a tightening trajectory so that the current target of a 60% greenhouse emissions saving compared to fossil fuel gets tougher over time in a series of steps; bring in new sustainable forest management criteria that consider a range of forestry issues, including biodiversity, land use rights, and sustainable harvesting rates; require generators to provide an independent audit of their sustainability report; and link eligibility for financial support with demonstrating meeting the improved criteria. We are planning to publish the Government’s response to the consultation later this month.
My noble friend also mentioned what the EU is doing in terms of sustainability under the renewables target. The European Commission expects to publish an updated report on sustainability criteria for solid biomass and biogas later this year. The current approach is voluntary and the Commission is considering if a mandatory approach is needed for solid biomass and biogas, and for biofuels and bioliquid. Some progress is being made there.
Given the incentive created by linking financial support to sustainability criteria, we believe that the renewables obligation is the most appropriate mechanism for delivering these improvements. Biomass projects supported under a contract for difference are also intended to be subjected to sustainability controls, and Clauses 6 and 10 of the Bill provide the necessary powers. Although no final decision has been taken on the details of these controls under contracts for difference, it would seem sensible for consistency and clarity that these will be consistent with those under the renewables obligation.
Given that the Government are already proposing to strengthen the renewables obligation, and that powers exist for CFDs to include terms relating to sustainability, I hope that my noble friend will understand the concern that the thrust of these amendments to the EPS is covered elsewhere and may risk creating undue complexity and uncertainty for investors. The purpose of the EPS is to place a limit on the carbon emissions from fossil fuel power plants. In addition to the reasons I have set out, installations which use biomass exclusively as their fuel are specifically excluded from the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Consequently, choosing not to cover biomass under the EPS treats it in a manner consistent with the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.
While I am wholly sympathetic to the intent behind my noble friend’s amendments, I hope that he will be sufficiently reassured that the Government are taking appropriate steps to strengthen further existing sustainability requirements in respect of the use of biomass. On that basis, I hope he might withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I have often said that this is the one issue on which the pendulum swings from one extreme to the other—from being the silver bullet, it becomes the devil incarnate. With the sort of issues being looked at at the moment, perhaps at some point it will swing back again. I very much appreciate the Minister going through the thoughts and processes that the Government are having. It is very appropriate that we will have the response to the consultation at the end of this month, which will be well ahead of Report stage. I look forward to that, as well as to how the European situation starts to move forward. We can come back to that area later. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Teverson
“(iii) substantial pollution abatement equipment dealing with oxides of sulphur, oxides of nitrogen, heavy metal emissions or particles is fitted to the generating station”
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I take the emissions performance standard very seriously, as I did at Second Reading. An astounding fact, if we have one in terms of energy generation, is the resurgence of coal to its position of dominance of electricity generation in the UK. During 2012, 43% of electricity was generated by coal; gas, the previous number one, went down to 28%; and nuclear was at 20%. When the Climate Change Bill was passed into an Act, I do not believe that any of us would ever have expected that, as part of this programme towards a 2050 decarbonisation of our economy as a whole, in a few years’ time we would be looking at coal being so important to us in terms of our electricity generation and our economy. That concerned me greatly but we have had assurance that, due largely to the large combustion plant directive, coal will disappear over the next few years as the remaining coal plants in the United Kingdom have to close down, as a large number already have. We all felt very secure in that knowledge and in the fact that that would happen.
However, there is a significant concern if the price of coal stays very low in comparison with gas. I see no reason why gas prices should come down in the short term. Whatever happens with shale or whatever else, it seems pretty likely that gas prices will continue to go up. There will then be incentives for generating companies that own coal plants to modify them to comply with the large combustion plant directive through getting rid of their sulphurous and nitrous gases. Of course, that directive does not deal with carbon emissions. They are completely separate. But there is an avenue, and now a potentially economic avenue, for those coal plants to comply with that directive. They can continue under this Bill to generate coal well into the future until finally they need to have their boilers replaced, at which point the Bill very effectively says that you have to comply with 450 grams until 2044. Therefore, we have had a pathway. The way out of that was meant to be carbon capture and storage. If we had abated coal and it went below that emissions limit, that was a way forward and coal was legitimate within that context. Therefore, I am very concerned that this potential loophole—or gap, or pathway—for coal generation to continue needs to be sealed once and for all.
I was very pleased indeed that my noble friend the Minister, if I could quote him from a couple of amendments ago, said, “No more coal without CCS”. Absolutely—that is what we are here for. For some reason we cannot put that plain language in the Bill. We could just say that, could we not? But we are not; we are giving it a fair chance but trying to make it impossible. I am asking the Minister if he would doubly make sure that that is impossible by looking favourably on this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Worthington
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for tabling this amendment, to which I have added my name.
I have previously described the measures that have been put down as a package. This is an essential component of that. I go so far as to say that I would be less concerned about the gas grandfathering if this amendment was accepted. This amendment addresses a very real risk and need. My worry about our current policy on coal is that a degree of complacency has started to take root, based on the idea that all the old coal is simply going to shut up shop and quietly disappear from the grid. Having worked for a power company that owns coal-fired power stations, I can tell your Lordships that these are incredibly profitable assets and the companies will do all they can to keep them operating for as long as they can.
A lot has been said, in the media and elsewhere, and in statements from the Government, about the lights going out and about this terrible problem of coal-fired power stations closing. Actually, as I have said before, the 8 gigawatts of coal that was required to close under the large combustion plant directive has already gone so we do not have a problem in the short term. In fact, we have 20 gigawatts of old coal carrying on. That is made up of 12 plants—the dirty dozen—that will be carrying on.
When the process of the Bill started, the premise was that new coal was the greatest threat. In fact, it says that in the consultation document. But that is fundamentally wrong. When it comes to managing carbon, old coal is far and away the worst source of emissions. These plants were built in the late 1960s and early 1970s—some of them are older than I am—and they have well paid back their initial investments. They have made the successive companies that have owned them a lot of money and it really is time to let them retire gracefully.
Lord Deben
Does the noble Baroness agree that the reporting of the dangers of the lights not being kept on is much encouraged by those who would wish to continue to use very old, very highly emitting generating plants? Will she remind everyone that those emissions are changing our climate as we speak and that the quicker they are phased out, the safer it is for our children?
Baroness Worthington
I could not agree more. These dirty dozen plants have very low efficiency and very high carbon intensity. They have been made more carbon-intensive by the fitting of scrubbing equipment to meet the requirements of the large combustion plant directive, so these are some of the worst possible sources of electricity when it comes to carbon.
The assumption was that those plants would be closing under the next round of air quality standards. However, the world is moving quite quickly and gas prices are at such a level and coal prices so low that it is now increasingly likely that these plants will refurbish, fit filters and seek to carry on.
I am sure there will be many arguments in the Minister’s notes that will tell him that closing the plants is something that the Government could not possibly do and there are too many risk associated with it. The first will probably be, “Oh, well, the lights will go out”. That would absolutely and categorically not be a result of the amendment. The amendment would merely place a carbon constraint on plants that are seeking a significant life extension beyond the period for which we currently anticipate them to operate. This would put us much more in line with the Californian legislation that we have based the EPS on. The Californian provisions apply if a company makes a significant investment in an existing plant that would seek to extend its life beyond five years. That is an important provision that is missing here, in our interpretation of the EPS.
It is not a question of the lights going out. As we have discussed, the EPS is drafted in such a way as to allow flexibility. It is an annual limit that is averaged out, so these plants would not necessarily close but they would not be able to base-load. That is the significant difference. Plants investing in life extensions today must accept that they cannot base-load indefinitely through the 2020s and into the 2030s.
Another note that I am sure the Minister will receive will say: “Well, they’re old plants; they’re reaching the end of their lives”. I would just point out that Uskmouth power station, owned by SSE and built in 1961, will be 60 years old in 2020. These plants can and do operate for very long periods, and they do not need boiler replacements in order to do so. They could replace every other element of the station and still be allowed to operate without being required to reduce emissions under the EPS.
I am sure that the other question that will be raised is that the amendment is not needed: “We do not need this to apply to old coal because we have other mechanisms designed to force coal off the system”, and among them I am sure the carbon price will be listed. I would just say that the carbon price is not a credible policy when it comes to investors making decisions on the lives of their coal plants, for a number of reasons: it is a financial Bill measure, it has no longevity and it has no future path beyond two years. I have heard from former generators that they cannot even sell their power on a PPA two years in advance from thermal plant because of the degree of uncertainty about carbon pricing. That is not going to force these plants to close.
Even if the price were maintained, the reason why they will not close is that these dirty dozen are equally distributed among the existing vertically integrated companies. The reason why that is significant is that if one of them opts one plant in, they may as well all opt them in because the companies can all just pass the cost of carbon through to their customers. As we have previously discussed, there is no genuine competition, so as soon as one opts in the other five may as well follow. Actually, it is five out of the six; Centrica has no coal. The other five, though, can all safely opt in a plant and pass on the costs without fear of competitive distortion. So, even with a price, that is not going to work with regard to ensuring that they are constrained.
People will say, “Well, you’re simply going to push up the costs to the consumer. Coal is cheap and we need to keep it running”. Actually, this is the cheapest way of staying within our carbon budgets. I have mentioned it before but the climate change committee has identified that we can save between 200 grams and 250 grams per kilowatt hour by doing nothing other than reversing the merit order of gas and coal. That is exactly what we are seeking to do. People say this will push the costs up but it in fact it is much cheaper than overinvesting in new capacity if it is not necessary.
It is also true that the carbon floor price is already pushing up the price. The difference between the two is that with the carbon floor price you have to pay the money irrespective of what happens; there is no guarantee that the carbon floor price will deliver any new investment or indeed any switch in the merit order. With the EPS, though, the price would go up only if coal was being driven off, so you would pay only if something was actually being delivered.
I am sure that there will be notes saying, “Well, the regulatory risk that this will create means that investors will never invest in Britain again because the rules have changed”. I am afraid that if you own one of these dirty power stations and you have been sweating this asset for so long, and then you think that you will never invest in Britain again because you are asked to comply with a carbon constraint, you are not living on the same planet as I am, or indeed as the majority of people are.
You must expect to face a constraint on carbon. You cannot operate these inefficient coal stations and expect to be immune from carbon regulations. This back-stop power is exactly what you would expect to be introduced, especially as this is how it is currently enforced in America, where this idea came from originally.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I hope the noble Baroness knows that I do not like anyone being disappointed, bur it is the realities. I want to acknowledge straight away the concerns that my noble friend and the noble Baroness seek to address through the amendment, and the need for future levels of carbon emissions from coal generation to be consistent with our decarbonisation objectives. However, to plan the EPS in the way proposed by the amendment has certain difficulties.
The amendment would extend the EPS to existing coal plants, which currently—I emphasise “currently”—make up a significant and reliable proportion of our generation capacity, and are needed to play a continuing and important role in the transition to a low-carbon electricity system, which we all wish for. However, the role of coal over the coming years needs to be consistent not only with our decarbonisation objectives but with ensuring that our electricity supplies are secure and affordable. That is why I am happy to repeat for my noble friend that we have a policy of no new coal without CCS, which the EPS reaffirms.
The measures under our electricity market reforms are designed to achieve these objectives. The introduction of contracts for difference will bring forward investment in increasing amounts of low-carbon capacity, with the carbon price floor improving the economics of gas generation relative to coal. The effect of this will be that we see a gradual decline in generation from unabated coal as it is displaced by lower-carbon forms of generation, including renewables and new gas.
The noble Baroness mentioned the 12 existing coal plants. Our gas generation strategy analysis has shown that no more than two of the existing coal power stations will operate beyond 2025, and none by 2030. It also shows that total generation from coal will be 3% by 2025. That indicates what our direction of travel needs to be.
However, by linking the EPS directly to operators’ decisions in respect of the industrial emissions directive, we risk deterring investment in equipment to reduce harmful pollution and undermining the purpose behind the directive; that is, the reduction in harmful emissions.
Baroness Worthington
I tried to cut that off in my comments to stop the Minister using it. It is illogical to say that you want plants to fit filters to get lower emissions. If the plant closes, those emissions go to zero. If it fits filters, some of the units might be down at 100; others will be at 300. You will have more emissions if you allow old coal to continue operating, so I am afraid that the Minister cannot pray in aid the air quality excuse. It is clear in the IED that member states are at liberty to go further than the directive in pursuit of lower emissions and, specifically, low carbon emissions. Therefore, you would be in compliance and you would have better air quality.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Surely, even if a few coal plants carried on until 2025 or 2030, would it not be a good idea to reduce their emissions from existing levels so that we could improve air quality while those coal stations were in being? Whether one likes it or not, they will be in being for a little longer.
There is also the question of investor confidence—I know that the noble Baroness has mentioned this as well and we may have to take differing views. Imposing the EPS on existing plants in a way which is detrimental to those assets is likely to have negative consequences for wider investor perceptions of the UK. I know that that will not please the noble Baroness, but I think that those are points that other people think are important.
Furthermore, under the national policy statements for planning, a “significant extension” to an existing coal-fired power station triggers a requirement that the station be equipped with CCS. That prevents developers circumnavigating the CCS requirement by building additional or replacement capacity on an existing power station.
Schedule 4 will therefore allow the EPS to be applied to an existing coal station in the event it is upgraded in a way that extends its technical lifetime for a period comparable to that of a new plant, but it does not trigger application of the EPS by way of the planning regime.
The Government are working to reduce the country’s reliance on unabated coal in a way which is cost effective for both industry and consumers. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, is not in his place, but in the balance that we are seeking for the new technologies and the way forward for low-carbon technology we have also to be mindful of consumers. That is why consumers should have priority alongside the other matters that the noble Baroness and my noble friend have articulated so strongly. However, I hope that in this circumstance my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, the Minister mentioned in his reply that under the gas strategy only two plants would be operating. I am rather dismayed to hear that. I am not a great fan of the gas strategy at any time but that has made me even less confident in its analysis. It is absolutely clear that already four plants have opted in to fit, to be compliant with the IED regulations. That is considerably more than two. Once they have fitted that filtration equipment, they will have a capital cost that they will want to see returned. They are not going to suddenly decide to shut up shop in 2025. There is a high degree of complacency, based on the fact that the analysis and the modelling that were done did not take into account the following important factors. Coal prices are low and are going to stay low. If you own a coal-fired power station today, you can see pound signs ringing in your register for many years to come and that is a huge incentive to comply and go forward with the air quality standards. Also, the filtration equipment is very likely to come down in cost, making that equation even more favourable. Finally, with capacity market payments coming—we will have a chance to debate that on Thursday—that is another financial incentive to keep these plants running. The Government are being complacent and I urge the Minister to think again.
Lord Teverson
I thank the noble Baroness for her expert comments on this amendment. I admit I am perplexed by my noble friend’s response and I will go through it in a very moderate way. All this amendment would do is to put everything back to where the Government actually want it to be, where the large combustion plant directive, conveniently, gradually but fairly imminently shuts down unabated coal. It seems that that has always been a government assumption. However, because of the high price of gas to coal, suddenly being compliant with that directive becomes economic and so we have a different situation. All this is doing is putting it back to where we thought it was, probably when this Energy Bill started out in its long course through the department and stages of consultation and into Parliament.
It also seems to me that ironically, in this area, it is a win for the Treasury and a win for DECC. From the Treasury’s point of view, if there is certainty about coal going out, there is much more certainty for gas investors coming in—far more than probably a 2044 guarantee on investment. From a DECC point of view, we are actually making sure that those high carbon emissions that come out of old coal and that we were not expecting at least fall out of the system pretty quickly. Therefore, we have a win for all those sides as well as for climate change and we get back to what the Government’s policy originally seemed to be.
As the noble Baroness mentioned, we have the added benefit that in terms of energy security, because of the way that the EPS works, these plants can still be available over short periods of time, but not base load, to meet potential blackouts or brownouts within the electricity markets. So we have a win there as well. While I understand my noble friend’s arguments, I just think that they do not actually reflect government policy—not Treasury policy, DECC policy or the coalition agreement policy. Somehow we need to get out of that. However I am very keen to continue discussions, particularly in this area. In the mean time, in anticipation of that, I withdraw my amendment.
House of Lords
Global Partnership for Aid Effectiveness
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Chidgey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made, as part of the Global Partnership for Aid Effectiveness, in developing and specifying the aid effectiveness indicators outlined in the global agreement reached at the High Level Forum in Busan.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, 10 indicators and associated targets for a framework to track global development effectiveness were agreed internationally in June 2012. The UK has provided detailed feedback on proposed data to be used for each indicator. These data will be collected until mid-September and published in time for a major meeting on development effectiveness in early 2014.
Lord Chidgey
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. The Busan agreement includes the commitment to strengthen the role of Parliaments in the oversight of the development process by monitoring to ensure that aid is on budget lines that are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. What measures are the Government taking to ensure that the Busan parliamentary scrutiny includes democratic accountability, challenging the view of some that there is no relationship between democracy and development? What plans do the Government have to compensate for the drain on parliamentary capacity in developing countries caused by the high percentage of parliamentary staff trained under aid programmes leaving for more attractive posts elsewhere?
Baroness Northover
As my noble friend will know, parliamentarians are represented in the global partnership steering committee meetings, and DfID certainly believes that democratic government helps to promote sustainable development in the way which he has indicated. That is why we are supporting democratic elections through various programmes and other work, which we will be supporting in 13 countries by 2015. As for his point about the drain in staff, between 2011 and 2012 DfID invested £181 million in public sector reform, which includes improvement of staff performance and retention. We very much understand my noble friend’s point.
Lord Judd
My Lords, is it not very important to realise that if development is to be sustained, it is necessary to have stability and security? Can the Minister give us an assurance that, whatever happens, we will continue to give priority to the security sector reform programme, which tries to ensure that there are effective security arrangements that are also based on transparency and human rights?
Baroness Northover
I can give the noble Lord that assurance. He will note that it is a crucial part of the arrangements in the new deal for fragile states, and it also underlies and is an extremely important part of our principles regarding where we are willing to give budget support.
Baroness Hayman
My Lords, although I fully support the development of technical indicators for aid effectiveness, will the Minister confirm that there is manifold evidence that the most effective form of aid is that which concentrates on the social, economic and educational development of women?
Baroness Northover
The noble Baroness is absolutely right, which is why we have put women and girls very much at the centre of what DfID does. Education is part of that. As for the stages of development of various countries, I note that the countries that are most developed have the highest levels of educational enrolment and adult literacy.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that many of the aid-effectiveness indicators agreed at Busan—for example, the governance indicator which features so heavily at the G8—are already part of the Government’s development strategy?
Baroness Northover
My noble friend is quite right, and if she looks—as I am sure she has—at the recent DfID annual report, she will see that evidence there. It is extremely important that both aid givers, such as the United Kingdom, and aid recipients make sure that they address the requirements laid down in Busan. Only by doing so will we ensure that aid is most effectively delivered and has its greatest effect.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, on the drain of staff, how does one seek to resolve the problem of staff of talent being attracted into the private sector, and also into the international organisation sector, with salaries that are perhaps four or five times more than they can get in their own Administrations? That only encourages corruption.
Baroness Northover
The noble Lord might look at the United Kingdom, too, and wonder whether that is a challenge that we also face. Of course it is a challenge, and it is one that we are well aware of. It is encouraging to see that there are very talented people working within, for example, the sovereign wealth funds, which can be useful instruments in the economic development of some of those countries.
Baroness Tonge
My Lords, have the Government made an assessment of the effectiveness of aid to the Palestinians? Can the Minister also tell us whether the Government have made any attempt to recoup the cost of that aid from the Government of Israel, who are, after all, responsible under Geneva conventions for the welfare of the people whose land they occupy?
Baroness Northover
The noble Baroness has made this point before. We constantly monitor the situation with the Palestinians. We are very concerned about their situation and frequently make the case about it to the Government of Israel. I would also point out, as I have before, that we need to see peacebuilding measures between the Israelis and the Palestinians, which will be in the interests of both sides.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon
My Lords, my driver in Bosnia and Herzegovina earned more than the local Prime Minister. Does my noble friend not realise that unless something serious is done about this problem of the internal brain drain to the international organisations, steps to try to help failed states recover after conflict will be seriously hog-tied?
Baroness Northover
My noble friend has enormous experience, of course. It is lessons such as those which he derives from Bosnia that we carry over when trying to rebuild in fragile states elsewhere, for example in Afghanistan. We are aware of these challenges, which is why the United Nations and the international bodies seek to address them.
The Earl of Sandwich
My Lords, when the Government have discovered which of their programmes are effective, will they make more effort to communicate this to the general public, who are still largely in ignorance of the aid programme?
Baroness Northover
There is sometimes a disconnect between what comes over in Comic Relief programmes, which people sign up to and understand—for example, linking back to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, the importance of education and its transformative effect, especially for girls—and the news that sometimes comes out via some of our newspapers. We all need to continue to emphasise how effective and transformative aid can be.
Housing: Rent Levels
Baroness Turner of Camden
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to deal with the level of rents being charged by private landlords, particularly in London, and their impact on housing benefit.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, across England, increases in private sector rents in recent years have been modest and below inflation. Over the 12 months to May 2013 private rents increased by 1.3%; this compares with the CPI of 2.7%. We are also encouraging the supply of new homes with a £1 billion build-to-rent fund which will help to keep rent levels down.
Baroness Turner of Camden
I thank the Minister for that response. Is he not aware that we are facing a bit of a housing crisis at the moment, particularly in London? Younger people cannot afford the deposit to buy a place and cannot afford the rents because they are far too high. Is the Minister aware that following the last war there was also a housing crisis and that the Government then dealt with it by building lots of small houses—the famous prefabs—and also introduced a system of rent controls through the rent tribunals so that people were not pushed into poverty by trying to pay for a roof over their heads? Can we not sometimes learn something from our predecessors?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The Government are fully aware of the housing challenges. In London the mayor’s housing covenant contains detailed proposals for improving London’s private rental sector. The housing guarantee schemes are intended to help expand the provision of large-scale, professionally managed rented housing and to support economic growth. Of course, as was recently announced, the Government have allocated an additional £3 billion to a housebuilding programme. We are embarked on the biggest housebuilding programme of the past 20 years, and that should be appreciated and commended.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, my noble friend indicated that one of the problems with high rents in the private sector is lack of supply. Did he see something interesting in the newspaper this week: that in many towns with a high student population the students occupy houses that could be lived in by families if we were to build more proper student accommodation there? Will the Government see if there is any mileage in that?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend raises an important point. The Government are forever looking at ways that we can help address the housing challenges in particular cities, and if there are good practices I will take them back and share them across the country.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the highly respected Chartered Institute of Housing reported last week that, because there are so few vacant smaller properties in the social sector, four-fifths of underoccupying tenants who need to move will have to go into the private rented sector where, as my noble friend said, rents are higher and so the housing benefit bill will soar. Does the Minister accept that as a result, 660,000 families will have their lives turned upside down and at the end of it there will be no savings but instead an increase in public expenditure?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As I said in answer to a previous question, the Government are embarked on one of the biggest ever housebuilding programmes, both for the rental sector and for affordable housing. There are challenges ahead with the housing crisis. I am sorry that noble Lords opposite do not appreciate that. We took on one of the biggest challenges with the housing crisis and, unlike the party opposite, are addressing it head on.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, more than one-third of privately renting households are families with children, yet typical tenancies remain short-term with little assurance about when rents may rise or how long they will be able to stay in their home. Uncertainty of this kind is particularly damaging for families trying to give their children stability. Will the Government give serious consideration to Shelter’s proposal to develop and promote stable rental contracts that would offer renters a five-year tenancy agreement and tie rent increases to inflation?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The right reverend Prelate makes an important point. I have seen the Shelter policy. Security of tenure has increased. Recent figures from the English Housing Survey show that only 9% of tenancies are ended by the landlord. We have seen an increasing percentage of people staying in their accommodation for more than two years. That is to be appreciated. We are looking at Shelter’s proposition, which came out in its September 2012 report.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, is not the reality that the Government have created a vicious cycle where those deemed to underoccupy cannot move in the social rented sector because of the lack of appropriate smaller accommodation, cannot afford the extra rent payable to stay put because of the bedroom tax and, at a time when rents are planned to rise by CPI plus 1% for the next 10 years, cannot afford to move to the private rented sector where rents are soaring while housing support, the local housing allowance, is to be restricted to a 1% uprating? Is this not bound to lead to greater homelessness, more misery for families and more cost to the taxpayer? Which genius invented these policies?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I suppose I should ask the noble Lord which genius created these problems. Part of the challenge for this Government is to look at the current crisis. As I indicated, we have embarked on the biggest housebuilding programme both in the private rented sector and in affordable housing. The noble Lord raised housing benefit. The Government have looked at it. It is being raised by CPI, and it will be raised by another 1%, but generally the party opposite should not look at a picture of gloom. There is a picture of optimism emerging in terms of housing for the long term. That will be seen over the next few years.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
Will the Minister explain why, if the Government’s policy of building more houses is so good, it is not starting now?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
It is starting now. We have already committed to build 170,000 new homes by 2015 and a further 30,000 by 2017. As recent announcements have indicated, another 10,000 homes will be on line as well. Over the next four years, 200,000 homes will be coming on line by 2018. That is putting the record straight.
NHS: Foundation Trusts
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Warner
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress the NHS Trust Development Authority will have made by April 2014 with NHS Trusts becoming NHS Foundation Trusts; and when they forecast that the Authority will have completed its work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, in the light of Robert Francis’s recent report, we have allowed the NHS Trust Development Authority to agree trajectories for NHS trusts to reach foundation trust status that go beyond 2014 on a case-by-case basis. In doing so, we will ensure that the primary focus of the NHS Trust Development Authority and of NHS trusts themselves is on improving the quality and sustainability of services for patients.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he recall that in a recent Written Answer to me he identified 26 acute hospitals under the stewardship of the TDA which have cumulative deficits running into hundreds of millions of pounds? Does he agree that many of them are unsustainable and potentially unsafe and need their services reconfigured? Will he tell the House why the Government refuse to publish the review by Sir Ian Carruthers on the procedures for service reconfiguration and why they resist publication by declining FOI requests?
Earl Howe
My Lords, there is no doubt—and we have never denied this—that there will be a hard core of organisations which will be very difficult, if not impossible, to bring to foundation trust status. For those trusts, it is necessary to look at other options, including, for example, mergers. That work is being taken forward. Although some trusts are in deficit, the NHS TDA is working very hard to mitigate those deficits in-year and when the first quarter board papers are published in September we will know what its predictions are for all trusts for the current year. I will come back to the noble Lord on the report of Sir Ian Carruthers because all FOI decisions are reviewed at regular intervals to make sure they are current. I want to make sure that there is a plan to release that information in due course. I am sure that there is.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
My Lords, following yesterday’s Written Statement, in which the Government indicated total support for the review carried out so expertly by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, on the Liverpool Care Pathway, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that the trusts will take immediate action to implement its recommendations?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I hope my noble friend will allow that that is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper, which is about bringing trusts to foundation trust status. Nevertheless, I refer my noble friend to the Written Answer which was published in Hansard yesterday and which sets out the immediate steps we have taken to instruct all hospitals to review all patients currently on the Liverpool Care Pathway and to make sure that there is a named, responsible clinician for every patient at the end of life.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my health interests in the register. Is the failure to publish the reconfiguration paper by Sir Ian Carruthers due to the intervention of the Competition Commission in proposed mergers and reconfiguration of services in the NHS? Is the noble Earl aware that it was reported in the other place this morning that the intervention of the Competition Commission in the Dorset merger will cost £6 million which should have been spent on patient services? When will the Government start to ensure that the foolish intervention by the Competition Commission which is not needed in the health service stops and money that could be spent on patient services is actually spent on them?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is aware that the provision for reviewing NHS mergers on competition grounds is not at all new. Responsibility for reviewing NHS mergers has moved from one independent body—the Co-operation and Competition Panel—to another, the OFT. This is a continuation of the approach that has been in place since 2009. In all these decisions what matters is what is in the interests of patients. The competition authorities will continue to review whether the potential benefits of a merger outweigh the potential costs to patients.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, would my noble friend confirm whether any of those trusts yet to achieve foundation trust status were planning to merge with any on today’s Bruce Keogh list?
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, my interests are declared in the Register of Lords’ Interests. Complicated organisations, such as hospitals of every sort, need outstanding, in-depth leadership from all quarters. Does my noble friend agree that clinicians should provide that leadership but that if there is an overwhelming culture of retribution there is no incentive for them to take on these very demanding roles? What incentives can the Government introduce to ensure that the most talented doctors and nurses are attracted to lead the NHS and take on these very high risk jobs?
Earl Howe
My noble friend makes a vital point. If we are to strive for excellence in the health service, leadership is essential. That is the reason why the NHS Leadership Academy has been established—to encourage not only managers but clinicians and nurses to take leadership roles in the health service for the very reasons that my noble friend states.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, given the Government’s commitment to the duty of candour in the NHS, can the Minister give us an indication of some of the reasons why there has been a long delay in the production of Sir Ian Carruthers’s report?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am not aware of the underlying reasons why Sir Ian Carruthers’s report has not been released. As far as I am aware, that is a matter for NHS England. However, if I can enlighten the noble Lord, I will be happy to write to him. I can say that the programme for bringing trusts to foundation trust status has to be taken slightly more slowly than we thought was appropriate perhaps a couple of years ago. That is because of the Francis report. I make no apology for that, because it is right for trusts to take a longer and harder look at the issues that Robert Francis flagged up.
Smoking: Cigarette Packaging
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the basis for the decision not to proceed with standardised packaging of cigarettes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
Standardised packaging remains a policy under active consideration. The Government have not ruled out its introduction. However, we want to spend more time assimilating information about the likely effect of such a policy in this country and learning from experience abroad. Let me be clear: we are not going soft on tobacco, which is a leading cause of premature death. We have an ambitious tobacco control plan and will press ahead with tobacco control policies, including removing tobacco from displays in shops.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I declare my interest as president-elect of the BMA. As 200,000 11 to 15 year- olds start smoking each year in the UK, what are the criteria and time frames that the Government will use to judge the outcomes of standardised packaging in Australia? The high mortality rate does not appear until about 25 years after these youngsters start smoking. As this is fundamentally a child protection issue, how will the Government now prevent vulnerable children—particularly those in local authority care—from starting smoking, given that the Department of Health’s own systematic review showed that current packs are particularly attractive to youngsters and that they mislead them into thinking that some brands are less harmful than others?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we want to keep a close eye on what is happening around the world before making a decision. We are keeping standardised packaging under active consideration. It has been newly introduced in Australia, and other countries are intending to follow suit, so it is sensible for us to see what we can learn from other countries’ experience. The impacts could be several. They could include, for example, health benefits, as well as impacts on businesses such as retailers and tobacco manufacturers, and could possibly bring about a change in attitude to smoking.
On the risk to children, the noble Baroness is of course absolutely right. Evidence suggests that action needs to be taken to reshape social norms around smoking so that tobacco becomes less desirable, less acceptable and less accessible, particularly to the young. That is why we are committed to ending tobacco displays in shops. We have a TV-led marketing campaign to encourage smokers not to smoke at home or in cars and we have banned the sale of tobacco in vending machines, which has removed a source of cigarettes that underage smokers could access as often as they liked. There is a range of work going on.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford)
We will briefly hear from my noble friend and then go over to the other side.
Lord Naseby
I congratulate my noble friend on not rushing in to another unproven restriction on the consumption of alcohol, particularly one which has legal dimensions that affect intellectual property rights. Can he confirm that consumption of cigarettes is already falling, and that we are already spending something like over £50 million on tobacco control? Is not the greatest problem at the moment illegal smuggling of cigarettes into this country, which costs the Revenue a huge amount of money—close on £200 million—and is consumed principally by young people?
Earl Howe
My Lords, smoking rates in the UK are lower than those in many comparable western societies, but our reductions in prevalence still lag behind those in countries such as Canada and the United States, and in some Australian states. Overall prevalence is gradually coming down, but we still need to worry about smoking take-up by the young. There is no doubt that smoking is a significant cause of health inequalities in the UK.
On illicit trade, the story is quite positive. In 2000 around 21% of the UK’s cigarette market was illicit, whereas the latest estimate from HMRC for 2010-11 is that around 9% of the cigarette market is illicit. That is too much; nevertheless, we are heading in the right direction.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Does the Minister recall that when he was a shadow Minister opposing our legislation, he regularly met Gardant Communications on behalf of Philip Morris International? May I ask him very gently: who does he think had the greatest influence on this U-turn—his friends at Gardant or Lynton Crosby?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I have never adopted a personal position on plain packaging; the noble Lord is wrong about that. As an opposition spokesman, yes, I did make it my business to talk to all sectors—to the tobacco companies, to ASH and to other lobby groups—to make sure that the picture I presented from the Benches on which he now sits was a balanced one. I took no personal position, nor, indeed, a position on behalf of the Conservative Party; I need to make that very clear. The decision that the Government have taken has been in no way influenced by Mr Crosby.
Lord Taverne
My Lords, will the Government take into account the effect of postponing a decision, in the light of the very strong evidence cited by the Public Health Research Consortium in coming to the conclusion that such a measure would help to deter smoking? That seemed to be confirmed by the statement by the brand director of Imperial Tobacco that now that advertising was banned, the company should look at the design of packaging. Is it not unwise for the Prime Minister, after the Coulson disaster, the decision on alcohol pricing and the postponement of a register of lobbyists, to have appointed as special adviser to the Government someone who has turned out to be a lobbyist for the alcohol and tobacco industries?
Earl Howe
I emphasise that the Government have by no means a closed mind on the issue of plain packaging of tobacco—quite the reverse. We want to take the time needed to consider fully the many relevant issues around standardised packaging, before making any decision. My noble friend’s last comment might have had greater force if I had been announcing that we would not be proceeding with plain packaging, but that is not the case.
European Union (Approvals) Bill [HL]
Natural Resources Body for Wales (Consequential Provision) Order 2013
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
That the draft order laid before the House on 3 June be approved.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 8 July.
Alternative Investment Fund Managers Regulations 2013
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10 June be approved.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 10 July.
National Health Service (Licensing and Pricing) Regulations 2013
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2013
Baroness Verma
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10 June be approved.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 10 July.
Motion agreed.
Northern Ireland
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office (Baroness Randerson)
My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will repeat a Statement made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
“I am sure the whole House will join me in condemning this shameful violence and in expressing our profound sympathy and support for the police officers who have been injured. It is also a matter of the gravest concern that the right honourable Member for Belfast North was knocked unconscious as he tried to calm the situation on the streets of his constituency. I am certain that I speak for everyone here in wishing him well.
On Friday evening, following the annual 12 July parades, around 5,000 people gathered to protest against the Parades Commission determination not to allow three Orange Lodges to return home past the nationalist Ardoyne area. This has been the scene of serious disorder in recent years, including shots fired at police by dissident republicans. Violence erupted as the crowd reached the police line on Woodvale Road preventing access to the route past the Ardoyne shop fronts. This has been followed by further disturbances and rioting on each night since then, mainly in the Woodvale Parade/Twaddell Avenue area, but also in the Newtownards Road in east Belfast, Mount Vernon in north Belfast, Rathcoole in Newtownabbey, Portadown and Ballyclare.
During these disturbances, the police have come under attack from a variety of weapons including fireworks, petrol bombs, bottles, stones, bits of masonry, iron bars and ceremonial swords. Last night, four blast bombs were thrown at police officers in east Belfast and a pipe bomb from Brompton Park in the Ardoyne. Water cannon and AEP plastic bullet rounds have been discharged on four successive nights, and 71 police officers have been injured.
I am well aware of the anger felt by many people over the Parades Commission determination in relation to Ardoyne but, however strongly people feel, there can be no justification, or excuse, for the behaviour we have seen in recent days. Attacks on the police are wholly unacceptable and I condemn them without hesitation or reservation. It is also utterly disgraceful that the right honourable Member for Belfast North found himself the victim of this violence, too.
There has been talk of attacks on British identity and culture in Northern Ireland. Well, the sort of behaviour that has been taking place in north Belfast does nothing to promote Britishness or the pro-Union cause; rather, it undermines it in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. In fact, it is hard to think of anything less British and less patriotic than wrapping yourself in a union flag and going out to attack the people who are there to maintain the rule of law and protect the whole community.
So now it is the responsibility of everyone with influence, including the Orange Order, community leaders and politicians, to do what we can to defuse tensions and calm the situation. We need temperate language over the coming days, and I am afraid that the Orange Order needs to reflect carefully on its role in encouraging mass protests on Friday, in a highly volatile situation, without the careful planning, stewarding and engagement with the police that is so important for keeping people safe when big crowds gather together. While the Orange Order’s announcement of the suspension of its protests was welcome, it is now time for it to call them off completely.
I would like to pay tribute to the outstanding work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland over recent days. Its officers have demonstrated fortitude, determination and courage in defending the rule of law. They have put their own safety on the line in the face of violent attacks and deserve our utmost praise, support and thanks, as do the police officers from Great Britain who provided mutual aid support. I would like to commend the leadership of chief constable Matt Baggott and Justice Minister David Ford. I know that meticulous planning took place to ensure that everything possible was done to try to keep people safe over the weekend of 12 July, including bringing approximately 1,000 mutual aid officers from Great Britain.
Of the 4,000 or so parades that take place annually in Northern Ireland, the vast majority pass off without major problems, including hundreds on 12 July. But any rioting is unacceptable, not least because it undermines efforts to secure economic recovery for Northern Ireland and because it makes competing in the global race for jobs and investment that much more difficult. The way forward has to be through dialogue to find sustainable local solutions to contentious parades, as has been the case in, for example, Derry/Londonderry.
I welcomed the talks that took place between members of the Orange Order and Ardoyne residents before the Parades Commission determination. I know how difficult this will be after what has happened, but I believe that it is vital that local dialogue continues. I also welcome inclusion of parading in the remit of the Executive’s all-party working group and the appointment of the distinguished US former envoy to Northern Ireland, Richard Haass, to chair it. The Government have always made it clear that we are open to a devolved solution on parading if one can be found but, in the mean time, we will not tolerate lawlessness on the streets of Belfast any more than we would in any other UK city.
Last week in this Chamber, issues were raised regarding my powers in relation to Parades Commission determinations. They are set out in the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. Section 9 states that the Secretary of State can only review a determination made by the Parades Commission following a request by the chief constable. The reason why he has not made such a request is because at all times he has been confident that the officers under his command can police the situation, and I fully share that confidence.
So to those on the streets over recent days taking part in this violence I say this. So far, 60 arrests have been made and emergency courts were sitting on Sunday to accelerate the criminal justice process. But that is just the start. No stone will be left unturned in building the case needed for more arrests and more criminal convictions. Those who engage in so-called recreational rioting and attacks on police officers can expect to face the full force of the law. I am confident that for some that will mean that the next 12 July holiday will be spent not in the sunshine following the parades, but locked up in prison living with the consequences of the crimes that they have committed”.
My Lords, I commend this Statement to the House.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in the House of Commons. I assure her of the full support of the Opposition Front Bench for the position outlined. I will now repeat the statement by my honourable friend Vernon Coaker, the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
“I thank the Secretary of State for her usual courtesy in giving me advance sight of her Statement. I also thank her and her officials for keeping me and my office updated over the course of the weekend. It was very much appreciated and in the best traditions of bipartisanship.
I welcome her Statement. It is right that this House has the opportunity to discuss these important matters. I unequivocally condemn the violence that has taken place in Belfast over the last number of days and nights. There is no justification for it. The disgraceful attacks on the police have resulted in dozens of injuries, and a very deliberate attempt to murder officers by throwing blast bombs at them last night was shameful.
I pay tribute to the PSNI and colleagues from other UK forces for their bravery and determination in upholding the law. Can the Minister update us on the status of injured officers? Are any still receiving treatment? How many have returned to duty? How many are PSNI officers and how many are from other forces? How many mutual aid officers are still undertaking duties in Northern Ireland, and how long is that expected to continue?
We know that policing these large-scale public order incidents is costly. Does the Secretary of State have an estimate of how much the policing operations have cost to date? Who will meet this cost? Will it be her department, the Department of Justice or a combination of the two? There is always a concern about the involvement of paramilitaries in or on the margins of contentious parades and protests. Has she looked at who is involved and who is being arrested? Is there any indication that loyalist paramilitaries or dissident republicans have organised, or taken part in, the violence?
The origins of the appalling scenes we have witnessed lie in the dispute around parading. We have been here before. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that meaningful dialogue and working towards local agreement is the key to finding a solution? It has worked well in other places. The Orange Order held a peaceful, enjoyable and colourful celebration on the 12th in the UK City of Culture, Derry-Londonderry. It was a huge success, attended by thousands of people, and was able to happen because of years of dialogue and communication between neighbours in an atmosphere of respect and good will. Will the Secretary of State update the House on what discussions she has had with the First and Deputy First Ministers, the Orange Order, residents’ associations and local political and civic representatives over the weekend? Does she agree that she has an important role to play in having further discussions over the coming days and weeks in north and east Belfast? As well as condemning the violence that has taken place, we need to work to ensure that it ends and does not recur in the future.
My view is that the British and Irish Governments still have a hugely significant role to play in helping to resolve all these issues. They should both be involved in the talks convened by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, which are being facilitated by Richard Haass. Does the Minister agree? Will she confirm that the Northern Ireland Office is working with the OFMDFM on this? It is crucial to bring people together to look at what needs to happen now to prevent a repeat of what happened over the weekend, when a disagreement that was not addressed led to significant tensions between communities and ended in unacceptable violence. That is the main message I wish to send out today. I encourage all those working to find a solution to these matters to keep going and not give up, and to keep talking. I say to those involved in parading and protesting—unionist and nationalist—that respecting the law, your neighbour and the wishes of people right across a community to live in peace is the only way forward. It has been done and can be done”.
Baroness Randerson
I thank the noble Lord for his comments, and particularly welcome his condemnation of the violence and the stress he laid on the importance of respect in the situation in which Northern Ireland finds itself. I also thank him for his support for those so closely involved in controlling the violence. They have had a very difficult job in the past few days.
The noble Lord asked a number of questions. Seventy-one police have been injured and we believe that six have been hospitalised, of whom two were police serving under the mutual aid scheme. There were more than 1,000 mutual aid officers in Northern Ireland at the weekend and yesterday.
The noble Lord asked about the cost of the problem and who bears it. This is where the real tragedy lies financially, because the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland bears that cost. That puts even greater stress and pressure on the police budget. The economic implications are very serious because of the impact it has on Northern Ireland, but it has immediately a massive financial impact on the Department of Justice.
The noble Lord asked about paramilitary involvement. That is something that will be very carefully investigated. He also asked about the Secretary of State’s discussions. She has had a whole range of conversations and meetings, both prior to and over the weekend. She was, of course, in Northern Ireland throughout this period. She is very supportive of the work that will be done by Richard Haass and the work that is being done by the Executive, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, to bring a more peaceful situation back into play.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, before the clerk starts the Clock, in the interests of all noble Lords with an interest in this matter, may I remind the House that the Companion guides us that all Statements are an opportunity for brief questions only?
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for repeating this Statement. I am happy to endorse her condemnation of shameful violence and to express sympathy. But can we also do some encouraging? There is still one gap from the Belfast agreement which was toyed with for a period and then put aside. That is the engagement of a civic forum, so that there can be genuine discussion with so many people about the shared future that Northern Ireland needs.
I have one further point and a question. It is one thing having these anniversaries and annual events—we worry about what is going to happen on the 12th—but we are moving to a period when we are going to be celebrating centenaries. These centenaries will be coming up very shortly. They are opportunities to celebrate, but some might see them as opportunities to be violent. Will my noble friend confirm that there are real plans and thought-through initiatives with this Government and the Government of Ireland and the devolved Assembly, to see that when the centenaries are celebrated, they really are celebrated and do not provide a further opportunity for violence?
Baroness Randerson
I thank the noble Lord for his questions. In relation to his comments about a civic forum, the situation in Northern Ireland is such that this process is worth reconsidering. In view of the recent A Shared Future document, issued by the Executive, and the recent Cardiff conference, which addressed issues of concern from the past and dealt with facing the decade of anniversaries and centenaries to which the noble Lord referred, this is an interesting concept which I am sure will be raised again and again. It would obviously help to engage a wider spectrum of the community in dealing with these problems. I have used his name already, but Richard Haass has, of course, the issue of the anniversaries that are coming up within his remit of reviewing of the past and how it should be dealt with. It will undoubtedly be something which is of interest to him in his work.
Lord Kilclooney
My Lords, the riots must of course be condemned without any reservation whatever. However, it is important to analyse their cause, is it not? Unless we understand the cause, we will never get the solution. Can the noble Baroness confirm that many Members of our House approached her last week to warn her that there could well be violence as a result of the determination made by the Northern Ireland Parades Commission? The violence was predictable and predicted. Can she confirm that the chief constable concluded that he could not police the decision of the Parades Commission: that the PSNI would be incapable of doing so? As a result, 16% of police officers on the streets of Northern Ireland are now from England, Wales and Scotland. That is the kind of situation that the Parades Commission has led us into in Northern Ireland. Would it not be better if we had a Parades Commission that had widespread consent in Northern Ireland and attracted support? At the moment, it does not. Would it not be better to have an independent chairman of the commission who is not tainted by party politics, has not been involved in an elected position against unionism but is totally impartial and independent?
Baroness Randerson
The noble Lord referred to an informal meeting held last week. It is indeed the case that the Parades Commission’s determination was discussed at that meeting and a number of views were put. I have to say to the noble Lord that the chief constable was confident that he could police the parades but felt that it was important to have additional support under the mutual aid scheme. It is indeed the purpose of that scheme that events such as this should be dealt with in that way. The noble Lord referred to the status of the Parades Commission. It is of course a lawfully constituted authority that is independent of government. Its determinations must be obeyed. It is not a devolved authority and was set up by an Act of Parliament. It is essential that its determinations are duly obeyed on all sides in Northern Ireland. It is important to note also that the decisions of the PSNI, the chief constable and the Parades Commission, and the way in which they acted, were based on the experience of previous years and the problems that had previously been experienced at this time of year.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, many of us will feel utterly dismayed, saddened and angry at the events in Belfast when, yet again, the PSNI bravely had to bear the burden of this violence unleashed at it. Does the Minister agree that one of the tragedies is that there seems to be very little political leadership for the loyalist community? There was such leadership at the time of the Good Friday agreement, and it gave the loyalist community a sense that they had a stake in what was happening. I ask the Minister and her colleague the Secretary of State to engage in discussions with the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and David Ford to examine what the problems are in parts of Belfast where members of the loyalist community seem to have the sense that there is nothing for them in the peace process. They are then too easily persuaded that the only way out is violence against the police. Real problems need to be addressed in the loyalist community in terms of lack of jobs and hope for the future. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State take an initiative with the people in Northern Ireland to deal with that?
Baroness Randerson
The noble Lord makes some extremely important points, and there is the issue of there having been a process of change in loyalist politics and its leadership—but that is now devolved in large part, and the leadership in the Assembly has to develop from within and cannot be dictated from outside. I agree with the noble Lord about the significance of poverty among many in the loyalist communities in Belfast. It is therefore all the more important that Northern Ireland makes the most of the economic package which was agreed recently between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Executive, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. That economic package had a specific purpose of reinvigorating the economy in the poorest parts of Belfast.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Perhaps we can hear from my noble friend Lord Tebbit first.
Lord Tebbit
Is it not the case that violence begets violence? The Parades Commission gave in to the violence of the republican community against these parades. Now, of course, they are faced with the violence of the unionist community against the surrender to the republicans’ violence. How do you break out of that?
Baroness Randerson
The Parades Commission makes its decisions based on the evidence before it and according to the protocols it follows. As I have said, the Parades Commission is independent, it is at arm’s length from Government and it is the duly constituted authority undertaking an extraordinarily difficult, problematic task. It has to deal with that to the best of its understanding. I hope that noble Lords will accept that the work of the Parades Commission is very difficult indeed. I thank the noble Lord for his question.
Lord Rogan
My Lords, I, too, join in condemning the widespread violence, and in expressing my sympathy and support for the police officers of Northern Ireland. I should like to pay tribute to the valiant work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland over recent days and weeks. Its officers have shown their professionalism and personal courage in defending the rule of law and protecting society. I come from a police family. I have many relatives who served in the RUC. I personally served as a special constable for many years, and today, I have a son and daughter-in-law who stood on the streets of Belfast hour after hour over the past few days. So let us also recognise the support and the encouragement these officers receive from their families at home, wondering night by night in what condition their loved ones will return.
Since assuming office, the Secretary of State has been less than visible. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made a very interesting contribution. Can the Minister emphasise to the Secretary of State how crucial it is that she engage with, and be seen to engage with, the authorities in Northern Ireland to help alleviate the social, economic and cultural problems which contribute to the volatile situation in unionist working class areas?
Baroness Randerson
I thank the noble Lord for his moving tribute to the police. That tribute to their bravery, from first-hand experience, is very significant and says far more than anything that I could say standing here today.
The noble Lord referred to the significance of the leadership provided by the Secretary of State. It is important to remember that many of the levers that used to be within the hands of the Secretary of State no longer are, as policing and justice are devolved. However, the Secretary of State retains the ability to intervene if, following the determination of the Parades Commission, the chief constable of the PSNI had believed that he could not cope with the situation. However, he never felt that.
Perhaps I may make a very important point. The Secretary of State had the Justice Minister, the PSNI and the Parades Commission around the table for discussions prior to 12 July. Those were significant discussions and very important leadership was shown. The Secretary of State was there throughout the weekend and she is there on a very regular basis. There is no question of her lacking active engagement in this issue.
Baroness O'Loan
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the widespread community support for the Parades Commission and of the fact that there are now very few contentious parades that remain to be resolved? The situation in respect of those contentious parades can be resolved only by discussion. Is she also aware of the extent of the work that was done, for example, in Derry to achieve the level of harmony which existed on 12 July this year?
Baroness Randerson
The noble Baroness makes a really important point—that is, to refer us to the past and indirectly to point out the terrible situation that existed prior to the existence of the Parades Commission. It is important to bear in mind that there are many hundreds—thousands—of parades at this time of year in Northern Ireland. The city of Derry/Londonderry, for example, has done a superb job in making sure that its parades are successful and enjoyable and that they do not cause trouble. I had an extremely interesting meeting with the mayor of Derry/Londonderry, in which he pointed out the very simple and straightforward ways in which the sting has been taken out of the situation in that important city. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness when she says that the Parades Commission has widespread support. The vast majority of the public in Northern Ireland are not interested in a return to the problems of the past.
Lord Morgan
My Lords, Griffith observed that Irish history was trapped between the dead past and the prophetic future. Is this not a particularly tragic and all-too-familiar example of it? This is exploiting a battle that happened well over 300 years ago for sectarian provocative purposes. It seems to me that the problems lie far deeper than simply the social and economic circumstances of Northern Ireland. Could there not be a totally different way of celebrating the cultural and historic traditions of unionism? By definition, these events are going to be violent and produce casualties. We know that they are—it happens every year. They are as much a part of the calendar of our country as, let us say, Remembrance Sunday, and they have equally sad connotations. Is there not some peaceful historic or cultural way of celebrating unionism rather than these provocative battles? If not then frankly it is not worth celebrating.
Baroness Randerson
The noble Lord, coming from the same part of the world as I do, is well aware of the importance of history to us all. It is of course extremely sad when history becomes so embroiled in violence. I say to him that it is important that as the years go by the people of Northern Ireland are able to embrace the future, and to let go of the past while not ignoring or neglecting it. They should be able to celebrate it in a positive way. I point to the importance of the Derry/Londonderry City of Culture in that transition process, because it does not shy away from the traditions and problems of the past. It embraces them and makes them part of a cultural experience.
Lord Browne of Belmont
I join the Minister in condemning unreservedly the recent street violence in Belfast, and in paying tribute to the bravery and strength of the police men and women from all parts of the United Kingdom who formed the front line in protecting the rule of law. However, does the Minister agree with me that the remit of the proposed all-party talks, under the chairmanship of Richard Haass, should include consideration of a change in the law to make the default position an unrestricted right to parade peacefully anywhere in Northern Ireland, unfettered by the arbitrary edicts of an unelected quango? Surely this is the only acceptable legal model for the mature and tolerant society which we are all trying to create in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Randerson
I join the noble Lord in the hope that in future years it will be possible to hold parades that are entirely peaceful. Unfortunately, the events of this year have made his hopes even further off than they were before.
NHS: Keogh Review
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place earlier today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health on the Sir Bruce Keogh review. The Statement is as follows.
“Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about Professor Sir Bruce Keogh’s review of hospitals with high mortality rates, which is being published today.
Let me start by saying that in the health service’s 65th year, this Government are deeply proud of our NHS. We salute the doctors, nurses and other professionals who have never worked harder to look after each and every one of us at our most vulnerable. We recognise that the problems identified today are not typical of the whole NHS, nor of the care given by many wonderful NHS staff; but those staff are the ones who are most betrayed when we ignore or pass over poor care. The last Government left the NHS with a system that covered up weak hospital leadership and failed to prioritise compassionate care. The system’s reputation mattered more than individual patients; targets mattered more than people.
We owe it to the 3 million people who use the NHS every week to tackle and confront abuse, incompetence and weak leadership head-on. Following the Francis report into the tragedy at Mid Staffs, the Prime Minister asked Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS medical director, to conduct a series of ‘deep-dive’ reviews into other hospitals with worrying mortality rates. No statistics are perfect, but mortality rates suggest that since 2005 thousands more people may have died than would normally be expected at the 14 trusts reviewed by Sir Bruce.
Worryingly, in half of those trusts, the CQC—the regulator specifically responsible for patient safety and care—failed to spot any real cause for concern, rating them as ‘compliant’ with basic standards. Each of the trusts has seen substantial changes to its management since 2010, including a new chief executive or chair at nine of the 14. However, while some have improved, failure or mediocrity is so deeply entrenched at others that they have continued to decline, making the additional measures I announce today necessary.
This time, the process was thorough, expert-led and consisted of planned, unannounced and out-of-hours visits, placing particular weight on the views of staff and patients. Where failures were found that presented an immediate risk to patients, they were confronted straight away rather than waiting until the report was finished. We will be publishing all those reports today, alongside unedited video footage of the review panel’s conclusions, all of which I am placing in the Library. I shall also today set out the actions the Government are taking to deal with the issues raised. I would also like to record my sincere thanks to Sir Bruce and his team for doing an extremely difficult job very thoroughly and rapidly.
Sir Bruce judged that none of the 14 hospitals is providing consistently high-quality care to patients, with some very concerning examples of poor practice. He identified patterns across many of them, including professional and geographic isolation; failure to act on data or information that showed cause for concern; the absence of a culture of openness; a lack of willingness to learn from mistakes; a lack of ambition; and ineffectual governance and assurance processes. In some cases, trust boards were shockingly unaware of problems discovered by the review teams. So today I can announce that 11 of the 14 hospitals will be placed into special measures for fundamental breaches of care. In addition, the NHS Trust Development Authority and Monitor have today placed all 14 trusts on notice to fulfil all the recommendations made by the review. All will be inspected again within the next 12 months by the new Chief Inspector of Hospitals, Professor Sir Mike Richards, who starts work today.
The hospitals in special measures are as follows: Tameside Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, where patients spoke of being left on unmonitored trolleys for excessive periods and where the panel found a general culture of ‘accepting sub-optimal care’; North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust, where the panel found evidence of poor maintenance in two operating theatres, which were immediately closed; Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, where the panel found evidence of staff working for 12 days in a row without a break; North Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust, where the panel identified serious concerns in relation to out-of-hours stroke services at Diana, Princess of Wales hospital. The panel also witnessed a patient who was inappropriately exposed where there were both male and female patients present.
The list continues: United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust, where there were a staggering 12 ‘never events’ in just three years, and the panel had serious concerns about the way ‘Do not attempt resuscitation’ forms were being completed; Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, where patients told of being unaware of who was caring for them, of buzzers going unanswered and poor attention being paid to oral hygiene; East Lancashire NHS Trust, where the panel highlighted issues of poor governance, inadequate staffing levels and high mortality rates at weekends. Patients and their families complained of a lack of compassion and being talked down to by medical staff whenever they expressed concerns.
The list continues: Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, where there were seven ‘never events’ in three years and concerns over infection control and overnight staffing levels; George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust, where the panel identified low levels of clinical cover, especially out of hours, a growing incidence of bed sores and too many unnecessary shifting of patients between wards; Medway NHS Foundation Trust, where a public consultation heard stories of poor communication with patients, poor management of deteriorating patients, inappropriate referrals and medical interventions, delayed discharges and long A&E waiting times; and Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, where the panel found significant shortcomings in the quality of nursing care relating to patient medication, nutrition and observations, and heard complaints from families about the way patients with dementia were treated.
For these 11 trusts, special measures will mean that each hospital will be required to implement the recommendations of the Keogh review, with external teams sent in to help them do this. Their progress will be tracked and made public. The TDA or Monitor will assess the quality of leadership at each hospital, requiring the removal of any senior managers unable to lead the improvements required. Each hospital will be partnered with high-performing NHS organisations to provide mentorship and guidance in improving the quality and safety of care.
Three of the 14 hospitals are not going into special measures. They are Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust, the Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust and Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. While there were still concerns about the quality of care provided, Monitor has confidence that the leadership teams in place can deliver the recommendations of the Keogh review and will hold them to account for doing so.
This is a proportionate response in line with the findings of the review. Inevitably, there will be widespread public concern not just about these hospitals but about any NHS hospital, and some have chosen to criticise me for pointing out where there are failures in care, but the best way to restore trust in our NHS is transparency and honesty about problems, followed by decisiveness in sorting them out. The public need to know that we will stop at nothing to give patients the high-quality care they deserve for themselves and their loved ones. Today’s review and the rigorous actions that we are taking demonstrate the progress that this Government are making in response to the Francis report. I shall update the House in the autumn on all of the wide-ranging measures that we are implementing, when the House will be given a chance to debate this in government time.
The NHS exists to provide patients with safe, compassionate and effective care. In the vast majority of places it does just this—and we should remember that there continues to be much good care, even in the hospitals reviewed today. Just as we cannot tolerate mediocre or weak leadership, we must not tolerate any attempts to cover up such failings. It is never acceptable for government Ministers to put pressure on the NHS to suppress bad news, because in doing so, they make it less likely that poor care will be tackled.
We have today begun a journey to change this culture. These 14 failing hospital trusts are not the end of the story. Where there are other examples of unacceptable care, we will find them and we will root them out. Under the new rigorous inspection regime led by the Chief Inspector of Hospitals, if a hospital is not performing as it should, the public will be told. If a hospital is failing, it will be put into special measures with a limited time period to sort out its problems. There will be accountability, too: failure in the NHS should never be a consequence-free zone, so we will stop unjustified pay-offs and ensure it will no longer be possible for failed managers to get new positions elsewhere in the system.
Hand in hand with greater accountability will be greater support. Drawing inspiration from education, where super-heads have helped to turn around failing schools, I have asked the NHS Leadership Academy to develop a programme that will identify, support and train outstanding leaders. We have many extraordinary managers such as David Dalton in Salford Royal and Dame Julie Moore of University Hospital Birmingham, but we need many more to provide the leadership required in our weaker hospitals.
At all times the Government will stand up for hard-working NHS staff and patients, who know poor care and weak leadership have no place in our NHS. It was set up 65 years ago with a pledge to provide us all with the best available care, and I am determined that the NHS will stand by that pledge. We owe its patients nothing less. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, before responding, I declare an interest as president-elect of GS1, chair of an NHS trust and a consultant trainer with Cumberlege Connections. First, I thank Sir Bruce Keogh and his team for this important review. I know Sir Bruce and have the utmost respect for him. His review presents a challenging but accurate picture of care standards and failings at the 14 trusts. As with both Francis reports, the Opposition accept the findings of this report in full.
At Health Questions earlier today in the other place, the Health Secretary claimed that this was a historical report, going back to 2005. However, it is not. These trusts were identified on the basis of mortality data for 2011 and 2012—this report is about this Government’s failings, happening on this Government’s watch. Anyone who supports the NHS must always be prepared to shine a spotlight on its failings so that it can face up to them and improve. However, in doing so, we must be fair to staff and to the NHS as a whole. In his report, Sir Bruce puts the failings at the 14 trusts in their proper context, by concluding that,
“mortality in all NHS hospitals has been falling over the last decade … by about 30%”.
He rightly reminds us of decades of neglect in the NHS in the 1980s and 1990s, when the noble Earl’s Government were in charge. Of the challenge facing the previous Government in their early days, he says:
“The key issue was not whether people were dying in our hospitals avoidably, but that they were dying whilst waiting for treatment”.
The noble Earl spoke about targets. The disgraceful record of his Government, with a target that they had in the patient’s charter of a maximum 18 months’ wait for treatment as an in-patient, was brought down by the targets that he decries to a maximum of 18 weeks. That is why we had targets.
In fact, the balanced picture in this report bears no resemblance to the Government’s leaking of the report over the weekend but it exposes one of the most cynical spin operations ever seen in this country. Nowhere in this report does a claim of 13,000 avoidable deaths appear. Indeed, Sir Bruce is absolutely clear. He says:
“However tempting it may be, it is clinically meaningless and academically reckless to use such statistical measures to quantify actual numbers of avoidable deaths”.
Yet that is precisely what this Government chose to do in advance of this report.
In the past few minutes, details have emerged of an e-mail that Sir Bruce Keogh has sent. He is clearly very angry about the report’s leak by the Government to the press, and specifically about the 13,000 lives allegedly lost. The noble Earl talked about accountability, so will his Secretary of State be accountable for the disgraceful actions that occurred over the weekend in his department? Will the Secretary of State consider his position? He should certainly do so.
On mortality rates, does the noble Earl recognise that Robert Francis himself said that,
“it is in my view misleading and a potential misuse of the figures to extrapolate from them a conclusion that any particular number, or range of numbers of deaths were caused or contributed to by inadequate care”?
Does he also accept the comment of the Liberal Democrat MP Andrew George that the leaks by the Tories on the Keogh report were obviously designed to mislead the media?
The result has been that these unfounded claims, spun out by the Government, will have alarmed people in the 14 areas affected. They have questioned the integrity of the staff working in those hospitals in difficult circumstances, all for their own self-serving political ends. This is unworthy of any responsible Government. On reading this review, the diversionary spin now makes sense as it is clear that those 14 hospitals have all shown signs of deterioration on this Government’s watch.
The noble Earl suggested that pressure had been put on the regulator to tone down criticisms. Does he accept the word of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, the former chair of CQC? She has written that CQC was not pressured by the previous Government to tone down its regulatory judgments or to hide quality failures.
Let me turn to staffing. One of the report’s central findings is that staffing is a major concern in all these trusts. The review states that,
“when the review teams visited the hospitals, they found frequent examples of inadequate numbers of nursing staff in some ward areas”.
The review team has already had to intervene in three areas on staffing to protect patient safety. Five of those trusts had warnings left in place by the previous Government. Does the noble Earl accept that it is shocking that they have been allowed to cut front-line staff to unsafe levels on his watch? The great sadness is that it appears that Ministers are in danger of forgetting the lessons of Stafford, where Robert Francis identified dangerous cuts to front-line staff as a primary cause of care failure.
Like Robert Francis, Sir Bruce makes recommendations on appropriate staffing levels. Can the noble Earl ignore this authoritative call any longer? What action is he going to take to ensure safe staffing levels in these 14 trusts and across the NHS? We accept that the loss of more than 4,000 nurses during the lifetime of this Government has now been laid bare as a monumental error. Will he intervene to stop those job cuts? Will he apologise for the fact that seven out of the 14 trusts investigated by Keogh have cut more than 1,000 nursing jobs since the election?
The noble Earl tells us that of the 11 trusts going into special measures, each hospital will be partnered with high-performing NHS organisations to provide mentorship and guidance in improving the quality and safety of care. That is to be welcomed but can he guarantee that this will not be deemed to be collusive action by the competition authorities?
I turn now to A&E performance, which is the barometer of the health service and the wider indicator of problems across the health and social care system. The report highlights major failings in A&E at many of the trusts. Of course, we know we have come through just about the worst winter we have had for a decade. At the end of last year, all 14 were in breach of the Government’s A&E target. Sir Bruce is clear that urgent action is needed to improve A&E, saying:
“We have established that one of the primary causes of high mortality in these 14 hospitals are found primarily in urgent and emergency care, and particularly in care for frail and elderly patients … all trusts were functioning at high levels of capacity in the urgent care pathway. This frequently led to challenges in A&E and, as a consequence, cancellations of operations due to bed shortages and difficulty meeting waiting time targets”.
Will the Government take immediate steps to work with the whole health economy to bring the 14 back up to national standards?
Even given the appalling way the Government have handled the Francis review, people will want solutions rather than politics so surely the right response is to accept the Francis recommendations in full, including the one on staffing levels. I can assure the noble Earl that if he were to do so the Opposition would work with him to ensure their swift passage through Parliament.
In conclusion, it is a sad fact that mistakes will be made in any walk of life, even in the National Health Service. The only real answer to all of these problems is for both sides of the House to recommit to full openness and transparency in the National Health Service. People who have been let down deserve nothing less.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am disappointed that the noble Lord should have chosen to turn this occasion into a rather poorly directed political tirade. I can assure him that I am perfectly capable of trading party political debating points with him; I have a great deal of material in my brief which I will not hesitate to use if he pushes me. However, I choose not to because I think this is an occasion for reflecting in a mature and considered way, as befits this House, on a very important report. Therefore I begin with a welcome—I am glad that the noble Lord and his party accept the veracity of the report. It is a fine piece of work. It was done very thoroughly and very rapidly and we are grateful to Sir Bruce.
The noble Lord said a lot about mortality data with which I agree. At a national level, mortality has improved; however, the 14 trusts selected for these deep-dives had long-standing performance issues on mortality rates, some going back to 2005 or even earlier. Therefore, it is only partially true to say that this is a problem that happened on our watch. We want to make sure that we are lifting the lid on any failures of care that need to be tackled and we are not afraid of doing that. Again, the noble Lord was right to say that while higher mortality rates do not always point to deaths that could have been avoided, they indicate that there could be issues with the quality of care. That is why we decided to ask Sir Bruce Keogh to carry out these inspections and to give us his findings.
The rationale for the review was that the 14 trusts were outliers for at least two consecutive years on one or other measure of mortality. I agree with the noble Lord that it is pointless to bandy figures around, and I am not going to do that. He rightly quoted Bruce Keogh saying that it is clinically meaningless and academically reckless to use mortality formulae to quantify actual numbers of avoidable deaths. That reflects Robert Francis’s view, but we now have clear evidence that those mortality data were indicative of more deep-seated problems. That has been the value of this exercise, I suggest. I cannot comment on the letter written by the noble Baroness, Lady Young; I have not seen it. However I am sure the House will agree that the report by Sir Bruce has challenged us all to look again at why poor care persists in some hospitals.
As regards staffing levels, the number of front-line staff has gone up since May 2010. There are 6,000 more doctors and 1,000 more midwives, for example. On staffing, one can be too simplistic. It is not simply about the crude numbers. It is not simply about nurses. The number of staff on the wards will vary according to skill mix, clinical practice and local factors. It is right that nurse leaders have the freedom to agree their own staff profiles. That gives flexibility to respond dynamically to changes in patient demand and workforce supply. I do not in the least dismiss the potential concern that staff may in some instances have been stretched, but I do not think we can make generalisations of the kind that the noble Lord was suggesting that we did.
On A&E, as the noble Lord knows, urgent care boards have been working flat out since May with local A&E departments to develop individual plans in order to improve A&E performance in all areas where targets have not been met, and that includes the 14 trusts considered by the Keogh review. However, this is not only about A&E; it is about how the NHS works as a whole, how it works with other areas, such as social care, and how it deals with an ageing population and more people with long-term conditions. Dealing with these pressures means looking at the underlying causes. That is why, together with NHS England, we are putting together a strategy that focuses on the people who are the heaviest users of the NHS: vulnerable older people and those with multiple long-term conditions.
There is no doubt that people are right to focus on the funding of social care. That is exactly why we in the Department of Health have allocated significant additional funding to local authorities, including a transfer from the NHS that is worth £1.1 billion a year by 2014-15. We have also announced as part of the spending round that has just concluded a local integration fund of £3.8 billion across health and social care in 2015-16. Pooling budgets in that way will help drive down the costs to the acute sector by tackling the acute and expensive pressure points in the system, such as A&E, by improving prevention, reducing unplanned hospital admissions and allowing people to stay in their own homes and live independently.
I agree with the noble Lord that many of the messages in Sir Bruce’s report—in fact, all of them—are urgent. As he knows, in the Care Bill, we are looking at the whole question of openness and candour in a number of respects. Although the duty of candour is not one that we plan to build into the Care Bill, it is very relevant to it. It will be introduced by secondary legislation. The key challenge is a change in behaviour rather than the law. That is why the legislative changes arising out of Francis are targeted and carefully designed to support a culture of openness.
I hope that I have answered most of the noble Lord’s questions; those that I have not answered, I will write to him about.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I want to ask the Minister about the Government’s future intent. Are he and his colleagues now satisfied that Sir Bruce has found an indicator or indicators which require constant attention, year on year? Can we expect to see, either by Sir Bruce or by the new Chief Inspector of Hospitals, an annual look at the outliers on mortality rates and a regular report to Parliament about the findings of the exercise? Is this going to be institutionalised as part of the performance management of the NHS?
Earl Howe
We will see the Chief Inspector of Hospitals picking up the baton, as it were, from Sir Bruce Keogh, whose way of working in this exercise has been very instructive. His judgments were based on talking, not just to a few people in the trust, but to patients, a wide range of staff and, in some instances, people outside the trust. I am sure that Sir Mike Richards, the new chief inspector, will want to learn from that. It will be up to the CQC to decide whether this will be institutionalised. Its methodology is evolving. The hospital aggregate rating system will have a role to play in systematising the evaluation of performance and in any future instances of very poor care we will no doubt see a level of transparency from the CQC which we have, perhaps, not had before. However, I would not want to commit the CQC to reporting annually to Parliament in a particular way. It will report annually to Parliament but it is largely up to it how it does it.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, we welcome the drive to improve quality in these trusts and across the NHS, based on the eight ambitions for improvement held in the report. In the Statement read by the Minister, the Secretary of State said:
“In some cases, trust boards were shockingly unaware of problems discovered by the review teams”.
Surely the boards were in receipt of data on quality. If not, why not? If so, why was action not taken? What attention is being paid to issues of trust board governance and its support and development?
Earl Howe
We will now see follow-up action by the CQC, not least in the area of trust governance where the quality of that governance has been called into question by Sir Bruce. That will be done rapidly. It is by no means the case that governance is defective in every trust, but question marks have been placed on some and it is important that assessments are made, not just by the CQC, but by the Trust Development Authority and Monitor as the two bodies responsible for overseeing the provider section. It may be that the CQC will be asked to carry out further work, but we are looking, for the time being, to the TDA and Monitor to do that.
Baroness Emerton
My Lords, how did Bruce Keogh’s team determine whether staffing levels were short, inadequate or low, as was mentioned in the Statement, when we have not actually got a base against which to measure staffing levels? We raised this all the way through the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill and we have been raising it during the passage of the Care Bill. What was the evidence for low staffing?
Earl Howe
I know that this is a concern of the noble Baroness and I understand that. She will know that work is going on to try to frame better rules of thumb and guidance on staffing numbers. When Sir Bruce looked at this area he had very closely in mind the precept that Robert Francis gave in his report when he said:
“To lay down in a regulation, ‘Thou shalt have N number of nurses per patient’ is not the answer. The answer is, ‘How many patients do I need today in this ward to treat these patients?’ You need to start, frankly, from the patient, as you do with everything”.
That was the basis of Sir Bruce’s assessment on that issue.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top
My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge that Sir Bruce Keogh made it absolutely clear that over the past decade there has been significant improvement in mortality rates across the National Health Service? He said that, because of the increasing complexity of the patient, that improvement is probably greater than the 30% that is measurable. Will he therefore congratulate those hospitals—the vast majority—that have led the improvement? At the same time, of course, we must tackle poor performance and make it clear that that is unacceptable. However, in doing so we have also to acknowledge the significant improvement that has happened over the past decade.
Earl Howe
I applaud that and we should all celebrate the success of outstanding hospitals—there are many in the health service—which have led the way in improving mortality rates over the past few years. The noble Baroness is quite right. Indeed, Sir Bruce suggests that those hospitals should now be asked to partner with some of the hospitals that are struggling in certain respects to show the way, whether that is on governance, on systems in A&E, on quality of surgical outcomes or whatever it happens to be. That is an appropriate idea, and we should undoubtedly ensure that it is taken forward. However, as the Statement itself reflects, the 14 hospitals that are under the microscope at the moment are not representative of the quality of care that the NHS delivers day in and day out, which is of a very high standard by any benchmark.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I accept what my noble friend has just said, but he will understand that there will be concern throughout the country at this very disturbing indictment—because that is what the report is. Will he talk to the new chief inspector to consider whether we can have a form of assessment of hospitals—the noble Lord, Lord Warner, effectively referred to this—so that patients throughout the country know whether their local hospital is graded as being excellent or not? Will he also ensure that there is a debate on the Floor of this House, as there will be on the Floor of the other House?
Earl Howe
I can certainly use my best endeavours through the usual channels with regard to my noble friend’s latter question. On his first point, he is absolutely right. That is what led us to believe that aggregate hospital ratings, provided that they are produced in a sophisticated and careful way, will be very informative to the general public and to patients in a local area, and to professional staff within the health service. The Healthcare Commission, of old, used to produce aggregate ratings. They fell into disuse and, I have to say, into some disrepute, because they were so broad brush as to be meaningless. When we asked the Nuffield Trust to look at this area, it told us very clearly that, as long as we adopted a nuanced and sophisticated approach so that what was assessed was not just a hospital trust or an individual hospital within that trust but rather the performance of individual medical teams and units within a hospital, we would provide useful information to the public. However, that information needs to be accessible.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
If the chief inspector, when visiting failing hospitals, finds a lack of senior sisters on the wards and a shortage of doctors working in emergency medicine, what is he going to do about it? Does the Minister realise that there is a serious shortage of emergency medicine doctors?
Earl Howe
The noble Baroness is right. There is a serious shortage in certain specialties, and emergency medicine is one of them. Work is currently going on in Health Education England to ensure that we boost the numbers in that specialty. As for what the CQC can do, there are a range of actions available to the chief inspector. In most such instances he would draw the attention of the chief executive and the hospital board to whatever problem he had found, and it would then be incumbent on the trust to put its own house in order within a reasonable space of time. That would be the norm. We should not forget that commissioners of care, too, will be encouraged to join in that conversation, to ensure that providers are properly held to account through the NHS contract. There are a range of actions that could be appropriate, and only in the most extreme cases will warning letters have to be issued or more drastic action taken.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
Despite the rather alarmist —and, as it turns out, inaccurate—briefing over the weekend, this is, as we have heard, not a historical report; it is about what is happening here and now in 14 hospitals in the NHS. I was sorry that the Minister skirted round the problems of staffing in the NHS. My local hospital, in Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, is named in the report as one of the 14 hospitals. Yet since the general election it has lost 345 nursing staff. The report found,
“inadequate numbers of nursing staff … compounded by an over-reliance on unregistered support staff and temporary staff”.
The noble Earl himself referred to this when repeating Jeremy Hunt’s Statement. May I tell him that that hospital is now recruiting 200 staff this week? That is welcome, but it can be no coincidence that, after the report, it is recruiting the staff that it needs. Does he now really believe that the £3 billion spent on reorganising the NHS was the best value for money, when staffing levels are so low?
Earl Howe
It was not £3 billion that was spent on reorganising the health service. As the noble Baroness knows, it was probably less than half that figure. The important point is that the saving in this Parliament will be at least £5.5 billion, with a £1.5 billion saving every year thereafter. I therefore suggest to her that it is meaningless to bandy that figure around. I am very glad that Basildon hospital is taking the action that it is. It has recently undergone significant leadership changes. A transformation programme is under way, and that is part of it.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
The Statement repeated by the noble Earl makes the point that the story does not end with the 14 failed trusts. Does he agree that there is clear evidence of the acceptance of standards that are not worthy of our community or of the National Health Service, and that, very probably, such a situation is not unassociated with the lack of a hierarchy of discipline in nursing? Will the Government therefore give an undertaking that, by way of an agonising reappraisal of the situation, they will concentrate on establishing whether the institution of the hospital matron could be considered again, as a post that was effective and seemed to operate well? Many people the length and breadth of this land believe that to some extent we should revert to that system, rather than worshipping at the altars of accountancy and management.
Earl Howe
The noble Lord makes an extremely important point. Those hospitals that I have visited where the standard of care is manifestly excellent have all had nurse leaders at board level whose responsibility it is to make the quality of nursing care absolutely centre stage at every board meeting and to transmit to every nurse in that hospital what good quality care looks like. Whether we call that person a matron or not is perhaps a matter that we can discuss at leisure—but the point that the noble Lord makes is extremely valid.
Lord Black of Brentwood
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend very strongly that failure should never be a consequence-free zone. But would he agree that, for far too long, the bitter truth is that it was a consequence-free zone? My late mother was treated in the Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in 2008 and 2009, on two occasions. On the first occasion, she sustained an injury after being left on the toilet for 40 minutes, from which she never recovered. On the second occasion, having been admitted suffering from a heart attack, she was shifted between wards three times in 24 hours. I wrote to the chief executive and he wrote back to me with 11 separate apologies. I wrote back to him saying that apologies were no good unless something happened.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, that boards must have responsibility. Would my noble friend agree that they must have responsibility for scrutinising data and, above all, looking at complaints, otherwise nothing will ever change?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the historical culture of that particular trust has been focused on financial targets, and the tone from the top now needs to focus on improving quality and long-term sustainability. There is a string of issues identified in Sir Bruce’s review, all of them urgent. The good news is that I know that the current management is addressing those issues. I am naturally sorry to hear of the personal experiences of my noble friend’s family.
Baroness Jay of Paddington
My Lords, I wonder whether I can assist the noble Earl, and indeed the House, by quoting directly from the letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. The noble Earl referred to it earlier and said that he was not aware of the details. This is a letter to the Prime Minister from the noble Baroness, dated yesterday, in which she says that he has been “misled” in the response that he gave in Prime Minister’s Questions. She says that the CQC, of which she is a former chair,
“was not pressurised by the previous Government to tone down its regulatory judgments or to hide quality failures”.
She goes on to say:
“So I am afraid neither my evidence to the Francis Inquiry nor my current recollection … can be interpreted to support the view that, in the words of your answer at PMQs ‘there was a culture under the previous Government of not revealing problems in the NHS’”.
She finishes the letter by asking:
“How can this misapprehension best be corrected for the record?”.
Perhaps the noble Earl can suggest that.
Earl Howe
I am rather sorry that the noble Baroness should have raised that, as I was rather keen to protect the noble Baroness, Lady Young, from any embarrassment, because I think that the whole House respects her. All I can say is that the substance of the letter to which the noble Baroness refers is diametrically opposite in content to the evidence that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, gave to the Mid Staffs public inquiry.
Lord Cotter
In the report there are, quite rightly, robust words about poor management. However, I refer the Minister to a point that I and others have raised in the past. There is a great concern in the health service about untrained, or poorly trained, healthcare assistants. Nurses have said to me that they are held responsible for the work done, often by untrained or inadequately trained people. I have raised this before. Can I ask the Minister to look at it again as a very serious issue?
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, one thing that is very positive in the Minister’s Statement, and in the way in which he responds to questions, is that he clearly understands that this is a multifaceted problem and that there is no single way in which to deal with the whole set of issues. That being said, there is, of course, a “but”. The “but” is that one element of the government response—already referred to at least twice—is the role of the future Chief Inspector of Hospitals. The view taken, and reiterated again today, is that the inspector should be within the umbrella of the CQC. For some of us, at the moment, the CQC is part of the problem. It has not solved all our problems. I share the hopes of the Government that the CQC will remove itself from its current difficulties. However, in the mean time at least—or, in my view, in the longer term—a chief inspector should have both the responsibility and the authority of reporting directly to Parliament, as does the Chief Inspector of Schools. That would be a helpful element of transparency.
Earl Howe
I would have agreed with the noble Lord had he made those comments 18 months or two years ago. However, the CQC has turned a very important corner. It has new leadership and has articulated new ways of working. The leadership of the CQC commands high levels of confidence in every quarter of Parliament. I am encouraged by that. However, the point that the noble Lord makes about transparency is vital. The CQC is very clear that it is not its function to gloss over poor care when it is found, nor indeed to fail to celebrate good care when that is found.
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Howe begs to move that the House resolves itself into a Committee on the Care Bill again today, I will say a brief word about progress on the Bill.
I hope that it might help the House if I indicate that the usual channels have agreed that the Committee stage of the Bill will definitely complete before we rise for the Summer Recess on 30 July. The usual channels have further agreed that in order to facilitate that result, the Committee should continue to sit on each of our three remaining days until we have reached the advertised target. The usual channels are confident that, with the help of all involved, it need not take us beyond 10 pm on any night, although of course both sides of the House are willing to sit later if that is what it takes to conclude the Committee stage before the recess.
I draw the attention of the House to the fact that today’s target is slightly more modest than would have been expected, going by the calendar. Today’s target is the group beginning with Amendment 92ZZV. That is a little less than would have appeared from last week’s calendar. I give the House an assurance that we will still reach the target next Monday, as advertised in the calendar. There are a lot of Zs and Vs in this, but it means that noble Lords taking part in debates on this Bill can have certainty about the business on Monday 22 July and Monday 29 July, as well as having the certainty that tonight we will rise after we have considered government Amendment 92ZZAA. That means that next Monday, we will begin with some amendments on portability from the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton.
Care Bill [HL]
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Low of Dalston
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, in moving Amendment 88M, I will speak also to Amendment 92ZZN, both of which are in my name. These amendments would ensure that regulations specify in what circumstances a specially trained person must carry out an assessment or reassessment. A number of groups of disabled people may need a specialist assessment. For a deafblind person, for example, the ability to access a specialist assessment carried out by someone who understands the impact of deafblindness is a critical first step in the process of getting adequate and appropriate care and support. Assessors who do not have these specialist skills—for example, a generic assessor who assesses older people or a single sensory assessor who knows about visual impairment but not about deafness and blindness and how they interact—often offer deafblind people inappropriate mainstream or single-sensory services which are inaccessible and do not meet their needs.
Similarly, community care assessors can easily misunderstand the needs of someone on the autistic spectrum if they do not have experience and knowledge of how to communicate with someone with autism, or of the impact of the condition of autism on someone’s day-to-day life. People with autism can lack insight into their own condition and may struggle to define their needs. For example, if a person with autism is asked, “Are you able to wash yourself on your own?” they may reply, “Yes”, but omit to mention that this is with verbal prompting at every stage. I hesitate to venture on to this ground with the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, in the Chamber. Perhaps she will intervene in the debate later to supplement or, indeed, possibly correct what I am saying. However, what I have said so far is a fair reflection of the situation as it has been explained to me.
In addition, some people with autism may be non-verbal or have limited capacity to communicate or take part in the process unless substantial adjustments are made. People with profound and multiple learning difficulties and people who display challenging behaviour are two further groups where it is vital that they have a specialist assessment undertaken by an expert. People with PMLD do not use formal communication such as words, signs or symbols and may rely on others to speak up for their needs. Staff carrying out the assessments will need to have skills to ensure that people with PMLD can be meaningfully involved in the assessment process and have the opportunity to influence decisions made about their lives. It is also important that people with PMLD have advocates who are trained in non-instructed advocacy techniques.
Councils in England and Wales have to follow statutory guidance on how to provide care services for deafblind people. This guidance, Social Care for Deafblind Children and Adults, requires local authorities, when assessing the needs of a deafblind person, to ensure that an assessment is,
“carried out by a specifically trained person or team, equipped to assess the needs of a deafblind person—in particular to assess their need for one-to-one human contact, assistive technology and rehabilitation”.
In the five years following the introduction of the Social Care for Deafblind Children and Adults guidance in 2001, we saw the number of deafblind people provided with appropriate specialist support increase by 60%, which says a lot about the importance and value of specialist assessments of the kind I am talking about. The RNIB has obtained figures from the National Adult Social Care Intelligence Service showing that the numbers of blind and partially sighted people in receipt of local authority-funded care and support dropped by 35% between 2005-06 and 2011-12. This compared with a drop of only 16% for all adults with care needs. This is worrying and could indicate that generic needs assessments inadequately capture the needs of blind and partially sighted people and reduce their chances of being judged eligible for social care.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I support Amendments 88M and 92ZZM in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, and myself. Assessments must be carried out by assessors with the necessary training and expertise to understand the needs they are assessing. This point has been made time and again in this Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Low, also referred to the Autism Act. The Department of Health has provided clear direction that autism training is essential for community assessors to ensure that the needs of adults with autism are fairly assessed. Here I declare an interest as a vice-president of the National Autistic Society. The noble Lord, Lord Low, also told us of the too few local authorities that have awareness training in place— 70 out of 152 local authorities have still not got a proper awareness training in place as part of their equality and diversity training.
Crucially, a National Autistic Society survey found that one in three social workers did not have a good understanding of autism. This is, in part, because adults with high-functioning autism or Asperger’s syndrome can have less obvious, hidden needs that can be hard to pick up in any assessment. That is why the assessor must have the necessary training and expertise. Failure to assess needs can mean that autistic people and others with disabilities are denied the support they need to live independently. As we all know, this makes it much more likely that in later life they will have a significantly greater need for support.
We are simply asking in these amendments to ensure that the needs of people with autism and other conditions are expertly and properly assessed. In that way, one can ensure that people will have a good quality of life—the sort that we in this Chamber take for granted. We are not asking for much and I hope that the Minister will agree with that.
Baroness Wilkins
My Lords, I strongly support this group of amendments. The consolidation of the care and support legislation into one Bill is very welcome but not if it lessens existing essential provision. As both noble Lords have clearly described, the initial assessment of someone’s needs is critical and must be carried out by someone who is appropriately qualified and understands the impact of the impairment and the types of support that are needed. As we have heard, the Bill does not provide the same requirement as the current statutory guidance. I therefore hope that the noble Earl will recognise the critical importance of specialist assessment for people in these groups and allay the concerns of organisations such as Sense and the RNIB.
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, I do not have a great deal further to add on this issue, given that we fully supported this approach in the earlier debate on our amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Low, and my noble friend Lord Touhig have made their case powerfully for the need for specialist expertise in assessing people with complex care and support needs—for example, deafblind people, people with autism and those with profound and multiple learning difficulties.
As the noble Lord, Lord Low, pointed out, the draft Bill originally provided for the regulations to specify the circumstances in which a person with expertise in a specialised matter must carry out the assessment on behalf of the authority. However, this was altered in the published Bill, with the only requirement being consultation with a specialist. Noble Lords are right to consider this to be a retrograde step and I look forward to the explanation from the Minister on this and an undertaking to reinstate in Clauses 12 and 27 the current approach, as the amendments propose.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Touhig, for bringing forward these amendments. I say straight away that I fully support the intention of Amendment 88M, which is to ensure that local authorities engage a suitable expert when carrying out complex assessments. The assessment will remain an integral part of the process of determining a person’s care and support needs and whether these meet the national eligibility criteria. To ensure that this is done correctly, it is essential that the person carrying out the assessment has the right knowledge, skills and competence. We heard from users of care and support during the engagement on the draft Bill about the importance of the assessor having knowledge of the condition that the person may have, whether they are, for example, a frail older person, a person with mental health problems or a person with autism.
Care managers and social workers are trained to carry out assessments. Their skills and experience will allow them to assess people with various conditions such as physical disability. There are, however, certain complex conditions where these skills are not sufficient to allow assessments to be carried out effectively. I am particularly thinking about a person who is deafblind—the example, given by the noble Lord, Lord Low. In those circumstances, most care managers would find it very difficult, if not impossible, to communicate with the person. It takes someone with expertise to carry out an assessment properly and identify the person’s needs and the outcomes they wish to achieve.
I agree with the noble Lords that, in such circumstances, the local authority must engage a person with the relevant expertise to carry out the assessment. That continues to be our policy. I also accept that if the adult’s condition is so complex at the assessment stage as to require the services of an expert in the field to provide advice, then it makes perfect sense for this to be repeated when the plan is to be reviewed. I should like to reassure the Committee that the Bill already has provisions in place to allow this joined-up approach to occur if an adult’s circumstances have changed in a way that affects the care plan. Clause 27(4) states that the local authority must, to the extent it considers appropriate, carry out a fresh needs assessment. In doing so, it would have to follow the requirements of regulations to consult a person with expertise. I hope I have reassured noble Lords of our agreement to the principles that they raise. In the light of what they have said in support of the amendment, I will look again at Clause 12 to ensure that we are giving ourselves the relevant powers to achieve our aims. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Low, will find that undertaking welcome.
Baroness Barker
In Clause 27 it appears that it is only the local authority that has the power to ask for there to be a reassessment, not the individual. Is there a provision somewhere in the Bill that enables an individual to trigger a reassessment, or does that power lie with the local authority alone? If the Minister does not have an answer to hand, perhaps he might write to me.
Earl Howe
I shall do my best to answer my noble friend in a moment or two, but I am aware that I did not answer a specific question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Low, as to why we changed the wording in Clause 12(1)(c) of the draft Bill. We widened the scope of the powers following consultation—for example, to add a power to specify when an expert must be consulted —and in widening the powers the wording was slightly amended. We are happy to look at this again in order to make sure that it continues to meet the policy intention. In answer to my noble friend Lady Barker, I would refer her to Clause 27(1)(b), which refers to the right of an individual to request a review.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken in support of these amendments. I am also grateful to the noble Earl for his response. I thought we were going to be in the position where we had to say that we welcomed his support for our principle but we were disappointed that he was not willing to review the legislation to make sure that it put the principle into effect on the same basis as our amendment seeks to achieve. However, lo and behold, the noble Earl, not uncharacteristically, has come more than half way to meet us by saying that he is willing to look at the Bill again just to make sure that the policy intent, which he shares with us, is carried into effect. I welcome that very much. If it would assist the achievement of a consensus on this for us to meet, I would welcome that. I am very conscious of the calls on the Minister’s time as a Bill such as this goes through the House, so it may be that a meeting with officials would suffice. If further dialogue with the department would help to establish that we were fully on the same page on all this, I would welcome that very much. However, for now, with the very full assurances that the Minister has given us, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
“(7) Needs meet the eligibility criteria when—
(a) there is, or will be, an inability to carry out several personal care or domestic routines, and/or (b) the individual will be unable to maintain control over several aspects of their day-to-day life, or(c) involvement in several aspects of work, education, training or recreation cannot or will not be sustained, and/or(d) several domestic, family and personal relationships cannot or will not be sustained, and/or(e) there is a risk of abuse or neglect; they form part of a combination of needs described in paragraph (a).”
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, Amendment 88Q relates to the eligibility for social care. This is a probing amendment in order for the Committee to debate the most critical area of social care reform for working-age disabled people—that is, whether they are eligible to receive the care and support that they need to lead independent lives.
The Government’s regulations have now confirmed that the Care Bill will be nothing more than an unachievable aspiration for more than 100,000 working-age disabled people and more than 150,000 older people who have significant care needs but will not be eligible for support. It is not my intention to debate the nuances of the regulations that have been published in draft, and the Minister would, rightly, tell me that this is not the time or the place to do so. However, it is my intention to focus on the policy principle concerning who should be eligible for social care and support. I also thank the Minister in another place for taking the time to meet me yesterday to discuss my amendment.
The difference that good-quality social care can make cannot be underestimated. It is the difference between being isolated, living locked up and staring at the same four walls or being set on the path to living a full and independent life. The recent Time to Invest in Care publication described the situation faced by David, a 23 year-old man with autism and schizophrenia who currently lives with his parents. David needs support to engage in activities and look for suitable jobs. He needs guidance to gain a better understanding of social rules and to develop his awareness of dangers in the community. He also has difficulty in understanding boundaries in regard to friendships. As a result of receiving the right social care and support, David has a volunteering job and is now working towards moving into supported living and leading an independent life. This is the difference that the right social care support can make.
However, under the current eligibility system David has been assessed as having only moderate care needs. This means that, under the eligibility regulations set out alongside the Care Bill, David would not be entitled to support and his future would therefore be far less positive. Essentially, the Government’s regulations mean that David should not receive this formal social care support.
That brings me to the policy intention of the regulations. I very much welcome the pause in the proceedings of the Care Bill in this House so that time has been allowed for us to look over the regulations that have now been published in draft. I have read them with interest and there is much in the direction of them that is to be welcomed. They represent a real improvement on the current system. Particularly positive is the focus on well-being and, specifically, the inclusion of shopping and managing household finances in the definition of basic household activities. This appears to be a very progressive step which joins up the regulations with the very first clause of the Bill, which has been widely praised, and I congratulate the Government on that. It is also a very brave and positive step to end the postcode lottery in care provision.
However, I have very real concerns about the Government’s intention—as stated by the Minister in another place in his foreword to the draft regulations—that in terms of practical outcome the regulations will be equivalent to “substantial” under the current system. This will be devastating news to the hundreds of thousands of disabled and older people with significant care needs who will be excluded from receiving formal social care.
The Minister is aware that historic underfunding of the social care system, the pressures of an ageing population and a 33% reduction in local council budgets by 2014-15 have led to many local authorities raising the threshold at which disabled and older people become eligible. In 2005, 50% of local authorities set their eligibility criteria at “moderate”. By 2012, 84% had set the eligibility criteria at the higher level of “substantial” needs. The result is that since 2008 90,000 people have fallen out of the care system.
The excellent report, The Other Care Crisis, illustrates the impact that this has had. Four in 10 disabled people who receive social care support say that it does not meet their basic needs, such as washing, dressing and getting out of the house—all things that we take for granted. The Care Bill will not resolve this crisis in care if the regulations are set at the level currently proposed. In fact, by setting a national minimum threshold at a level which maintains this crisis, the Government appear to be reducing their ambition for their social care reforms.
One point which has not been picked up is that the Government also appear to be reducing their ambition for the cap on care costs. While it is a welcome and important measure to attempt to cap the catastrophic costs of care that some people face, particularly in their old age, the Government have made it clear that the cap will only be triggered once an individual has been deemed eligible for care. Setting the bar for eligibility too high effectively means that there will be hundreds of thousands of people who think that they will not have to sell their homes to pay for care in their old age, yet will not be eligible for the cap itself. They will still have to pay for the cost of their care, even well above the £72,000 threshold, unless they are deemed eligible by their local authority.
For working-age disabled people the cap on care costs is irrelevant. The recent joint parliamentary inquiry, co-chaired by my noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton, highlighted the fact that the introduction of the cap was never designed to answer the care crisis for disabled people under 65. The inquiry was clear that the most crucial aspect of reform for working-age disabled people is where the eligibility for care is set. For them, this is the difference between living an independent life and spiralling into crisis.
I also have very real concerns that those disabled people who are set to lose out as a result of the Government’s welfare reforms will be the same people who will lose out on social care. It is highly likely that an individual who has significant care needs, but who falls just short of the current threshold, will be one of the half a million disabled people who will not get the personal independence payment under the new system. This means that not only will the social care that enables them to live independent lives be beyond their reach, but their financial independence will also be threatened further.
It appears to me that there is a clear group of disabled people whom the Government deem not quite disabled enough to receive support. Providing them with just enough support to remain independent will prevent them spiralling into crisis, costing local authorities much more money in crisis emergency care. I also believe that there is a clear economic argument to be made here. Economic modelling, carried out by Deloitte and published in the Ending the Other Care Crisis report, found that an investment of £1.2 billion in a lower eligibility threshold, equivalent to the current “moderate” level, would lead to substantial returns across government. This would include a £70 million saving to central government through increased taxes and reduced welfare spending. There would also be a £570 million saving to the NHS and local government through the avoidance of expensive crisis care.
The Government made a very welcome investment of an additional £2 billion at the recent spending review. I urge the Minister to use this money to invest in a lower national eligibility threshold, not just to ensure that his ambition for a care-based system on well-being becomes a reality, but for the savings it could generate as well.
In conclusion, as Members from across the House have repeatedly made clear, the Care Bill is a very good piece of legislation, and is welcome. However, we must make sure that disabled and older people who have significant care needs do not fall out of the social care system. If the eligibility threshold continues to be set at the level the Government have proposed, hundreds of thousands of disabled and older people will be shut out of the care system. There will be real concerns that the Government’s admirable focus on well-being will be far from reality for these people. I beg to move.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I am glad to support Amendment 88Q, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. As she has explained, the amendment seeks to ensure that the national eligibility threshold, a welcome feature of the Bill, is set at a level which will not exclude this group of more than 100,000 disabled people with significant needs from the social care system.
I would like to focus particularly on the role of the eligibility threshold in creating a truly preventive care system. While I welcome the explicit duty on local authorities actively to take steps to prevent delay or reduce the need for care and support, I fear that the regulations published last week on the national eligibility threshold will impede the realisation of this vision. In confirming their intention to set the threshold at a level equivalent to “substantial” under the current criteria for fair access to services, the Government would exclude more than 100,000 disabled people with moderate care needs from the care system. These are people who need support to get out of bed in the morning, wash, eat, get out of the house and participate in the community—the most basic of tasks that you need to be able to do in order to live a fulfilling life.
Moreover, denying disabled people with moderate needs the care and support they need is a false economy. If their needs are not met in the care system there is a real risk that they will escalate to a point where they have to be dealt with further down the line once they reach crisis point. This does not come cheap. It could lead to longer hospital stays, frequent readmissions, even the need for residential support, not to mention the lost tax revenue resulting from disabled people having to give up work as a result of losing social care support. This happens in one in three cases of working-age disabled people who need care.
Take, for example, the case of Elizabeth, of which I have been made aware. She used to have seven hours of key worker support a week to help with managing her bills and shopping. Following a letter from her council she was told, with no consideration of the impact it would have on her independence, that her hours would be reduced to three per week. As a consequence of losing this support she fell into a crisis. As she said, “I did have a job—I was working with disabled people—but I left because I couldn’t cope. I thought it wasn’t fair on the clients. I was going through a bad time, overdosing a lot”.
This case illustrates how only a small amount of timely support can pay real dividends. Support with shopping and managing her bills helped Elizabeth maintain an independent life. However, as a consequence of losing her support she was left in crisis, resulting in her making several suicide attempts and becoming reliant on more expensive medical services.
Under the current draft regulations Elizabeth would be shut out of the care system. I have real fears that cases such as hers will be replicated up and down the country. Indeed, despite the Government’s supportive words about prevention I am concerned that they are effectively regulating for prevention to be taken out of the care system. The consultation document published last week on the draft minimum eligibility threshold states that for those people who are not eligible for care— namely, the 100,000 disabled people with moderate care needs—local authorities will make available universal support, including information, advice and preventive services.
However, this implies that coverage of such services is comprehensive, consistent and of adequate quality when we know that this is not the case. The reality is that many such services have already been axed or are at risk of closure. Indeed, research by the Red Cross has found that nearly two-thirds—64%—of councillors said that their local authority had cut or frozen funding for prevention and lower level social care since the last local elections. This means that universal services will simply not have the capacity to provide the adequate preventive support that the Government intend. People who are not eligible for care will continue to face a postcode lottery of support and will be allowed to fall through the gap between the care system and universal services.
I end by emphasising that setting eligibility at a lower level is the essence of prevention. We cannot have a system where you have to reach crisis point before you can get the support you need. Early intervention and preventive support can also have significant financial benefits. Research undertaken by Deloitte on behalf of disability charities found that investing in people with lower levels of need provides a net positive return of at least 30% to the Government. I therefore hope that the Government will be prepared to take these points on board and ensure that the regulations on eligibility underpin rather than undermine the vision of a truly preventive care system, glimpsed in Clause 2 but, sadly, not yet fully followed through in later clauses.
Baroness Wilkins
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment. If the Government do not agree with the intention behind the amendment, it is clear that they accept, no doubt at the Treasury’s insistence, that the social care crisis should continue for years to come. As we have already heard, the social care system is currently failing to support four out of every 10 disabled people of working age to do the basic things in life such as washing, dressing, eating and getting out of the house. The proposed national eligibility threshold will do nothing to change this. The cap on care costs for these people will be a fiction; unless their needs are assessed to be at the equivalent of “substantial” under the current FACS criteria, they could well spend a small fortune paying for care, none of which would count towards the overall cap.
The public would be shocked to learn that the level of needs spelled out in the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is not covered by the cap on care costs. The Government envisage that people whose needs are below the proposed national eligibility threshold will be helped by the universal preventive services covered in Clause 2. However, as the Care and Support Alliance points out, many of these services have already been axed in the cuts or are at risk of closure. The £2 billion funding is very welcome, but we need the Government to be clear with the public that they are endorsing the continuation of the social care crisis unless a major shift of resources takes place.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I, too, am delighted that these amendments have given us the opportunity to debate the eligibility criteria and I echo the comments of noble Lords who know better than I do how this will affect them. Eligibility is a critical issue, which affects both disabled people and older people with care needs—disabled people account for one-third of the people affected by the Bill and elderly people the other two-thirds.
The Joint Committee warmly recommended the introduction of a national minimum eligibility threshold as a key way of resolving the current postcode lottery in social care. The new eligibility framework and national threshold proposed in the Bill will go a huge way to alleviate the lottery of care and will be vital in ensuring that there is more clarity and consistency in the provision of care for disabled people and the elderly in England.
The focus on well-being in the Bill was hugely welcomed by the committee. This principle is the thread that runs through the Bill and will ensure that the care system not only delivers basic support but promotes older and disabled people’s independence, allowing them to realise their potential through participating more fully in their communities. This is a bold vision for the future and one that could truly revolutionise the care system. It is therefore key that these two elements of the Bill work seamlessly together so that the well-being principle is at the forefront of the Government’s mind when considering who will be eligible for care, something that the committee explicitly recommended in its report on the Bill.
However, as the Government have rightly recognised, social care is not merely about allowing people to “survive” but 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. In a conversation yesterday with the Minister for Care and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, it was acknowledged that the draft regulations, which have already been referred to in this debate, were just that—draft. Much more can and needs to be done to make them asset or strength-based. Can my noble friend ensure that the work on the draft regulations proceeds at pace so that they are fit for purpose and meet the needs and requirements of all within the scope of the Bill? Can he also ensure that any work involves those from the sector and expert Members of this House?
Lord Rix
My Lords, the Minister knows perfectly well where I stand because I already talked about eligibility at Second Reading and in the debate last week on the future funding of health and social care, led by my noble friend Lord Patel. I was backed in that part of the debate on the question of someone having to reach a level of substantial disability before becoming eligible for care. It should be the right of all people with a disability at least to be assessed properly, from the lowest level of disability to the highest. A level may be set where tens of thousands of people are excluded, such as people with a learning disability. Many are already being excluded by local authorities and being denied the use of day centres, or whatever. I can only plead with the Minister to say something which would give a glow of optimism to all of us who are totally and utterly opposed to the level which the Government are likely to set.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I support Amendment 88Q, which was so powerfully moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I certainly welcome the Government’s intention to establish national eligibility criteria, so that local councils across the country will be required to provide care for all those with a minimum level of need. However, I share the concerns which were so well articulated by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, that setting the fair access to care services criteria at “substantial” is simply plain wrong. It is wrong because it will exclude many people who I know with autism, and who have a low-level need of support. They will no longer be able to live independently if the level is set at substantial.
Setting the threshold at this level also seems to be running counter to the Government’s stated intention in the Bill, which is to focus on prevention. The requirement for people to have a physical or mental impairment to qualify for support could mean that those without a diagnosis will be excluded and miss out altogether. A great many people with autism do not get a diagnosis. I have been dealing with a case recently where people have been waiting four years to get their daughter diagnosed. I join the National Autistic Society—again, I declare an interest as a vice-president—in urging the Government to reconsider this and set the threshold at something equivalent to “moderate”. That is by far the fairest and best way to do it.
I make no apology for saying something which I think I have said about three times in this Committee: there is substantial evidence from the National Audit Office and NICE to indicate that investing in services for those with a moderate need is cost-effective. New economic modelling by Deloitte, published recently, shows that every £1 invested in support for people with autism and other disabilities who have moderate needs, generates a return across the piece of £1.30. That is not to be ignored and should be part of our consideration. There is much merit in this and I rather feel that the Minister, who is a decent and honourable man, will see that there is. I am sure he is going to give us some good news; at least, I hope he will.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, I would have added my name to this amendment because it is excellent and necessary. I, too, hope that the noble Earl will see the sense of it. Certainly, people’s fears that the Government would propose to set the national eligibility threshold too high have been confirmed. Rather than celebrating the achievements of councils that have been able to provide highly valued, innovative and low-cost services to people with low and moderate needs, we are instead to fall in line with the majority of local authorities, with the false hope of avoiding financial strain. Failing to provide services to people with moderate care needs is, at best, a missed opportunity to encourage preventive care and significantly improve the quality of life for a highly disadvantaged group of people. At worst, we are leaving a considerable proportion of people with a lifelong disability to fend for themselves.
Case reports of those recently excluded from receiving support are extremely troubling. We have heard some examples already today with some people losing all daycare provision and facing an isolated life at home. Other case reports demonstrate the importance of lower levels of support. I want briefly to give the example of Frances, a middle-aged woman with a mild to moderate learning disability who has always struggled to understand and manage bills. Since receiving a few hours support a week she has finally had relief from receiving constant threats and eviction notices. How long will her support survive before she is declared ineligible? Clearly the resources of the state are limited but they need to be used wisely, and I believe that our care system must encourage and incentivise local authorities to provide lower intensity interventions that can make a difference to the quality of life for many people.
On the face of it, opting for a moderate national eligibility threshold may sound as if it would require considerable additional funding, but providing these services to a group who by definition are often highly vulnerable and disadvantaged could result in great savings by avoiding more costly acute care later. I hope that the Government will rethink this amendment.
Baroness Greengross
There are vast numbers of older people—for whom this Bill is designed, in terms of quantity—who we know want to stay in their own homes in their community. Early intervention can make that possible. If we delay, the alternative is crisis-driven. It leads to many older people going into expensive care homes where they do not want to be and from which they do not emerge again or into hospitals, adding to the problems we know about with frail elderly people. I very much hope the noble Earl will reconsider and enable people with moderate needs to have access to services.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in the debate on Amendment 88Q but I feel under some obligation to share with the Committee some of the thinking of the Dilnot commission where we went into this issue and set out our views in our report. I declare my interest as a member of that commission. I suspect that what I am going to say may be thought of more advantageously by the Minister than by those who tabled the amendment; however, it is important that we consider these factors.
First, we made it very clear in the report that,
“we believe that those who develop a care and support need during their working life should be assessed in broadly the same way as an older person”.
We tried to create an architecture that was reasonably consistent between the needs of those of working age and older citizens. Secondly, when we were asked to undertake this assignment we were asked to consider the feasibility of introducing this and the affordability of the changes. We wrestled with this quite a lot in our deliberations but we concluded in recommendation 6 of the report:
“In the short term, we think it is reasonable for a minimum eligibility threshold to be set nationally at ‘substantial’ under the current system”.
Our concern in doing that was not just that we were mealy-mouthed stooges of the Treasury but the overwhelming amount of evidence given to us about underfunding of the adult social care system over a long period. We considered that and said in the report that it was seriously underfunded and that funding had failed to keep pace with demographic changes in people of working age and those who were not. We thought that the deficit had to be made good but that that was a matter for the Government of the day and would need cross-party consensus if improved funding for social care was to be maintained.
Lord Warner
I do not think we want to have a debate on our report, but I suggest that the noble Lord reads Chapter 2 which sets out the arguments why we should have consistency between the two age groups and why there was a fairness issue about that. If you distinguish between the two age groups, we favoured not being over-elaborate in means-testing working age people. If the noble Lord reads Chapter 2, he will see that we have in many ways discriminated in favour of working-age people in the treatment of them under a means-tested system. We were not being hard-nosed about it; we were saying that there was a general equity issue about treating people of working age and non-working age under the same architecture in this system. I do not want to detain the Committee with the Warner standard lecture on the Dilnot commission, but I recommend to the noble Lord that he refreshes his memory on Chapter 2, which sets out our arguments.
Lord Warner
I do not think that we said that they should fund the deficit. We said how they should be treated under the architecture of a new system for funding care and support in the future.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I rise to make two brief points. First, this argument is not really about eligibility criteria but about money. It would be highly desirable to extend eligibility to people with only moderate needs, but we will find it extremely hard simply to cater for people with substantial needs unless the pot of money is substantially expanded. That is the elephant in the room. In all the discussions here, we are describing a marvellous new system, but we have not yet said how it will be paid for.
Secondly, I think that eligibility criteria are, to a degree, a bit of a phantom. We know that there is variation between authorities across the country: some accept people with moderate needs and some accept them with substantial needs. Quite aside from that, there is overwhelming evidence of enormous variety not between local authorities but within local authorities depending on who is assessing you and their state of mind. I quote in support of this a report from the National Care Standards Commission in 2005-06 and an excellent report by the PSSRU last year which tells you what actually goes on when people are being assessed. You might have a social worker who is terribly sympathetic to the older or disabled people she is assessing, and her boss who is, no doubt, sympathetic but who knows what budget he has to meet each month. In those cases, you simply get a wrestling match.
Thirdly, and to me most worryingly, once the cap comes in, people and their families will have a huge economic interest in demonstrating that they have substantial needs because that is when the meter starts ticking for them getting help. The danger is that those with, in some cases, the biggest needs will not be very good at gaming the system. Somebody with autism may be told by their parents to seem as bad as possible so they can get the meter ticking. They are not going to be very skilled at that, but the mums and dads of articulate middle-class people will have a different set of instructions to go on. There will always be a tendency to exaggerate—play up to the full may be a better way of putting it—their needs to get them graded as substantial.
I make these points, not to draw any firm conclusion, not even on the question of whether those with moderate needs should be catered for, but to say that more fundamental thinking has to go into deciding how eligibility criteria should be set and operated. This has not yet been apparent, even in the Government’s improved scheme which is encapsulated in the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, my Amendments 88R and 88S take us back to the amendments which I moved last week on eligibility criteria, inspired by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. Promoting individuals’ well-being, assessing their needs and those of carers, deciding on eligibility and the priority for needs to be met, developing them with an appropriate care and support plan, enabling the best use of a personal budget and/or direct payments and ensuring continuity of capacity during and after a move, such as a house move, are all processes or stages in which the active engagement of NHS professionals or services could have a positive effect on the outcome for individuals and carers.
In his response, the noble Earl said that he agreed and that the Care Bill already allowed for that kind of co-operation from the NHS through Clauses 1 and 3. He also pointed out that Clause 12(1)(f) sets out regulations where a local authority must consult with someone with expertise before undertaking an assessment. He went on to say:
“Regulations may also set out conditions around co-operation with the NHS, by specifying the circumstances in which the local authority must refer the adult concerned for an assessment of eligibility for NHS continuing healthcare”. —[Official Report, 3/7/13; col. 1272.]
That is helpful but I wonder if we should go further and place an explicit responsibility on the NHS so that we know it plays its part in full.
Amendment 88Q, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my Amendment 88T focus on the eligibility criteria in the draft regulations. We support national eligibility criteria. As the consultation paper says,
“the needs which are determined to be ‘eligible’ vary from one area to another”,
at the moment, with local authorities,
“able to set their own ‘eligibility threshold’ or ‘criteria’…This approach has led to perceived wide distances between areas and inconsistency in the offer made to local people, confusion and legal challenge. Because local authorities are able to vary the threshold over time, it also leads to the fear that people may lose their care and support if ‘eligible needs’ are reclassified locally”.
It is also very helpful to have the draft regulations available for debate and I have been able to discuss them with a number of stakeholders in the last few days. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that there is concern among many stakeholders about the level at which the criteria are set. This is reflected in the amendment in her name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Low, and my noble friend Lord Touhig. However, we must also take account of the points raised by my noble friends Lord Warner and Lord Lipsey because this is, in the end, an issue of funding. I hope that, when she winds up, the noble Baroness will address the issue of affordability. This may be a technical point, but this might be a matter of supply, since the Commons might well assert their own position in this regard. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, will, no doubt, advise us on that matter.
The guidance is very important and my noble friend Lord Warner said that it was a good first shot. I agree with him and it is certainly something to work on. However, could it warrant more parliamentary scrutiny than is normally given to regulations? We usually have a debate of about one hour; the conventions allow us to defeat a statutory instrument on very few occasions, and there is no opportunity to amend those regulations. We have benefited enormously from having a Joint Select Committee to advise us on the draft Bill: might it be right to have a similar process in relation to the regulations? I hope the noble Earl might be sympathetic to my Amendment 88T, which asks for a joint parliamentary committee process to look at the regulations before they are laid before Parliament.
Earl Howe
My Lords, this has been an excellent and very important debate and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. I will, if I may, begin by picking up the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. He put his finger on a number of very important points. The system of locally determined eligibility for care and support has been confusing to people for too long. It has been seen as an unfair system under which different levels of needs are met on the basis of where somebody lives. The changes we are bringing forward will mean that people’s entitlements to care and support will be much clearer and fairer and will reduce variation in access between local authorities.
That is our starting point and, once this legislation comes into effect, local authorities will not be able to reduce eligibility below the level set out in regulations. They will be able to meet other needs which do not meet the national eligibility criteria through the power in Clause 19, but they will be required to follow a consistent approach to determining eligible needs. That is a big step forward. We must not view these national criteria in isolation. The Bill does a great deal for people with lower levels of need, including through provisions on prevention, information and advice. One of the key aims in relation to assessment is to ensure that this is effective in identifying needs and support options for all people, in particular to help those who do not have eligible needs and to prevent deterioration.
Clause 13 provides for regulations which will set out the eligibility criteria according to which local authorities must meet an adult’s needs for care and support or a carer’s needs for support. Amendment 88Q seeks to add this detail to the Bill. I understand why the noble Baroness would like to see the eligibility criteria set out in this way. Some noble Lords have questioned the number of important provisions being introduced through secondary legislation. However, in this case I believe that it is necessary. It is important that we get the eligibility criteria right, otherwise there is a danger that we will put in place a system that is more confusing than the one that we are replacing.
There is advantage in having the flexibility of setting the criteria in regulations; once again the noble Lord, Lord Warner, gave a helpful pointer to this in his remarks. We are not proposing to amend the national eligibility criteria on a regular basis. However, we need the ability to amend the regulations if it is shown that the criteria need to change at some point in the future. Of course, we would consult fully before making any such change.
To help inform debate on this area, and as noble Lords have mentioned, on 28 June we published draft regulations for discussion which set out the proposed national eligibility criteria. I emphasise that these are intended to set a national minimum equivalent to the level operated by the vast majority of local authorities in the current system. As part of the spending round announced recently we have committed to provide funding that will maintain the same level of services when authorities move to the new system in April 2015. This is the beginning of engagement with stakeholders before we formally consult on draft regulations next spring.
Amendment 88T is concerned with parliamentary scrutiny of the eligibility regulations. The power to set the eligibility criteria in regulations is one of the most important in the Bill and is central to the new care and support system. For this reason the Bill requires the regulations to be made under the affirmative procedure. That will ensure that Parliament will consider the regulations before they are introduced and that it will also consider any future changes. As a matter of course the regulations will also be considered by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Therefore we do not believe that the regulations need further scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses.
Amendments 88R and 88S in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, refer to matters that the Secretary of State should have regard to when making the regulations. Amendment 88R clarifies that the regulations may describe a person’s care and support needs by reference to the effect of needs arising from a physical or mental condition. The well-being principle at Clause 1(2)(a) includes physical and mental health, and this is reflected in the draft regulations. Regulation 2, which sets out the eligibility criteria, explains that needs are eligible needs if they have a significant impact on a person’s well-being and are as a result of a physical or mental impairment or illness. Amendment 88S proposes that a person should be eligible for care and support if they are in receipt of health services. As we debated earlier, a person can expect to receive an integrated service, but the determination of eligibility for care and support must be based on care needs only, rather than what health services a person is receiving.
A number of noble Lords suggested that the eligibility criteria should be set at moderate. As I have already said, this threshold is about establishing a minimum standard, not about taking away councils’ discretion to go further. Local authorities will remain able to meet lower needs locally if they choose to do so. Once again I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for his realistic assessment, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for his comments. The eligibility criteria are intended to be equivalent to the level operated by the vast majority of local authorities in the current system. Independent research suggests that it would cost an additional £1.2 billion to set the threshold at moderate for younger disabled people and those with mental health needs, and a further £1.5 billion for older people. The combined total is £2.7 billion, which is a large amount to find in the current financial climate.
The pooled funding that we are proposing is important to factor in here. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, suggested that setting the criteria at moderate would save money. It is important to understand what the pooled funding is designed to do. Once again, the eligibility criteria should be seen as part of the overall system that we are putting in place. The pooled funding that we have announced will support better integration between local authorities in the NHS to improve outcomes for the local population. Part of this funding will be used to support local authorities and the NHS if they need to intervene earlier to prevent people’s health or care needs worsening. That will include many of the people with low or moderate needs.
The noble Lord, Lord Low, suggested that universal services do not have the capacity or resources to meet the aspirations that the Government have set out. As we have debated, the Bill sets out new duties on local authorities to provide universal services such as preventive services. These will also be supported by statutory guidance to make clear the expectations that we are placing on local authorities. Moreover, as I have mentioned, the pooled funding is relevant here. Among other things, that will enable preventive and integrated services, which also benefit the NHS.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said that it was not fair that the cap applies only to eligible needs. We will debate the Government’s proposals for the capped cost system in due course. However, access to the cap needs to be consistent in order for the system to be fair. Using national eligibility criteria will ensure that the cap applies on an equivalent basis in every area. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, commented that the eligibility criteria will not solve the huge variation within local authority areas due to variable assessments. First, the eligibility assessments will set a minimum threshold, which is important. Some differentiation in local implementation will remain, but as referred to previously, we will require that local authorities appropriately train assessors to ensure that assessments are carried out properly, and we will publish guidance that will help to reduce variation.
My noble friend Lady Jolly asked whether we can ensure that the regulations become more asset-based and that that work involves experts. I can reassure her that the Bill already allows for the individual’s strengths to be taken into account in the assessment. In relation to the draft eligibility regulations I can assure her that we will engage widely with stakeholders to make sure that they deliver our policy.
Baroness Browning
As far as the eligibility criteria are concerned there is another indicator, which I have not heard mentioned in this debate, and that is the number of people who challenge their local authority through the courts. Currently—from my own experience of case work, particularly with those on the autistic spectrum and with learning disabilities—many local authorities, when challenged legally on this, will settle before it goes to court. It is difficult to quantify what that number is, and I do not know whether what I am asking my noble friend is practical. However, in monitoring whether the eligibility threshold is correct, particularly for those with low to medium needs, would the Government be prepared to use the number of applications for legal challenge and, if possible, of those who settle out of court before it goes to court? That is a very clear indication of where local authorities refuse because the current eligibility criteria have not been properly constructed. When challenged, they usually pay up pretty quickly.
Earl Howe
My noble friend raises an important point, and I will take her suggestion away with me. As I mentioned earlier, however, a great deal of what this Bill will deliver is, so to speak, invisible to the naked eye, because it will ensure that those with lower needs will also be catered for in some way or another. I would like to hope that, for that reason, there will be less scope for challenge. I will write to my noble friend if I can supply her with our further thinking on that important topic.
I hope that what I have said will have reassured the Committee on these important matters. This has been a well informed debate. Our continued approach to engagement and consultation on the draft regulations will obviously allow us to consider many of these issues further, and on that basis I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Touhig
Have the Government looked at the Deloitte economic modelling, which shows that support for moderate needs actually gives a greater return on the money invested? If not, will the Minister undertake to look at it before Report stage, so that we can discuss the savings that could be achieved?
Earl Howe
I know that my officials have looked closely at that modelling. I have not yet had an opportunity to look at it but undertake to do so. However, in all such matters a judgment is needed as to how money is best spent. No doubt there are good arguments for the Deloitte point of view, but, as I have already outlined, we think that if one has to spend money of that order, it is better spent in the way that we propose. Nevertheless, this is a debate that we can usefully continue, and I shall be happy to do that between now and Report, and also at Report stage itself.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, and also the Minister for his response. My amendment, which is about who is eligible and who is not, addresses the main crux of the Bill. I shall respond to a few points that noble Lords have raised.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Warner, when he says that we need to be realistic. However, my view still is that a small amount of support for working-age disabled people or older people—to keep them active, to keep them in their own homes and to support them in the best way—will actually save us money in the long term. Moreover, expectations have been raised about what older people can expect.
There is still a lot of work to do on the draft regulations to encompass the needs of working-age disabled people and older people, and to ensure that we keep the consistency. As things stand, giving someone the ability to have an assessment of the care that they can expect, but no actual support, does not help them; it just raises their expectations in a slightly misleading way. Again, disabled people and older people are paying the price of the economic downturn. Although this is not the right time for it, I would welcome a really honest debate on what the Bill is about. Is it about saving money, or is it about the well-being of certain groups of people? As ever, disabled people and older people seem to be at the bottom of the priority list.
I welcome the fact that the Minister has said that he will go away and look at Deloitte’s economic modelling. I think that we would probably agree to disagree about where that is at the moment, but it would be beneficial to try to find the best way forward in that context.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, raised two very important points, the first of which was about the seamless transition. That is incredibly important. This is about not just who makes it to the support level, but what we do with people who are just outside that category. It is crucial that we get the advice and the signposting and all the support absolutely right, to make sure that people are not falling through the cracks. Her second point was that the regulations are still in draft. The Minister in the other place has offered me the opportunity to continue this discussion on the eligibility criteria, and I very much welcome that, because it is a recognition that the draft regulations can be improved.
It is also important that we have a constructive continued discussion on what the draft regulations mean in reality. There is lots of expertise both inside and outside your Lordships’ Chamber, and we must use those people to get to the best place, and use the time we will have in the summer leading up to the formal consultation. I do not see all this as just a negative discussion. There is much work to be done, but I see that as a huge opportunity to improve the regulations and get them into a much better form for everybody. At this stage, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Pitkeathley
“( ) Services of an intimate nature can only be provided to the disabled person and not to meet a carer’s need for support and regulations may make provision about what is, or is not, of an intimate nature for the purposes of subsection (3).”
Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 89B as well as Amendment 89A, as they are both amendments about the circumstances in which a carer can be charged for services. Carers UK—I declare an interest as its vice-president—has estimated that carers save the UK economy £119 billion per year. That is a statistic that I never tire of giving your Lordships. Local authorities recognise the value and cost-effectiveness of supporting carers. As a result, very few local authorities charge for services provided to carers. The Government’s impact assessment for the Bill sets out current evidence on the cost-effectiveness of supporting carers, and refers to the benefits received from doing so: for example, preventing or delaying hospital or residential care admissions; sustaining the caring role; improving the health and well-being of carers; and, crucially, assisting carers to remain in or return to work.
The Bill includes a power to charge carers for services, and a power to charge for arranging services for carers. Given the benefits of providing support for carers, I shall argue that it would be counterproductive to charge carers and thereby reduce the take-up of support.
The current legislation under which support is provided is the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, which started as a Private Member’s Bill. Under the Act, services provided to a disabled person in order to meet the needs of the carer cannot include services for the disabled person that are “of an intimate nature”. It is for that reason that that same wording is used in Amendment 89A.
Interpretation varies concerning to whom, and by whom, services are provided, but the definition legally prevents carers being charged for a respite care service that includes personal care provided to the person whom the carer cares for. As I have said, very few local authorities now charge for carers services. However, given the difficulties with local authority funding, about which we hear constantly, I am concerned that more local authorities may consider charging carers in the future.
Following a recommendation by the Joint Committee scrutinising the draft Care Bill—on which I, together with several other Members of your Lordships’ House, served—the Government have sought to protect carers from being wrongly charged, by introducing the following wording in Clause 14:
“The power to make a charge under subsection (1) for meeting a carer’s needs for support under section 20 by providing care and support to the adult needing care may not be exercised so as to charge the carer”.
Although the intention of this wording is welcome, it does not provide any definition of what is a service for the carer and what is a service for the adult. So it does not prevent local authorities charging carers for services such as replacement care and other things that help them.
It is important that any potential conflict is resolved so that carers and disabled people have clarity about their personal budgets. Independent personal budgets can be useful in relation to managing options and direct payments. Whose budget is this to come out of? It will also be important when the carer count is introduced that we have clarity, so that the disabled person knows whether the cost of care is starting to accrue to their account.
Decision-making on whether services are designed to give carers a break or result in them having a break from caring is very variable at the moment. Some local carers’ services, for example, have experienced variations in approach from their local authority. I cite a particular example in which a local carers’ organisation that provides a sitting service—that is, replacement care, so that carers can take a break—operates with two neighbouring local authorities. One regards replacement care as a service for the cared-for person, including sitting services. The next-door authority allows carers to purchase a sitting service, as long as it does not include intimate care, with their direct payment. Varying interpretations mean that there is a disparity for carers in the same area. Some can access breaks, while some cannot. This creates difficulties for the service provider and for those who want to support carers.
In the current legislation, the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, services provided to the disabled person to meet the needs of the carer cannot include services for the disabled person that are of an intimate nature. My Amendment 89A seeks to reproduce that wording in the Bill to probe the distinction made in the Bill between carer services and services for a disabled person and to clarify how the current wording would prevent a carer being charged for respite or replacement care provided to the carer. Without a clearer definition of whose service is whose, negative consequences for the carer will inevitably result. Carers may be prevented from having a break; they may find that they are subject to charges for services that should be allocated to the disabled person; and social workers and others assessors’ time will be taken up in trying to allocate services to people.
I hope that the Minister, who I know to be totally committed to supporting carers, as are the Government, will accept this amendment to clarify the position with regard to charging carers. I beg to move.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I rise briefly—I fear that that will be the last time that I will use the word “briefly” tonight—to speak to Amendment 104ZB in my name in this group. This is another bits and pieces group; my amendment does not relate to the excellent speech just made by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley.
Clause 64 enables a local authority to recover money owed to it in connection with the provision of care and support. A person’s failure to disclose any material fact would make them liable to recovery proceedings. However—and this is the nub—it would do so even if they had done so inadvertently. This seems terribly draconian and might well deter people from taking steps, such as asking for a direct payment, which they might perceive as carrying the risk of legal proceedings. This clause should refer only to misrepresentation, and the deliberate failure to disclose information, rather than incorporating, as it does, accidental failure.
These decisions of where to apply for help are taken at time of acute stress in many families. There may have been an incident, such as a fall or a stroke, which has changed the picture for that family entirely. At that stage, the last thing that people want to worry about is whether they have inadvertently failed to disclose some piece of information and will have legal proceedings taken as a result.
I cite an example given to me by Age UK, which was contacted by a husband whose wife has dementia. She has a private bank account that she will not let her family have access to, and discussions of financial arrangements upset her terribly, so he has not yet gained a power of attorney over her affairs. Despite knowing that his wife has assets, her husband is paying for everything relating to her care with his benefits and pensions. He feels that he could not make an accurate disclosure of her assets that would be necessary to get the benefits to which he is entitled. Imagine how that person would feel when faced with this clause and the danger that an inadvertent failure to disclose fully would lead to the local authority taking him to court.
Baroness Browning
In the case that the noble Lord has just mentioned, would there be any question of the lady concerned being assessed as not having capacity?
Lord Lipsey
That could arise, I suppose, but it has not arisen in this case. I am not even sure—it is very difficult with these cases, and I do not know if it is even known—whether the man I am referring to has attempted to find that way around it. This lady gets distressed at the mere mention of financial affairs, so it is not surprising that he is ducking away from that. As the noble Baroness says, there could be capacity issues. In certain circumstances, clearly, there could be a court decision that she no longer has capacity to exercise discretion, but that is a long and difficult route to go down in the situation of this poor old man and his poor wife. That is the sort of situation that I am trying to avoid. I am not trying to open the door so that everybody can get away with claiming everything. I am simply saying that if people have inadvertently misled the local authority, the authority should not go after them in the courts to get its money back. It seems a moderate proposal, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to it.
Lord Low of Dalston
I shall speak to Amendments 89BA and 92ZZM. I very much welcomed the comments of the Minister at Second Reading, when he stated that the Government,
“intend to use regulations to ensure that services ... currently … provided free, including … minor aids or adaptations, remain provided free of charge”.—[Official Report, 21/5/13; col. 826.]
That seems only right, since minor aids and adaptations are qualifying services under the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc) Act (Qualifying Services) (England) Regulations 2003.
The Government do not want to see local authorities charging for services that they are not permitted to charge for today. Clauses 2(3)(b) and 14(6) hint at this, explaining that regulations may prohibit local authorities from charging for particular types of support. However, the Bill should be explicit about what local authorities are prohibited from charging for.
I shall take the amendments in reverse order. Amendment 92ZZM relates specifically to personal budgets and would ensure that anyone needing care and support and requiring equipment or adaptations costing under £1,000 would not be financially assessed as part of a personal budget, which would effectively impose a charge for those items. In considering the amendment, will the Minister clarify how equipment and adaptations will be provided for in personal budgets? Will he ensure that regulations are unambiguously clear on the need for equipment and adaptations to remain free and for there to be no variations at a local level? The College of Occupational Therapists has some concerns about this.
I know that the Minister understands how important these provisions are to ensure effective preventive services that reduce both the demands on care services and the cost to local councils. In many instances, occupational therapists assist those requiring care and support by recommending the provision of equipment, minor adaptations and assistive technology, often resulting in recommendations, disabled facilities grants for safe management of progressive conditions and the moving and handling of people.
Equipment and adaptations are critically important, as they reduce the need for escalating care, protecting the individual and saving the resources of cash-strapped local authorities. Any reference to the provision of equipment and adaptations is notably absent from the legislation. However, these aids are critical for many people, and it is important that the Government are clear about how equipment and adaptations will be treated under the Bill. I hope that the Minister will agree not only that they should remain freely available but that they should not attract a charge by the back door when made the subject of a personal budget.
Amendment 89BA is a probing amendment to seek an assurance from the Minister that the provision in the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc) Act (Qualifying Services) (England) Regulations 2003, preventing local authorities charging for minor aids and adaptations under £1,000, will be maintained and to ask whether the £1,000 threshold, set 10 years ago, will be kept up to date.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. On these Benches one of our great hopes for a national system of criteria is that it will lessen the frequency with which people in different parts of the country are wrongly charged for services that should be free. It has always been the case that older people, and carers in particular, can find themselves being charged by a local authority for things that are in fact free under various different pieces of legislation, notably the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc) Act.
All of these amendments have things to commend them. I will start in reverse order, with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. He has hit on something that is a bigger issue than perhaps has been realised yet. When we were debating the pension credit legislation in this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, talked about the fact that she had taken over the affairs of an elderly relative. She was probably the one person in the whole of Britain who at that time knew exactly what the regulations were. Yet it was only after the person died that she discovered that they had a little account about which she had known absolutely nothing. Why? Because many older people put money aside to cover their funeral. That is the truth. It is something that is very important to them. They probably do not tell people about it. I am sure that they also have other reasons, but that is a very common one. It is not uncommon for relatives to discover such accounts, although they are not vast amounts of money. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is absolutely right that if, in a circumstance like that, somebody was deemed to have transgressed the law, it would be unfair and unjust.
I also add support to Amendment 89BA, an amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston. I was lucky to serve with the noble Lord, Lord Best, last year on an inquiry into the availability of aids and adaptations for older people who need help to remain in their own homes. We discovered extraordinary variations across the country and heartrending stories of elderly ladies having to carry their very elderly husbands up and down flights of stairs on their back, in a way that was simply unsustainable.
I commend to noble Lords the policy that was adopted by the local authority in Hull. It occurred to officials one day that, truth be known, nobody really wants a ramp outside their door. So they abandoned their assessment procedure; they stopped sending social workers out to discover whether or not this was necessary. They saved a lot of money that went instead into direct services. That is a commendable approach, and one that probably saved the city of Hull a lot of money in immediate and direct costs. Would that that spirit could go into the implementation of this Bill.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley. As someone who has spent six years in the local authority salt mines, I say that one should never underestimate the capacity of any local authority, when times are hard, to scratch around for things by which they can raise some money—I say this with affection. If there is a scintilla of doubt in this legislation about the ability to charge carers for services, we should remove it immediately. Otherwise I would be willing to bet a reasonable sum of money that when there is a financial crisis in some part of the country at some point in the future, a bright spark in a local authority will light upon the chargeability of carers for particular services. I am not sure whether my noble friend’s wording is the right way of doing this, but her intention is absolutely right. I hope that the Government will take this issue away and make sure that this particular piece of legislation is totally fireproof in terms of the ability of local authorities to charge carers for services.
I also support the amendment of my noble friend, Lord Lipsey. Evidence was given repeatedly to the Dilnot commission about the distressed state that many people were in when they made key decisions about their family’s circumstances. I suspect that he is on to something important that affects quite a lot of people.
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, these amendments under Clause 14 deal with the difficult area of charging for the care and support that we have established is required through assessment. The historic settlement of charging for social care but not for healthcare is being increasingly challenged and the obviously linked issue of funding for social care is ever present, as we have been reminded in today’s debates.
The common agreement about charges is that they should be fair and that the process for means testing should be as simple and as unintrusive as we can make it. Fairness in the eyes of the public means no postcode lottery, but the excellent work by my colleague Liz Kendall, our shadow Care Minister, has shown just how stark the variations are across local authorities today. This is something that we need this Bill to address. Why should charges for the same service be allowed to vary so much? This is seen as unfair and it is. I will be interested to hear from the Minister about this variability of charges and what actions the Government are taking to address it.
For many older people, claiming for any kind of help is hard. We need a system that is easy to use and we could do far more to integrate the various bureaucracies to minimise form filling and document checking and having to repeat the same information over and over again. We could use income information from the Inland Revenue, for example, and we could unify all assessment frameworks and use passporting of entitlement to minimise bureaucracy and administration costs. Much of the detail is for the future in the regulations, but this is our opportunity to remind ourselves of key principles, such as fairness and simplicity, that should shape those regulations. Can the Minister tell us when the draft regulations relating to Clause 14 and charging will be published?
When they are published, the regulations themselves will inevitably be complex and disputes are likely. Dispute through judicial review or the courts is not the way. Will the Minister explain why there appears to be no response to appeal or conflict resolution processes contained in this part of the Bill? Why do many of the decisions made under provisions in Part 1 seem not to have some mechanism of appeal attached to them? The appeals system should be fair, easy to access and independent. Does the Minister acknowledge that this is needed?
On the specific amendments in the group, my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley has provided an excellent explanation of the importance of her two amendments, Amendments 89A and 89B. As usual, it is very hard to find anything additional to say when it comes to carers and carers’ rights after she has spoken. It is right always to underline our support for the provisions in the Bill providing statutory rights for carers, but there are still areas of concern that need to be addressed relating to means testing and local authority care charges, and the widespread fear among carers about charges as local authorities become increasingly strapped for cash.
Earl Howe
My Lords, not for the first time, I find myself in sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and the concerns she has raised about the Bill’s practical implementation. I am sure it is a shared view across the Committee that people should be supported to remain independent within their own homes for as long as possible. As the Bill recognises, supporting carers and preventing or delaying the need for care and support are both vital to achieving this goal.
On the specific amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, our previous debate shows the value and importance which noble Lords place on carers and the need to support them. I thank the noble Baroness for her recognition of the significant improvement that this Bill will make. I reassure her that the Bill makes it clear that local authorities cannot charge carers for services provided to the person being cared for. Our clear view is that Clause 14(3) puts this matter beyond doubt, and this would include services of an intimate nature provided to the person being cared for.
Local authorities need to retain the flexibility to meet the needs of carers in the most appropriate way. This might include providing services to the adult needing care such as feeding them or taking them to the toilet. Providing these services is necessary to allow carers of people with the greatest needs to take a well earned break from their responsibilities. However, Amendment 89A would create a legal barrier which may hinder the provision of support to carers. For that reason, I do not warm to it.
Amendment 89B would ensure that services provided to carers were provided free of charge by the NHS. Local authorities currently do not usually charge carers, as they recognise the vital work that they do. In some cases, however, local authorities may charge a fee for services provided directly to carers, such as when the local authority arranges a trip for them. We want to continue to give local authorities this flexibility.
The noble Baroness expressed a worry about the scope for different interpretation about who is the beneficiary of a particular service. In most cases, I suggest that it will be clear what is being provided to the adult needing care and support as opposed to the carer. However, statutory guidance will be provided to help to promote national consistency on that point. I hope that that reassurance will provide the noble Baroness with the wherewithal to withdraw the amendment for the time being although I will, of course, reflect further on what she has said.
On Amendments 89BA and 92ZZM, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Low, that we intend to maintain the existing entitlements to aids, minor adaptations and intermediate care in regulations. Aids and minor adaptations costing up to £1,000 will continue to be provided free and without the need for a financial assessment. We will shortly be consulting on the implementation of our reforms to care and support funding, which will inform the future regulations. In designing the new regulations, we will consider whether we should update the list of services which must be provided free of charge. However, we must bear in mind that further limitations on the ability of local authorities to charge would reduce the resources available to support people with the greatest needs. The draft regulations will be subject to a further public consultation to ensure the final regulations are based on the best available evidence.
As I indicated earlier, we are introducing a fairer system, including a cap on care costs. It is right that people who can afford to do so should continue to contribute a fair amount towards their care costs, and when they do not, Clause 64 allows local authorities to recover these costs as a debt. I understand the desire to protect people who make mistakes or accidentally fail to disclose relevant information. However, I fear that Amendment 104ZB, which would require local authorities to prove intent, would result in complex and expensive legal cases. Intent is not always easy to prove. Local authorities will not be able to charge people more than their due debt and the costs incurred in recovering that debt, and we think it is right that they should be able to do so even if someone has made a genuine mistake. This is not about instituting recriminations but about correcting mistakes. We should surely allow local authorities to take action in such a case if we believe in protecting public money.
Lord Lipsey
I am a bit bemused. I cannot see where my amendment states that local authorities have to prove intent, nor do I see in the noble Earl’s argument any reason why the person who makes a mistake should have to pay not only the extra money they have received but the cost to the local authority of retrieving that money. That seems to me a punishment too far.
Earl Howe
I had rather assumed, perhaps wrongly, that if, for whatever reason, there has been a discrepancy in the declaration made by a person, it either has to be a genuine error, or something more deliberate, in which case there is intent involved. I am not sure what other explanation there could be. That was why I read into the noble Lord’s amendment what I did.
I think that the ability of a local authority to recover costs ought to act as a disincentive to people to be careless about what they are doing. They should make sure that what they declare is accurate and should be made aware that if they make a mistake, it might prove a little more costly to them than just rectifying the error. This is not about imposing recriminations on people. It is right for local authorities not to be out of pocket when other people out there could be benefiting from the public money that is available.
Lord Lipsey
The noble Lord has interpreted my amendment one way; I have interpreted it in another way. It may be that the Bill, either as it is or as amended, is not quite right. Can the noble Lord agree that we have further discussions to see if we can find a way forward that satisfies us both?
Earl Howe
I am more than happy to discuss this with the noble Lord and I apologise if I have misunderstood his amendment. I certainly would not wish to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Low, asked me how equipment and adaptations will be addressed in a personal budget. Those costs that are intended to meet eligible needs will be included in the personal budget, or the independent personal budget, and will count towards the cap. We intend that aids and minor adaptations will be provided free of charge however they are funded, including by way of direct payments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, asked me when the regulations under Clause 14 will be published. We intend to publish the draft regulations after the forthcoming consultation on funding reform. This consultation will enable the regulations to be based on the best available evidence. She asked where are the provisions about complaints and redress in relation to charging and, indeed, all of Part 1. Existing complaints provision for adult social care is through regulations. The provisions of the regulations mean that anyone who is dissatisfied with the decision made by the local authority about their assessment or eligibility would be able to complain to the local authority and have that complaint handled by the local authority. The local authority must make its own arrangements for dealing with complaints in accordance with the 2009 regulations.
The Government recognise that the existing framework allows local authorities flexibility in the development of the process for dealing with appeals and challenges. There are options for local authorities to introduce independent elements to the complaints process through a range of formal and informal measures. Each local authority will therefore have a different process and we appreciate that local variation will result in varying user experiences. If a complainant is not satisfied with the response from the local authority, they can refer the case to the independent Local Government Ombudsman.
I hope that those remarks will be helpful and that the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, will for now be able to withdraw her amendments.
Lord Warner
Can the Minister clarify his response to my noble friend’s amendment that there would be statutory guidance? I know that I have been away for a few weeks, but before I left, the Government had turned their back on a statutory code of guidance, as I understood it. Has there been a change of heart in my absence?
Earl Howe
My advice is that the guidance that we will issue on this topic will be binding on local authorities. It will not be the type of guidance which merely points to best practice, which local authorities are free to ignore. The last thing I wish to do is to mislead the noble Lord and if I have done so, I apologise in advance and I will clarify that point to him and to the entire Committee.
Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in what my noble friend Lord Lipsey called this “bits and pieces” group, although charging and access was the theme that linked the amendments. I am naturally disappointed that the Minister cannot accept my amendments, but reassured by his restating his intention so far as carers and charges are concerned, and by the statement that he has now given twice about the guidance being binding on local authorities with regard to charging. I am also grateful for his offer to reflect on my concerns, because I am not entirely certain that we have totally removed what my noble friend Lord Warner called “the scintilla of doubt” which might allow local authorities at some point in the future to charge carers. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lipsey
Lord Lipsey
Now for something completely different. These amendments hardly deserve the epithet “probing”—more a light examination by the doctor’s fingers. What they do is, in essence, simple. They substitute for the monetary cap proposed by the Government a cap based on the number of years a person has been receiving care at a substantial level.
The origins of my amendment were in a proposal floated in the minority report to the 1999 royal commission on the funding of long-term care. As I was the author, I remember this quite well. It did not even gain the support of a majority of the minorities, as the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, declined to sign up to it. Nevertheless, it has had a life after death and I think it can claim paternity —the noble Lord, Lord Warner, knows better than I—for the cap proposal in the Dilnot report, because it shares precisely the same objective as the cap: to limit the costs of care to those unlucky enough to require it for a long time as it costs a lot of money. That is the aim of the proposal.
When I first saw the Dilnot proposal, I thought that it was clearly superior to the one in the minority report—everyone would spend the same before the state kicked in. But as time has gone on I have become much less sure of this as two defects of the Dilnot version have become more apparent. The first is that it is extremely complex for local authorities to administer. There have been figures of between £300 million and £500 million floating about for the cost of administration, before money is handed out to people. That is because, to implement the Dilnot report, it is necessary to track each individual from the time the meter starts ticking to see exactly what they are spending on care or, rather worse, to see exactly what a local authority thinks it should be providing in spending on care for each individual—a sort of abstract concept that has to be turned into a concrete figure.
As will be apparent from other amendments I have tabled, I am not even confident that local authorities will have their systems sufficiently sorted to manage it by the proposed start date of April 2016. There is a non-negligible risk that this will prove to be universal benefit mark 2, a scheme that will in practice prove impossible to operate. I hope I am wrong but the fact is that, putting the best face on it, it will cost a lot of money to implement without any of that money going to better care, and not a penny of it going to the people who should be helped. In the Government’s ghastly jargon, it will be money spent on bureaucracy, not front-line services. That is my first query about the Dilnot way of doing things.
My second point is equally worrying. The Dilnot system is terribly difficult for anyone normal to understand. When do you start to get it? How much is assessed as being the cost of the care that you may get from the council? How much have I spent? How much of that counts towards the cap? People may say, “My care costs differ because my condition goes up and down”. All those factors are crucial if people are to know what they spend out of their own pockets. I am sure that better-off people who are in full possession of their faculties will work it out, but we know that 40% of people over 80 have some degree of dementia and are therefore not in full possession. Certainly, those with computer-literate families and sons or daughters who happen to be independent financial advisers will crack it all right. Their claims for substantial care needs will be there on day one in a large pile on the local authority’s desk. They will know every penny that has been spent, but are we confident that everyone else will? Just explaining the system and the process of communication, to which we shall come later, will be jolly difficult. It should be remembered that more than half the people think that the state at the moment pays their entire care costs without deductions. There is a long way to go from there to understanding Dilnot.
By comparison, a time-based system is simplicity itself. You have an assessment, and if it shows that you need substantial care or its equivalent under the new system, the clock starts ticking. Five years later, you no longer have to pay the cost of your care. That is very simple. Five years is what you have to find. In my variant, the council would then pick up the whole cost, not some notional cost, as under the Dilnot cap, and you would simply have to find your hotel costs where applicable. That is simplicity itself and, incidentally, it makes it much easier for you to insure privately. Private insurance companies are going to struggle to know how much their liability will be under the Dilnot system. Under a time-based system, they will know that they have a liability. If you live more than five years the state will pick up the bill and the only bit that they will have to cover is the first five years.
How does that compare in generosity with Dilnot? It will probably be about the same. The Dilnot cap would be reached by someone in residential care rather more quickly than the five years but, on the other hand, as you are going to be paid only in part if you reach the cap, you may not be any better off. I suspect that for those receiving care in their own homes my proposal will prove to be more generous than Dilnot’s £72,000 cap. In most cases, people will take more than five years to reach the £72,000 and it may therefore be slightly more generous to people who live at home, which is no dreadful thing.
Sunny optimist though I am, I do not expect the Minister to go snap on my scheme today. I am not even sure that I do. He and his colleagues had enough trouble getting the Government to sign up to Dilnot, and they will not want to execute any unnecessary U-turns now. However, I suggest that he puts this proposal in his bottom drawer because it may become apparent in six, 12 or 18 months’ time that Dilnot, as encapsulated in the Bill, is simply impossible to administer on any realistic timetable. When that day dawns— I hope it does not—my scheme may come in handy. I beg to move.
Lord Warner
My Lords, my noble friend will not be surprised if I gently defend the Dilnot commission’s recommendations on a cap. His final suggestion of putting his proposal in the bottom drawer was actually rather good. I remind the House that as a young civil servant I was once the recipient of a Health Minister’s regular manuscript notes asking me about progress on various matters. They ended up in my bottom drawer because he had usually forgotten about them. Putting this recommendation in the bottom drawer may be the best thing to do.
I think that my noble friend has forgotten the task that the Dilnot commission was set. It was not the case that we just brought a cap out of the ether and projected it on to an unsuspecting world. We were trying to fulfil the task that we were given, which was to make recommendations on how,
“to achieve an affordable and sustainable funding system … for care and support for all adults in England, both in the home and in other settings”.
In particular, we were asked to examine,
“how best to meet the costs of care and support as a partnership between individuals and the state … how people could choose to protect their assets, especially their homes, against the costs”,
and,
“how both now and in the future public funding for the care and support system can be best used to meet care and support needs”.
I suggest that to fulfil those requirements it is probably better to concentrate on money and try to achieve a credible system than to concentrate on time. One of our main purposes was to project the idea that if we could get citizens to be more engaged with the realities of a means-tested adult social care system, they would plan for the future in a better way than at present. Money is the currency in which they would be thinking, to all intents and purposes. That is why we came up with the idea of a cap.
My noble friend is right to ask how well prepared local government is to introduce this system. There are some genuine concerns about that, which we will debate later. However, he is a little pessimistic about our ability to develop, perhaps over a longer period than the Government might like, a taxi-meter system that works for the Dilnot proposals. They are essentially a taxi-meter system. You need to clock up the costs that are being spent over time until you reach the cap. There is a thing called IT; it is not always well used in the public sector but it is possible to take the pain out of all this. We as a commission did not envisage a new pencil-and-paper system that 152 local authorities would reinvent in individual and separate ways. It is a complex system but it is actually not that difficult to manage, once you get into the swing of it.
I say very gently to the Minister and to my noble friend that we sweated blood for about a year to try to get a very large number of people to agree on a way forward. This is not the time to go back to square one and think of another way of doing it.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I totally dissent from the case that my noble friend Lord Warner makes. I have opposed Dilnot since the first day that it was made public as a report. My view is very simple. It will simply transfer money from those without to those with, and it has been introduced to appease—I repeat: to appease—the demands of those who insist on passing on inherited wealth from one generation to another, a most ignoble way of proceeding.
I think that my noble friend’s amendment is utterly brilliant—it deals with exactly the concerns that I have, and I hope that it does not end up in the department’s bottom drawer. I hope that when the Government begin to realise that the whole complicated process they are imposing on local authorities will inevitably lead to mistakes and errors and congestion and arguments between carers and people being cared for and their relatives and local authorities, they will sit down, have a rethink, and turn back Dilnot.
The Dilnot report is unjust as far as I am concerned in that it simply transfers wealth from one generation to another. I totally oppose it, and I think that my noble friend’s amendment should be enshrined in the legislation. My noble friend Lord Warner set out the remit as if members of the commission were somehow imprisoned in it so that they could not even consider this proposal. As I understand it, my noble friend’s amendments and the idea behind them were not considered by Dilnot. Sad to say, that is the case. I hope that in the near future this proposal will be resurrected—I hope by my own Labour Party.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I hesitate to come between my noble friends Lord Warner, Lord Lipsey and Lord Campbell-Savours, and indeed knowing what is good for me I am not intending to do so. I say to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours that I understand the point that he is making and I agree that Dilnot is not the answer to many of the really pressing problems that we are talking about.
I want to tempt the noble Earl to say a little bit more on two areas which have been referred to by noble Lords. The first is the complexity for local authorities of what they have to administer. The noble Earl has not really responded in detail on this matter so far. Indeed, it is noticeable that local authorities have not responded. We have received a huge amount of evidence, but not very much from local authorities and the local authority associations. This worries me. I understand why local authorities would be keen to play a prime part in the administration of this new system, but these are genuine concerns about whether there is capacity to make changes of this complexity happen. Nothing would be worse than the new system coming into being and collapsing almost on day one. At the moment, that is my view on what is going to happen. I do not know what the Government intend in terms of testing out the robustness of the system for when it is due to come in. I hope that at some point during our debate the noble Earl will be able to tell us.
Secondly, the next group of amendments deals with the public understanding the complexity of the system being considered, but it seems to me that this issue relates to the point about insurance raised by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. My understanding is that one benefit of full implementation of Dilnot—although I am not sure that the Government have gone down that path—would be that, if the public knew that their liabilities would be capped, there would be likely to be a ready insurance market. A number of us have looked with interest at the comments of the Association of British Insurers and other parts of the insurance industry. I have to say there does not at the moment seem to be much optimism about whether there is going to be a market and whether packages are going to be developed. This may come up in later amendments, but at some point I hope that the noble Earl will give a little more information about the Government’s view of the potential of the insurance market to develop products which the public can understand and will be willing to invest in.
Earl Howe
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, explained very clearly, these amendments would mean that the capped system counted time rather than costs. I agree that there are advantages to this approach. The Dilnot commission, in considering this option, said that using years instead of costs would be easier to administer and simpler to understand, and I appreciate those arguments. However, the commission also made the case that to adopt this approach would disadvantage those with more intensive care needs, who over a given period of time could spend significantly more on care than those with less intensive needs, so that what we might gain in simplicity we should lose in fairness. I am sure that we all want to see a fair care and support system giving the most support to those in the greatest need. Using time instead of costs would undermine that goal.
We are committed to using notional spend—in other words, the equivalent of what the local authority would pay to meet an adult’s eligible care needs. As with using time, it is in fact relatively simple to administer because it fits in with the current system of needs assessment. It also ensures that people with more intensive needs are not disadvantaged. That is why the Government agree with the Dilnot Commission, which said,
“the only suitable way of deciding when a person has reached the cap is to meter notional spend.”
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, pointed to the understandable fear that Dilnot will mean spending money on administration rather than on meeting people’s needs. I accept that times are challenging for councils, but we are committed to funding these reforms. Critically, we are also committed to co-producing the implementation of the reforms to minimise the bureaucracy that accompanies them and maximise the benefits that they bring. The noble Lord suggested that local authorities might not be ready to implement Dilnot in 2016, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also asked about this, and whether we were intending to test the robustness of the system. We shall be coming to the issue of readiness in the next group, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that there is sufficient time to develop what he referred to as a taxi-meter system.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, took us to a point that he has made in this Chamber before about Dilnot, and his view that it is fundamentally unfair. I simply say to him that the vast majority of state support, under the Dilnot system, will be provided to the roughly 40% of older people with the lowest income and the lowest wealth. The cap, and the extended means test, provide the most reassurance to that particular group. Our view is that we need a system that protects people with the greatest lifetime care needs. It is not about protecting people with the greatest wealth.
To clarify the question that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, raised in the previous group of amendments about the guidance under Clause 71, this will indeed be statutory guidance, and it will look and feel like a code of practice. Importantly, it will have the same legal status. However, we do not think that guidance should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny every time it is updated, as with a code of practice Statutory guidance under this Bill will have the same status as the current guidance issued under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. I hope that this is helpful.
In a later group of amendments we will come to what local authorities think about the new system and indeed the whole area of financial services. However, I was reassured that the Local Government Association said that it fully supports and welcomes the inclusion of a cap on what an individual will pay. The Association of British Insurers has welcomed the announcement that we have made as a positive step forward in tackling the challenges of an ageing society. Arising out of that is a sector-led review that is working constructively with government to understand how the market will develop and create the right environments for products to succeed. That review will be completed over the summer.
I hope that with those comments the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, will for now be content to withdraw his amendment. I hope that he found my comments, if not ones that he can agree with immediately, at least ones that he will put into the context of the Bill in, I hope, a manner that he will understand.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, which was a miracle of putting very well the point that has come out of the debate. I thank all those who have participated. We have here a trade-off between simplicity and fairness—it is as simple as that. The Government—unusually, my party might think—have opted for fairness, and my party might not be surprised that in this case I have opted for simplicity. However, the matter will rest. Of course, if this system goes absolutely swimmingly, I shall forget that I asked the Minister to put it in his bottom drawer, but if it all goes wrong I shall tell the world that “I told you so”. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharkey
“( ) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that there is, through national public awareness campaigns, a high level of public awareness and understanding of the terms and implications of the cap on the cost of care.”
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, my Amendment 89E covers the same ground as, and is very similar to, Amendment 90 in this group standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I entirely agree with the spirit of the noble Baroness’s amendment except that I do not think that it goes quite far enough.
The question of public awareness of the terms of the cap on care costs is obviously critically important. However, as I said at Second Reading, the Dilnot report views communication to be central to the success of the entire scheme. Dilnot makes two recommendations in this area. The first is:
“To encourage people to plan ahead for their later life we recommend that the Government invests in an awareness campaign”.
The second is:
“The Government should develop a major new information and advice strategy to help when care needs arise”.
In his reply at Second Reading, the Minister said:
“Legislation is not required for that but the Government agree on the need to raise public awareness. The Government will adopt a strategic approach to maximising the public’s understanding of the new care and support system, and that is a crucial part of our plans to implement Dilnot”.—[Official Report, 21/5/13; col. 827.]
I was very glad to hear that the Government plan to maximise public understanding of the new system. Maximisation is a strong word and this is a very strong and very welcome commitment. I agree that legislation is not necessary in order to implement an awareness campaign. However, while legislation may not be necessary, I think that in this case it is highly desirable and probably even essential.
I believe that it is highly desirable for four reasons. First, it is a binding and unambiguous commitment; secondly, it allows for a national campaign, so that there should be no unsatisfactory variations in achievement by local authority area; thirdly, only central government is really likely to spend the amount of money needed to truly maximise public understanding; and, fourthly, it is the only efficient way of holding someone to account for failure to achieve maximisation. As I mentioned, where I slightly part company with the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is over whether her amendment goes far enough.
I have had a great deal of experience of devising and running very large-scale information and advice campaigns, some of the largest being for government departments, and I know that successfully providing information and advice is never enough. It is critical that this information is understood but it is also critical that there is awareness and understanding of the implications of that information and advice. Awareness of facts is not in itself worth very much if we do not understand what those facts mean or what their implications are for you. That is why my amendment is slightly stronger than Amendment 90. It imposes a duty on the Secretary of State not only to run a national awareness campaign but to ensure that there is a high level of public awareness and understanding of the terms and implications of the cap on the cost of care.
Baroness Greengross
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. A similar amendment in my name is not as strong as his amendment. I think that his would do the job that needs to be done remarkably well and I hope that it will be agreed by the Minister.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in this group standing in my name but, before I do so, I should like to offer the strongest possible support for the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and particularly for the words that he said at the beginning about the information task that we face here. This is not just a question of advising individuals when they go to their councils, although that is important and we have had a debate on that. It is a question of making the whole of our society aware of what is going on against a background of very great ignorance and misinformation. It is crucial that something is done on a real scale to turn that around and that the best communication skills are used in doing so. We have to move from the language that we use in this Chamber as aficionados or geeks studying the detail of the Bill to the general public out there, and that is a hell of a task.
As I said, I will speak to my Amendments 90D, 92ZZB, 92ZZC and 104ZC. Amendments 90D and 92ZZC relate to a topic that we touched on in the debate on the previous amendment—namely, the costs and administrative difficulties for local authorities of introducing the cap in the scheme. The Local Government Association has expanded on the numerics in the briefings for this debate, as has London Councils. I think that the local authorities have a slight tendency to underplay what is going on for fear that the Government will take the whole thing away from them, and they want to be shown as “can do” rather than “can’t do”. When you get into the detail, and look below the politicians in local government at the fine detail of those who have to implement it, you find that it is quite difficult.
The Government have in principle accepted the burdens doctrine, namely that if they make local government do something they will pay for it. They have provided around £335 million to pay for that. None of this extra money is coming now, by the way. The contributions will not start until 2016. Bad though the administrative mess may be, if local government does nothing to prepare for this scheme until 2016 it will certainly fail. Already it is doubtful whether the burdens scheme is really being met. Many of the costings put forward are fingers in the air stuff. The detail has yet to be grappled with. Details crucial to costing the implementation of the scheme, such as the eligibility requirements, are only emerging bit by bit. We do not even know what the government money is supposed to cover. Does it fund in full the cost of additional self-assessments, when the self-funders and people who will potentially benefit from Dilnot queue up for assessments? I really do not think that we know the detail of duties around advice and information, on which we spoke earlier, or on the funding for setting up new deferred payment schemes.
My change is designed to write into the Bill what is in effect the burdens doctrine. Whatever the cost, the Government must pick it up. It is not as if local authorities have got large chunks of money in their pocket at the moment to reach in and pay for all this stuff. They do not. They cannot afford basic care services at the moment, so this is a huge task. There is a huge task, too, in training the local authority workforce to do assessment and implementation on this scale, and indeed in creating the workforce.
These facts lead me to believe—and I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Warner, with whom I agree on nearly everything, agrees—that it was a terrible mistake to bring forward the start of the scheme from 2017 to 2016. We know why it happened, do we not? The Government found that they had a few spare quid in their pocket, and wanted to be able to tell the electorate that Dilnot was nigh, and so without proper consideration of any kind they brought the date forward. It was a U-turn, and my amendment U-turns on the U-turn to get back to the right place where they were to begin with, namely that the scheme will come in in 2017. This would give it a good chance to work.
I turn now to my other amendments in this group. I hope that we might finally get an actual concession from the Minister, instead of words of great sincerity and great sympathy and not much change. My other amendments in this group refer to the setting up of a ministerial advisory group on the cap and the means test. They insist that this group should be consulted in the planned five-year review of how all of this is working. This is not a criticism of the Department of Health. I have been impressed by how effective officials have been in grasping this scheme, particularly as for most of the time that Dilnot was under consideration they probably thought that it was never going to happen. They are a first-class team, but I do not think that they possess a monopoly on wisdom, and indeed they do not think so, either. The Minister just referred to the working parties with the financial services sectors that have been set up to give advice. I applaud that.
I think that there are complexities in all of this that even the most literate advisers have barely grasped. I will come to some of them, for example when we come to the detail of the proposals on the means test. It would be helpful if Ministers had to hand a helpful advisory group comprising academic experts, local authority representatives, representatives of the financial sector and someone from Dilnot. Maybe the noble Lord, Lord Warner, would like to volunteer. A group of that kind would not second-guess Ministers on every detail, but would offer its general advice on how things are progressing and how they may be set right if there are departures from the course on the way forward.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I support the comments made by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. There is a case for setting up some sensible monitoring arrangements. This is not just to check up on the Government, but to make sure that this system is working in the way that everybody wants it to. It is a big change, and we are starting from a position which means we have to grasp the nettle, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said. I strongly support his amendments.
I want to refresh the House’s memory of what we said in the Dilnot commission report. I will briefly detain noble Lords with a quote:
“There is very poor understanding of how the adult social care system currently works and how much it can potentially cost. Many people live under the false impression that social care will be free if they need it. If people are confused over how the system works and the costs that they potentially face, they will not prepare appropriately for the future”.
That setting was why two of our 10 recommendations were that the Government should develop a major new information and advice strategy to help when care needs arise. To encourage people to plan ahead for their later life, we recommended that the Government should invest in an awareness campaign. We deliberately put those responsibilities on the Government. We did not put them on local authorities. We did this because we thought that unless the Government of the day—and this would apply to a Labour Government as much as a coalition Government—took a grip on this awareness campaign and planned the information and advice strategy, we would end up with a badly informed public and a mishmash of different local authority systems up and down the country.
We are not going to make this system work well or deliver the changes in the Bill and in the Dilnot commission report, unless there is investment. In our report we put the price tag of this as being a massive public awareness campaign. The public do not start from a position of being well informed about how they prepare for the future care and support needs that they will have in later life. The only way to start to change that is for the Government to grasp the nettle. I strongly support the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, to put this in the Bill. We should put a clear responsibility on the Secretary of State to run with the ball on this issue and, in effect, to monitor progress, not on a five-year basis but on a regular, annual basis. If we do not do something like this, we will live to regret it. We will see failure of implementation and failure to take the public with us on this major set of changes.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, my noble friend refers to the exhortations in the report to require the Government to carry out an awareness exercise. However, the reality is that there has been a huge spin on the whole Dilnot proposal. Many people, even those in care, believe that as of the starting date, 2016, everyone who has already spent something like £70,000 will suddenly receive free care. Of course, that is not true. It only affects people who enter the care system after a particular date. That is all part of the spin which has now led to a gross misrepresentation of what Dilnot proposes. Dilnot, while I oppose it, is offering a lot less than the spin suggests.
I want to talk about the reference in the amendment to the,
“implications of the cap on the cost of care”.
The implications of the cap on the cost of care are that there will be far greater transparency in the system, which was what the Minister told us in the debate that took place last week, when we debated the question of transparency. I argue that that transparency will lead to a lot of conflict between self-funders and people who are in receipt of support from their local authorities.
There is a group of people who will be over the means-test threshold but will pay the full cost under the cap. They will suddenly be confronted with information in this new regime of transparency which will give them far more information about what other people are paying in the home, what the local authority is prepared to pay and what the local authority believes to be a reasonable fee for care. That could lead to conflict within individual care homes and I wonder to what extent Ministers have taken it into account.
An amendment such as this is absolutely necessary because, before people are confronted with this decision when it comes later in this decade, it will at least give them some indication of where the truth lies and will perhaps bring an end to the misrepresentation that is taking place.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, my Amendment 90ZA requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament,
“in advance of this section coming into force with the Government’s assessment of the likely impact of the cap on care costs; and … annually once the section is in effect, with the Government’s assessment of the impact of the cap, in particular its distributional impact across the income spectrum”.
I echo some of the points already made. The operation of the cap ought to be, and continue to be, subject to ministerial oversight. The opportunity to report to Parliament and for us to have an annual debate should not be missed. This links into the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lipsey, Amendment 92ZZB, because it would enable a ministerial advisory group to feed into an annual report on how the scheme is being implemented and whether changes need to be made.
It is important to bear in mind the concern of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours that simply operating Dilnot will favour the better off at the expense of the worse off. We must keep an eye on how it impacts on the distributional spectrum in this regard. That is why I have the second part of my amendment.
Like other noble Lords, I agree with Amendment 89E in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and Amendment 90 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I have learnt over the past few months how complex this issue is, and if noble Lords do not understand the full complexity of the scheme—and I gladly hold my hand up that I have yet to believe that I have full mastery of how it will operate—how can members of the public be expected to understand its full consequences?
In our debate on Clause 2, we discussed the responsibilities of local authorities in providing advice and we debated the need for independent financial advice to be made available. The consequences for a person making the wrong decision on funding could be catastrophic. It is therefore important that advice is readily available, and I agree with those noble Lords who think that it ought to be a national responsibility. Whether I would give it to the current Secretary of State, I am not quite so sure.
I remember how the Government spun this Bill in the Queen’s Speech and the Prime Minister giving the impression that no one would for ever more have to sell their home and that the £72,000 cap was the limit. However, as we have gone through the Bill has become quite clear that neither is the case. I agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours that the Government have not thought through the implications of what the noble Earl said last week about the issue of transparency.
The point is that most people have to spend more than £72,000 because self-funders do not pay local authority rates. In his sophisticated response last week, the noble Earl suggested that local authorities took advantage of procurement at scale, which is why they were able to get a rate lower than self-funders. That was a remarkable argument. Most people see this as a case where local authorities underpay and that if homes only existed under local authority rates many of them would not be viable. It is therefore not surprising that many homes are on a cliff edge of viability on the one hand and at risk of being put out of business because of CQC inspections on the other. There is no doubt that it is generally thought that self-funders subsidise the people in those homes who are paid for by the local authority.
However, most people do not know that. Only an inside circle is aware of the issue. However, come the new implementation, everyone will know—as the noble Earl said last week, it will be transparent—and people will not put up with it. That is why, first, it is essential that more thought is given to implementation. I am not sure whether my noble friend Lord Lipsey is right to want to delay it by a year, but I am sure that he is right to say to the Government that they need to look carefully at the practicalities of implementation.
Secondly, it is important that self-funders are in future fully aware of the consequences of any decisions they take. At the moment, I and many other noble Lords are not convinced that the public are aware. That is why it is so important that a duty is laid on Ministers to fund, and continue to fund, a national campaign of information and that we come back to our debates on Clause 2 in relation to independent advice being made available.
Thirdly, I hope that the noble Earl will readily accept the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lipsey about the need for a ministerial advisory committee, which could then enable the Secretary of State to report to Parliament annually in relation to the implementation of the Dilnot proposals.
The noble Earl will be aware that, in general—my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours aside—the Care Bill enjoys support. However, there is a risk of our disagreeing on implementation. If he can reassure us on the readiness of local authorities, on the willingness to provide independent advice and on the willingness to establish some kind of independent mechanism to report on a regular basis, it would provide a great deal of comfort.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the clauses on the capped-costs system represent a significant step forward, ending decades of uncertainty, with the introduction of a clear system that fairly shares costs. For the first time, people will be protected from spiralling costs and will no longer have to fear that their home will be sold while they are in a care home. In response to Amendment 90ZA, I can confirm that we published an impact assessment of the reforms which includes the distributional impact by income.
The current system exposes those with little savings or modest housing wealth to the greatest risk of losing everything to pay for their care and support. We will enable people to keep more of their capital and still receive a contribution from the local authority towards their residential care costs. Under new regulations, those with capital assets of less than £118,000 will see the local authority pay a proportion of their residential care costs rather than only those with assets of under £23,250.
As I mentioned earlier, the vast majority of state support will be provided to the 40% of older people with the lowest income and wealth. The cap and extension to means-tested support provides the most reassurance to this group. This is about protecting people with the greatest lifetime care needs and not people with the greatest wealth. The reforms must be sustainable and affordable for the long term, which is why we have accepted the Dilnot commission’s recommendation that the level of the cap should be adjusted annually in line with inflation. It is an approach used in taxes, pensions and benefits, ensuring they remain equally fair year after year.
I turn to amendments 92ZZB, 92ZZC and 104ZC. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, shares our aim in drawing up the Care Bill of ensuring the system can respond to changing circumstances. However, that dynamism must be balanced with some certainty about the basis for changes. That is why Clause 16 requires annual adjustments to be made to the cap and to an adult’s accrued costs, so that they keep pace with inflation. Clause 66 provides some certainty that changes are likely to occur only as a result of the annual adjustment or five-yearly review. In reviewing the level of the cap and the means-test threshold, the Government will want to involve a range of experts in assessing how external factors such as demographic change and healthy life expectancy are affecting affordability and the benefits of the capped costs system. A standing independent committee is therefore unnecessary and could suggest that the system is subject to constant change—which may, perversely, result in fewer people planning and preparing on the basis of these reforms.
Amendments 90A, 90B and 90C would require the annual adjustment to be made in line with average care costs. The first point to make is that there is no nationally recognised measure for care costs inflation. Linking the annual adjustment to a care costs inflation measure that has no national benchmark would not give people, or the financial services industry, certainty or confidence in the system. It would of course be possible to develop such a measure, but we feel it is unnecessary, as a robust proxy already exists. Average earnings is one element of the measures used to determine the state pension and therefore represent changes in people’s ability to pay. Earnings is a national statistic certified as compliant with the code of practice for official statistics. In addition, care costs and average earnings are related since labour is a substantial proportion of the cost of care. The latest Laing & Buisson market survey states that,
“in the longer term, fees are inevitably driven by costs … the major cost item is payroll”.
Turning to Amendments 89E, 90 and 104ZD, which is where my noble friend Lord Sharkey began this debate, I fully agree that it is critical that people are made aware of the reforms and what they will mean. The Dilnot commission rightly recommended that there should be an exercise in raising awareness alongside implementation of the reforms. Many people do not realise that they may have to pay for their care and support, which acts as a significant barrier to effective planning and prevention. The Committee will be aware from the debate on Clause 4 that we know that easier access to good quality, trusted information and advice is a critical enabler. The Bill places a duty on local authorities to provide information and advice, including on the capped cost system.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that we have absolutely no intention to or interest in allowing spin to replace clear and balanced information for the public. In improving awareness and advice, national and local must work together. It will be in the interests of local authorities, the public, government and the financial services industry to make sure that people are aware of the reforms and have access to the right information and advice at the right time so that they can plan and prepare to meet their care and support needs. We will seek views in the forthcoming consultation on the design and technical implementation of the funding reforms, which will include addressing the best way to raise awareness of these reforms nationally and locally.
My noble friend Lord Sharkey made the good point that awareness and understanding of the Dilnot reforms has to be evaluated and measured over time. As with any other policy, we will seek to evaluate the effectiveness of this particular policy, but we believe that to require an annual report in the Bill would incur a potentially high and unnecessary cost. There are other ways of delivering the same aim.
Lord Campbell-Savours
If someone is below the £70,000 figure and funding their own care, why would they bring in the local authority? What business is it of the local authority?
Earl Howe
My Lords, potentially, everyone in need of care and support may benefit from these reforms. We want to make it as widely known and as apparent as possible that planning is an important matter, whatever a person’s means. If I have misunderstood the noble Lord’s question, I will review that answer and write to him, but that is the main point.
I come back to the point I made earlier: this is just the beginning and it is why we will shortly be consulting on all these implementation issues. With those comments, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment and that other noble Lords will not press theirs.
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in favour of a comprehensive, national and centrally funded information and advice campaign under the direct control of the Secretary of State. I am sorry that my noble friend the Minister did not seem entirely convinced by that. I was very puzzled by one thing that the Minister said about the cost of an annual report on how well we were making progress in generating awareness of the terms and implications of Dilnot. I cannot see that the cost could be anything but essentially trivial. I may be wrong about that, but I should be very grateful if the Minister would clarify, perhaps in writing later, why he thinks that the cost would be substantial at all.
I continue to feel that the whole issue of providing information and understanding is much too important to be left to local authorities and for the Secretary of State not to have direct responsibility for it. The task facing any information campaign in this area is enormous. The last survey that I saw showed, for example, that only 17% of UK adults understand what a percentage is—even that may be an overstatement—and Dilnot’s implications are much more complicated than that. We need the best communication with the most money and we need obvious accountability. That means central government and the Secretary of State having responsibility.
Given the opinions expressed around the Chamber today, we may well want to return to this issue on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of recent developments designed to halt the conflict in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity this evening to lead this short debate and to pose some questions to the Government about the situation in the eastern DRC. I am also particularly grateful, on such a sunny summer’s evening, to the Minister and other noble Lords for volunteering to speak on this topic. I should record my role as the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Great Lakes Region of Africa, partly because it was in that role that I recently had the opportunity to visit both the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda as part of a parliamentary delegation from the United Kingdom.
When requesting this debate, I thought that it would be timely, partly as a result of that delegation visit, which took place at the end of May, and partly because I spent last week in Burundi at the regional conference on women, peace, security and development in the Great Lakes region at the invitation of the new UN special envoy, Mary Robinson. However, this debate has become even more timely with the events of the last 48, or perhaps 72, hours. There has been renewed fighting in the eastern DRC, not just in one area but across much of the region and involving, it appears, many different groups. Publicity this week will no doubt focus on the clashes between the M23 and the FARDC—the Congolese army—which now appear to be battling outside Goma, yet again, for control of parts of that area. Fighting appears to have begun at the weekend, involving a group called the ADF, which is at least alleged to be made up mainly of Ugandan-based rebels and which appears to have some links with Islamist extremists from elsewhere in the continent.
There has been a growing trend over recent weeks, which again appears to have been shown over the weekend, for the FDLR—a former Rwandan rebel group—and other smaller groups to use the fact that the main focus appears to be on the M23 around Goma to execute all kinds of attacks on local villages. There have been kidnaps and in some cases rapes and deaths. Yet again today we see an outbreak of accusation and counter-accusation from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwandan Governments, which will no doubt heighten tensions in the area and in the region as a whole. I have received a series of e-mails over recent days documenting the horrors that this means on the ground for local people who are living in small communities. To be honest, they are too painful to read out tonight.
The Great Lakes region has, as a whole, seen incredible conflict over the past 20 to 25 years. The eastern DRC is not the only area affected. There is the Central African Republic and the long-standing campaign for independence in South Sudan, with conflict continuing even after that independence has been achieved. There is the terrible civil war in Burundi and the horrific genocides in Rwanda, the 20th anniversary of which is next year. In and around the DRC itself, there is what has been described as Africa’s world war, in which over 5 million people have died in the past 15 years or so. The whole region is affected by each of these conflicts in turn, but tonight I want to concentrate on the situation in the eastern DRC.
This area, and indeed the whole country and the region, is populated by wonderful people. It has incredible resources and a beautiful landscape, but the poverty, violence and hopelessness at its core have been debilitating, as anybody who has visited or studied the region over recent years knows, while other parts of the continent have grown and prospered. Lives have been ruined and opportunities are being wasted on an incredible scale. That is why we, as the United Kingdom, need to continue to be interested in what is happening there.
Last year, a group called the M23 broke off, as we know, from the official Congolese army and eventually overtook the capital of the area, Goma. There are allegations against that group, the Congolese army and others for the way in which the conflict in 2012 was conducted. The UN failed to protect Goma. More than £8 billion has been spent on the UN peacekeeping force over the past 14 years, yet it has continually failed to contain and deal with these conflicts at the local level.
In 2013, however, there have been what might be seen in the context of the region as quite dramatic developments. On 24 February, a peace, security and development framework for the whole region was signed by all 11 heads of state in the Great Lakes region and by four supporting multilateral institutions: the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region, the African Union, the United Nations and the Southern African Development Community. Subsequent to that, on 28 March the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2098, which updated the mandate of MONUSCO in the region but also called for and started to put in place a regional intervention brigade, which for the first time in UN history will have the specific job of dealing with combatants at local level to try to secure peace for local people. It also bravely appointed the first ever woman special envoy in this area for the United Nations, Mrs Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland. She has begun her work and, as I said, I was with her in Burundi last week.
During our APPG visit focused on this area, we met President Kabila and senior Ministers from both Rwanda and the DRC. We met human rights campaigners, parliamentarians and senior officials in the UN. We also met a significant number of former combatants from the M23. This visit has indicated a number of things to me. First, the anger and suspicion in the area continue on all sides and are deep-rooted, but there is, perhaps for the first time, some hope that this regional framework can make a difference. There are at least public, formal commitments from everybody involved to work with the new framework. The President of Burundi reinforced that when I met him last week in Bujumbura.
Progress has been slow in implementing the details of the new framework, perhaps especially in relation to the peace talks presided over by President Museveni in Kampala. However, the UN has put in place the regional intervention brigade and Mary Robinson is in place and being very active. Her appointment has been welcomed by almost everybody in the region as someone whom they can trust. She has said that it is time to do things differently, by trying to implement a bottom-up approach to peace as well as a top-down approach, and in particular by trying to involve women in a way that is so needed, as was of course highlighted by UN Security Council Resolution 1325.
The DRC Government have at long last started to pursue, in a more determined fashion, security sector reform and genuine dialogue between different groups. Oversight mechanisms are starting to be put in place and improvements in governance are at least promised. However, this peace, security and development framework has not just national recommendations and commitments but regional and international ones, and it is to them I want to turn in my questions.
This is a very complex series of conflicts involving identity, land, fear, greed and power. These different emotions and elements of history cross borders in this region perhaps more than anywhere else in the world. We need to see implementation and determination on national, regional and international commitments. Inside the DRC there needs to be real reform and genuine improvements in governance, including decentralisation. We need a balanced, negotiated political approach that ensures that everybody has a stake in the future. We need a regional context that will help to bring peer pressure and, I hope, economic progress to the area. Women must be much more involved than they have ever been before in these discussions and efforts across the whole region.
I want to ask the Minister some questions quickly within the time allocated. First, as this is a unique opportunity, perhaps a once-in-a-generation one, to see some progress, how strong is the Government’s support for this regional peace process and what actions have we taken to secure its success? Secondly, what actions have we taken to support the new UN special envoy, Mrs Robinson, and what discussions have taken place with her? Thirdly, do the Government have an update on the peace talks in Kampala, which appeared until recently to have stalled and whose stalling may have triggered some of the violence at the weekend? Fourthly, do the Government have an update on the events of the past few days and a response and reaction to them?
Critically, do the Government agree that there is a need for a regional approach not just by the 11 states of the Great Lakes region and the African Union as a whole, but also by the British Government, other major European and North American donors and the European Union? Can we do more to integrate our diplomatic and development efforts across the region, taking a regional approach to our development decisions and our diplomacy? Can we use the European Union more? Can we integrate our various initiatives, including the Foreign Secretary’s admirable Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict initiative, and can we review the decisions on aid to Rwanda and Burundi to secure their greater enthusiasm for this approach? The killing, rapes, fear and incredible violence against women and children in particular have gone on in this area for far too long. Along with others, we have been too inconsistent in our attention to this matter in the past. I hope that we can use this opportunity to say that we will be consistent and determined to see this through to an end that might actually bring some hope to the people of a land that has suffered for too long.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
I thank the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, for asking for this debate. It could not be more timely. Anything that we can do to halt the conflict in the eastern region of the DRC and its wider ramifications—as I will mention—needs to be done. I thank him, too, for the visit that he has made, because not many people have gone across this territory—with some fear, I have to be honest—in many years. The eastern Congo area is not a specific concern of my company, Africa Matters Ltd, at this time but I declare an ongoing interest in the whole of sub-Saharan Africa, as stated in the register of interests, and I am an unpaid or volunteer chairman of that company.
My first journey to the Congo was in 1986—a very long while ago. I made other trips in the late 1980s. My first time in eastern Congo was in 1994 after the flood of refugees out of Rwanda following the genocide. One thing undeclared at the beginning of that was the number of ordinary people suffering from death and disease, not just in the camps but over a far wider region. Kinshasa, Kigali and until recently Kampala have not really focused on what this is doing to ordinary people who could otherwise be productive in agriculture or small business and making a change in those areas of Africa.
I want to say a word or two about the developing refugee problem. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some of the detail of what I know Britain is already doing through DfID and non-governmental organisations in the area. There are literally hundreds fleeing every hour into neighbouring countries, mainly women, children and the elderly. Mary Robinson’s comment, to which the noble Lord referred, that it is time to do things differently caused me to wish to speak in this debate.
Two days ago, in addition to more than 210,000 registered refugees and asylum seekers in neighbouring counties, 63% of whom came from the DRC, a further 66,000 refugees had fled into the western part of Uganda. Today, Congolese government forces have attacked the M23 rebels near Goma and this is, as the noble Lord said, the third day of heavy fighting, causing hundreds more still to flee their homes. It is right that the UN should now be deploying the 3,000-strong intervention force of South African, Tanzanian and Malawian troops, patrolling and not yet in combat role. The new mandate may help, although it could hinder, because it will allow UN forces to attack if rebels continue to attack local populations. We hope that we will see some progress under the new mandate.
However, progress in stopping fighting is not going to be sufficient to sort out the immense problems in the region. I am quite certain that the UN would now block any attack on Goma, but that comes long after a period of waiting to see what would happen. If there is one thing that I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench, it is that we stop waiting to see what happens and, with others in the Security Council, ensure that Mary Robinson and others in the field have all the support that they need to make a difference.
Reuters recently reported that three Congolese government helicopters were in the area and were attacking the rebels in the town of Kibati, about four kilometres north of Goma. Congolese government forces are pushing rebels back to wherever those rebels come from, but there have been further attacks and so the churn of new refugees increases hour by hour. I know that, on Monday, rebels and the Congolese government troops traded mortar fire again in the north. This is happening not in a mining area, as some would have us believe, but in inhabited areas.
That is what I wish to underline in this debate. Over the past 20 years, millions have died from violence, disease, wounds and hunger. Whoever is arming the rebels is prolonging the unrest. What do the British Government know about the sources of the weaponry and the other means by which the rebel forces are prolonging the campaigns against ordinary people? One of the past failures in the area has been to communicate with people on the ground the reality of what they are doing. There is a need for a tougher line to explain to the rebels and to others who may be drawn into the conflict exactly where this is leading. I for one have deep fears about what is happening.
The other line that I hope my noble friend will pursue is the question of how people are recruited into the M23 or any other rebel groups. There must be some knowledge in the UN of exactly how people are recruited. It is not happening by accident. They may be recruited from border areas of neighbouring countries without the permission or blessing of those Governments. I am well aware that the Government of Rwanda have declared that they do not assist the M23, but if Rwandan people—and I do not just mean Tutsis who may happen to be in eastern Congo but are citizens of Rwanda—are turning up among the rebel forces, it must be for the Governments on both sides of the border to take action about those who are crossing simply to perpetuate the violence and warfare.
This is causing a real refugee crisis for the neighbours. The only way in which we can be of maximum help is by taking the sort of action that we took years ago, with clear direction, in Sierra Leone under General Sir David Richards. We need to give a lead to the UN troops about how they deal with this continuing insurrection because, unless we and others who have the ability to make the change do so, Mary Robinson’s task will be impossible.
Lord Chidgey
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, on securing this very timely debate, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, for her very informative contribution.
The distance from the Atlantic coast of the DRC west of Kinshasa to Goma on the eastern border with Rwanda is not far short of 2,000 kilometres as the crow flies. If it were possible to make the journey by road, the distance would be at least half as much again. As in many African countries, the road network is at best patchy, mainly graded and rolled laterite. At worst, it is just muddy tracks. In fact, the maps show that the river network in the Congo is far denser than that of the roads.
Much of the economic activity in the DRC, apart from mining, is confined to the urban area around Kinshasa. Communications with the rest of this vast country are at the mercy of an unreliable internal air service. The difficulties of administering a country with such sparse infrastructure are bad enough. Factor in a non-existent local government and a central government described as weak and corrupt and the task becomes immensely challenging.
Local elections have never occurred in the DRC. They have been regularly postponed since 2006. Civil society, NGOs and international donors all agree that the organisation of these elections would form a critical education and empowerment process. Beyond elections themselves, the reform of the National Electoral Commission—CENI—has been under scrutiny since before the 2011 general elections. Prior to the election, I and a small team of parliamentarians met CENI in Kinshasa. Its main objective seemed to be to present an election-funding and facilitating wish list beyond reason. We were not impressed. It may be that the mission that visited in May, which the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, described, has better news, and I look forward to seeing its report in due course.
Civil society sees revision of CENI as just one step in a wider process of reform of electoral institutions. A review of the electoral roll, the redefinition of constituencies and improving and supporting civic education are all on the urgent agenda. According to the constitution, the president should not be able to run for a third term but, having amended the constitution in 2011 to reduce the presidential election to just one round, many anticipate Kabila being tempted into further amendments to give himself a third term.
International commentators are slowly coming to the conclusion that there is little to show for all the peacekeeping missions, special envoys, inter-agency processes and diplomatic initiatives in the failed state that is the DRC. Since Mobutu’s removal from power in 1997, probably more than 5 million people have died in the DRC through civil war, massacre and criminal activities. The DRC is second only to Somalia in the failed states index. It is last in the UN Human Development Index, last in GDP per capita, behind even Somalia and South Sudan, and very close to bottom of the Transparency International’s corruption perceptions index.
Since 2000, the DRC has received $27 billion in development assistance and is probably the world’s largest recipient of international assistance after Afghanistan, yet there is still no effective governmental structure serving the needs of the two-thirds of the population—60 million people—who live outside Kinshasa’s area of influence. To DfID’s credit, it has launched a humanitarian development aid programme from 2011-15 which, if the security situation allows, will begin to make a difference to the people of the DRC.
In November 2012, the M23 rebel group, which is thought to be backed by Rwanda, seemingly walked past MONUSCO troops and occupied Goma, North Kivu’s provincial capital. A few days later, their point made, the rebels melted back into the forest. This March, fighters of the Mai-Mai Bakata Katanga entered the DRC’s second largest city, Lubumbashi, clashed with government forces and then surrendered, harking back to events in the 1960s when Katanga province broke away from the Congolese state. The latest report from a UN group of experts given the role of gathering and analysing relevant information on flows of arms and networks operating in violation of the embargo on the DRC has to date found no evidence of support for the M23 rebels from Uganda. However, it has evidence of limited and continuous support to the M23 from within Rwanda. When my noble friend the Minister responds, will she say what impact the continuous outbreaks of violence are having on DfID’s programme for 2011-15?
The UN Panel of Experts report goes into great detail about the changes in leadership of the M23 and the rivalry between indicted war criminal General Bosco Ntaganda and his deputy Sultani Makenga. Their struggles led to a split in the M23 and, ultimately, to military confrontations and the surrender of Bosco Ntaganda. Supplied with arms in exchange for gold and ivory gained from poaching activities in many parts of the DRC, the M23 are now thought to have some 1,500 soldiers spread over an area of 700 square kilometres. Yet the authorities have been slow to recognise the dangers in the current situation, given Katanga’s pivotal prominence in the region’s economy. Meanwhile, Joseph Kony now has a window in which to regroup his repugnant LRA in the Central Africa Republic that could soon spread again to the DRC. This could well reverse the gains made in quelling the rebellion in the region which, with the help of US advisers based in Uganda, cut attacks by half. There is a real concern that, with this mission currently on hold, attacks will build again. Can my noble friend the Minister shed some light on when this US-supported mission is likely to recommence?
As part of the strategic review of MONUSCO included in the peace, security and co-operation framework for the region, the UN Security Council’s resolution 2098 provides, as noble Lords have mentioned, for a brigade of over 3,000 troops drawn from Tanzania, South Africa and Malawi. At last, MONUSCO has been given a more offensive mandate, providing for targeted and robust offensives with a view to neutralising and disarming armed groups, while taking into account the necessity to protect civilians and reduce risks.
The MONUSCO senior staff I met in Goma would have been mightily pleased at the strengthening of their mandate. However, the emphasis on civilian protection will be hard to achieve. I met a group of five women in a church hall in Goma who had come to tell us how they had suffered multiple rapes at the hands of soldiers: whether they were rebels or army was not clear. They carefully and earnestly explained the details of their suffering. One had had a toddler snatched from her arms and butchered in front of her before they raped her. Another had been caught on her way to school and repeatedly raped. At that time, she was just nine years old.
Ban Ki-Moon has made it clear that the UN brigade is only one element of a much larger process. The peace deal has to deliver a peace dividend: health, education, jobs and opportunity. Can my noble friend tell the House where the allocation of additional resources needed to support the implementation of the peace, security and co-operation framework is to be made? What is the Government’s assessment of the military and logistics capability and capacity of the 3,000-strong UN brigade to take on and eliminate the 20 to 40 guerrilla groups consistently wreaking havoc across North Kivu and South Kivu alone? What does my noble friend believe has been learnt from the UN operations in 2009 that were intended to enable the government to regain control of the region? Finally, what plans are in place to prevent a repeat of armed groups being chased away to be immediately replaced by new ones, resulting in more displacement of civilians, armed groups fragmenting and spreading across Kivu and more retaliatory attacks on the civilian population?
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend, Lord McConnell for tabling this debate. His recent first-hand experience in the DRC brings a terrific insight to the debate and highlights some of the issues to which all noble Lords have referred.
After a three-year period of relative stability and closer security co-operation between the DRC and Rwanda, the political and security situation in eastern DRC has once again worsened during the past year. As my noble friend described, it commenced with an armed rebellion by a breakaway militia from the DRC army—the M23 group—which, as we have heard, has close links with Rwanda and which seized the regional capital of Goma.
As my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, have highlighted, this happened despite the presence of the largest UN peacekeeping force anywhere in the world, consisting of 17,000 troops. When tested, on this occasion and others, the force has unfortunately failed to maintain security and to protect the civilian population. As the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, has just said, the humanitarian impact of conflict is huge and women, in particular, have suffered atrocious sexual violence which continues to occur with impunity. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, has said, the Guardian reported today that some 66,000 Congolese refugees were pouring across the border to Uganda after a surprise attack by the Islamist ADF.
As my noble friend Lord McConnell highlighted, fresh fighting erupted near Goma on Monday when, according to the residents, more than 100 armed men, disguised in women’s clothing, entered the country from Rwanda. Like my noble friend, I ask the Minister what the Government’s immediate response is to these recent events.
As we have heard, eastern DRC requires radical security-sector reform, a political settlement and a focus, as my noble friend highlighted, on long-term development assistance. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, said, there is no doubt that Rwanda should immediately cease its interference in the east of the DRC. However, the DRC cannot continue to blame Rwanda for all its problems. It needs to tackle its serious governance issues. I, too, recognise the terrific role that DfID has played in the DRC in the most challenging of circumstances. The UK is one of the largest donors to the DRC and should be taking a leading role in the east, including setting up a DfID office in Goma; that was discussed in 2009 but never delivered.
We need to start to address the key structural causes of poverty and underdevelopment across the world. I welcome many of the initiatives that the Prime Minister has announced. However, those issues are nowhere more pertinent than in the DRC. As my noble friend Lord McConnell said, it is crucial that the international community supports the implementation of the peace, security and co-operation framework initiative, which attempts to bring stability and prosperity to the eastern DRC. Only a coherent strategy that combines security, a regional political process and a development focused on the long term has the possibility of achieving sustainable change.
First, radical, not superficial, reform of the security sector is necessary. The police and army need to be professionalised and properly paid. As we have heard, the UN’s MONUSCO force is unable to act sufficiently effectively at the most critical of times. Secondly, there needs to be a genuine political process between the DRC, Rwanda and their neighbours to negotiate a political settlement for the long term and to ensure that it is implemented by all parties; and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, said, to ensure that all parties are held accountable. The new framework and the role of Mary Robinson are undoubtedly crucial to this.
Thirdly, a shared strategy from the Government and donors is necessary for the country to move from humanitarian and emergency assistance, vital though that is, to sustainable economic and social development. This will have to include new governance arrangements and transparency to ensure that the benefits of the rich natural resources of that country are no longer lost to corruption. For this to happen, first and foremost, as the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, so ably highlighted, there needs to be a functioning DRC Government and state. Many of the political party representatives desire to rebuild the country, promote peace and rebuild their national economy. However, over many years the Government have failed to deliver any significant progress on these objectives.
The DRC is suffering a crisis of legitimacy and leadership. The most urgent task is to organise local and provincial elections, which the noble Lord referred to, which have been delayed since 2006. With the next presidential election due in 2016, the international community must make it very clear that any attempt by President Kabila to change the constitution to extend his mandate will be unacceptable and will lead to a strong response.
I also have questions for the Minister, but perhaps rather than simply repeating those which have already been asked, I will ask: given the concerns over the last presidential election, what are the Government doing in conjunction with the European Union, the African Union and the US to help ensure that the Kinshasa Government are more representative? What are the Government doing to secure a more legitimate mandate for the Government of the DRC from the people of that country? I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the immediate concerns that noble Lords have raised, but also to focus on what my noble friend Lord McConnell described at the beginning of this debate—the longer-term sustainable development of a country that is rich in resources and in wonderful people.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for introducing this timely debate. As noble Lords who took part in this debate this evening will be well aware, the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo has been subject to cycles of conflict for many years, and more than 5 million people have lost their lives as a result. Its people have suffered too much and for too long. Many have fled their homes, villages have been attacked, there have been summary executions, and there are high levels of sexual violence, including mass rape.
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, and my noble friend Lady Chalker referred to the ongoing tension, but also to the recent increase in fighting. The actions of the ADF-NALU militia have driven tens of thousands of refugees into Uganda, and the ongoing fighting between the M23 and the DRC army are, of course, concerning. This is an appalling record—more concerning in recent times—and it cannot be allowed to continue. We have urged all sides to show restraint and all militia groups to lay down their arms. We have heard reports of connections with extremist Islamic groups, but at this stage those claims cannot be evidenced and substantiated.
The UK has, of course, been a long-term partner of the DRC. The Department for International Development provides much-needed funding—£790 million between 2011 and 2016—to those in greatest need. UK taxpayer-funded assistance in the DRC over this five-year period alone will include: providing almost 2 million people with clean water; protecting 13.5 million people from malaria—the leading cause of death for children under five in the country—through the simple provision of insecticide-treated bed nets; providing assistance to almost 400,000 women in childbirth; and creating nearly 45,000 new jobs. Through its contribution to the UN, the UK helps to support the work of UN peacekeepers on the front line of the conflict, trying to prevent armed groups wreaking havoc among long-suffering local populations.
In response to my noble friend Lord Chidgey, I can say that I am not aware whether the recent fighting has had any impact on DfID’s programmes, but I can ask DfID to write to him with further information.
A different approach is needed if the cycle of violence in the DRC is to be broken for good. We have now reached a critical moment when there is a window of opportunity to help bring lasting stability and prosperity to this conflict-torn region. Noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Collins, have spoken of immediate responses, but we need to focus on long-term sustainability.
Four events now give us a window of opportunity. First, the signing of the UN-brokered peace, security and co-operation framework—the PSCF—in February marked a moment where 11 regional countries, including the DRC and Rwanda, came together to sign up to commitments which, if implemented, will lead to peaceful co-operation and economic integration across the whole region. This agreement was also signed by four organisations: the UN, the African Union, the Southern African Development Community and the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region.
For the DRC the framework means commitment to deepening security sector reform, consolidating state authority, working towards decentralisation, building economic development, and further structural reform of public institutions—the long-term developments needed for stability. The DRC’s neighbours have committed to respect their neighbours’ sovereignty and territorial integrity. They have also committed to neither tolerate nor assist armed groups, to strengthen regional co-operation, and to refrain from harbouring or protecting anyone accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity. The PSCF is a great example of the region coming together, with the support of the international community, to agree to the principle of peace and a way forward to make it happen.
Secondly, there was the appointment in March of Mary Robinson as the UN special envoy to the region. The Government strongly welcome this appointment, and we have offered our support to her and her office as she implements her mandate to oversee the implementation of the PSCF, which she has referred to as “the framework of hope”. We support her approach of working with regional Governments to bring stability to the region, but also with communities to encourage peace-building at all levels. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, referred to that as both top-down and bottom-up.
I welcome, in particular, the noble Lord’s recent visit to Burundi, where he supported Mary Robinson at a women leaders consultative meeting, which looked at the role women across the region could play in implementing the PSCF. The noble Lord also asked about contacts. Foreign Office Ministers have been in contact with Mary Robinson, both in person and by phone, and I understand that the Minister for Africa saw her in London about three weeks ago. He underlined to her the UK’s support for her role, and offered to consider any requests for practical assistance that she may need.
Thirdly, there is the new mandate for MONUSCO peacekeepers. While protection of civilians remains the core principle of the peacekeeping operation, this mandate also, for the first time in the UN’s history, includes an intervention brigade—the FIB—with a specific task of preventing the expansion of, and neutralising, armed groups in eastern DRC. We have welcomed the deployment of the FIB, which we feel will act in support of the PSCF. We hope that it will help to bring a period of stability to eastern DRC to allow reform and peace-building to take root. The mandate also allows for the use of unmanned aerial systems—another first for a UN peacekeeping mandate. Given the size of eastern DRC and its hostile terrain, we think that this will provide a useful tool to help peacekeepers monitor the situation on the ground more effectively.
Lastly, talks in Kampala between the DRC Government and M23 continue. While this process has been somewhat irregular, and the talks alone cannot achieve a sustainable peace in eastern DRC, they have a part to play in the wider peace process. The confluence of these events, with the military track in support of political and development efforts, provides an opportunity to achieve lasting stability in eastern DRC, for the cycle of violence to finally be broken, and for the terrible human rights abuses that have afflicted the people of that region to end.
Of course, we recognise that the causes and drivers of conflict in eastern DRC are many and various, and often deeply entrenched, so we do not claim that resolving conflict there will be easy or quick. It will require the sustained effort of the signatories to the PSCF, which contains some hefty commitments. It is important that all signatories fulfil these commitments—for the DRC to carry out significant reform of its security sector, for example, and for the other signatories, including Rwanda, to respect the sovereignty of their neighbours and refrain from supporting armed groups. It is equally important that all signatories work together for the potential peace dividend, for greater regional economic integration and development.
We welcome the progress that has been made so far—for example, the steps taken in DRC towards its PSCF commitments, including starting to establish a national dialogue mechanism and providing an initial plan for security sector reform. But much more remains to be done. Ensuring the success of the PSCF will also require the sustained attention and collaborative efforts of the international community.
The UK will take a joint diplomatic and development approach to supporting the framework, in support of Special Envoy Robinson as she works to encourage the full implementation of the PSCF. This means that we will use our diplomatic assets to urge signatories to meet their commitments, ensuring that the Department for International Development’s work to support conflict resolution and peace-building in the region is effective and sustainable. A number of noble Lords asked about the EU. We are already working through the UN, the EU, the African Union and other organisations, with Governments in the region and other major donors to DRC and Rwanda.
My noble friend Lord Chidgey spoke of the appalling sexual violence. He will be aware of the Preventing Sexual Violence initiative launched by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary last year. This was the focus of his visit to DRC and Rwanda in March this year. The UK now has a specialist team of experts to deploy to conflict areas to support UN and civil society efforts to help build national capacity to investigate allegations of sexual violence, helping to replace the culture of impunity with one of deterrence. In the DRC, the UK is supporting the NGO Physicians for Human Rights with the deployment of an expert in eastern DRC. The expert is working with local health, legal, and law enforcement professionals in north and south Kivu provinces to ensure they are better equipped to conduct crime scene investigations. He will assist local professionals in the documentation, collection and preservation of forensic evidence to ensure that perpetrators of sexual violence crimes are brought to justice.
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, asked about donor co-ordination. This is something that Mary Robinson has emphasised the need for in DRC, and we strongly agree with her. We are working closely with partners in Kinshasa to ensure that we remain co-ordinated with other donors. While effective donor co-ordination remains challenging in DRC, it is improving, and we are committed to investing the time and resources to accelerate progress in the coming months.
The noble Lord spoke about the visit by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Great Lakes Region of Africa to eastern DRC. I pay tribute to the work of the APPG and am aware of the very successful visit that it paid to Rwanda and the DRC. The knowledge that it brings back to this and the other place helps inform much FCO thinking, as well as our officials on the ground.
We have no details on dates for the Kampala talks at this stage, but we are concerned about their irregular nature. We think that they should continue in good faith and that neither side should try to force an agreement through force of arms.
My noble friend Lady Chalker asked about the source of rebel arms and funding. Of course, I share her concerns about the source of the arms in eastern DRC, and we are working with the UN and the Government of DRC to challenge the activities of rebel groups of different allegiances, which are using conflict minerals to secure the irregular supply of arms. I absolutely agree that the one thing that the eastern DRC does not need is more weapons.
My noble friend also asked whether we have any knowledge of recruitment into M23. We are aware of reports of recruitment into M23 from Rwanda and of forced recruitment from areas that it controls. We have urged the DRC’s neighbours to ensure that such activity ceases.
In conclusion, there is no doubt that the Democratic Republic of Congo faces enormous challenges. The Government of the DRC, regional Governments and the international community must work relentlessly to respond to these challenges if we are to bring lasting stability to the region. The DRC is of course a huge country—the often-quoted comparison in terms of size is that of the whole of western Europe—and in the east there are areas of seemingly impenetrable forest with very limited roads, communications and infrastructure. We know that there are deeply entrenched problems to overcome, but the framework for peace is in place and, with the commitment of the Governments of the region and the support of the international community, real progress can be made; progress that will be felt by communities and people across the DRC, so that the many who have waited far too long for the opportunity to live their lives in peace will finally see that happen.
Care Bill [HL]
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lipsey
“( ) The regulations must provide that where the financial resources of a carer who has needs for support or of the adult needing care (whether in terms of income, capital or a combination of both) as calculated in accordance with the regulations exceed the financial limit, payments by the local authority shall be tapered in such a way that each complete increase of £500 in resources held by the carer or adult over and above the financial limit shall result in a reduction of annual payments of £1.”
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, this has been a great test of my filing system, which fortunately has stood up to it on this occasion. Each of these three amendments in my name is entire of itself and could be passed on its own, but they are designed as a package. Taking them individually to start with, they would do three things: first, to make the tariff for the means test proposed by the Government less draconian; secondly, to increase the allowance given to people helped through the means test to pay for their personal expenses; and thirdly, by abolishing overtime of current nursing care allowance to pay for both the above and leave some money over for better care services.
Let me explain this thinking. I am a supporter of Dilnot—at the margin, I disagree with my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours on this. I do not regard Dilnot as perfect, but I regard the distribution of ill effect, which I quite agree with him exists, as a small price to pay for the advantages of Dilnot, namely the danger that people quite at random are chosen to be wiped out financially. So I support Dilnot’s scheme. However, I am, as my noble friend is, aware of its defects. The plain fact—Dilnot is perfectly clear about this—is that it helps only one lot of people and not another lot of people. The Minister quoted figures about who benefits from the system as a whole before the dinner break, but the reality is that, under Dilnot, the poorest gain nothing from a cap; they are paid for by means-tested benefits anyway. Nearly all the benefits go to better-off people. That is a serious defect and it is very expensive—not as expensive with the cap at £72,000 as it would have been under Dilnot’s original proposals, but very expensive. This means that it will compete in practice with another set of problems, namely the sheer lack of resources going into long-term care, a short-fall that is getting worse as the number of older people rises and which will go on getting worse as the demographics described in the House’s report on the ageing population continue. So we have a serious problem.
The package is not designed to take apart the fundamental architecture of Dilnot. It does not take from anyone a single penny that they would gain under Dilnot. It is designed to spread the benefits more widely, all without increasing public spending by a single penny. Is that magic? Your Lordships will be the judge of that.
That is the easy bit, I am afraid, and I apologise to the House for any lapses in techno-speak in the words that follow. The first amendment refers to the tariff. I will explain briefly what the tariff is, because it is not altogether familiar. Suppose that you are above the minimum threshold for the tariff, which is around £14,000 at the moment, and you have some assets. For every £250 in assets, you lose £1 a week in benefit, about £50 a year—the equivalent of an assumed 20% return on your capital. That continues under the present system until you reach the £23,250 cap for the means test, but will continue under the Government’s proposals in 2016 until £118,000 is reached, the top level of the cap. You are fined £1 a week for every £250 that you have in assets. If you start applying that to the government system you discover something that has been virtually unremarked upon in the Dilnot proposals. Although the Government are, in theory, raising the upper limit to £118,000, the fact is that someone with £118,000 in assets will gain virtually nothing under the changed means test. That is for two reasons.
First, once you start to claim local authority help with your care, you stop receiving attendance allowance four weeks later. Indeed, according to Philip Spiers of the old persons’ charity, FirstStop, many people with £100,000 or more in assets, if they were properly advised, would be worse off, not better off, if they claimed local authority support, because they would lose £79.15 a week in the higher rate of attendance allowance, or around £87 when inflated to 2016-17 prices. In other words, the apparent cap for means testing under the Dilnot proposals is actually much lower because you do not need much in assets.
The second thing is that the tariff is ripping into your entitlement. Suppose that you are in a home where the fees are £400 a week—if you live up north, and that is what the local authority allows. Say, for example, you have £100,000 in assets above the lower threshold. It is not nothing, but it is not a large amount. On £100,000, the tariff will amount to virtually all the benefits you get under the means test. There you are, getting quite excited because the Government have improved the means test to help you, but you suddenly find that they have not. You will notice that this feature of the Dilnot proposals was not emphasised by either Andrew Dilnot or government proposals. That is a cruel system to confiscate the wealth of people who have only a little bit of it. If the Bill goes through with this feature intact, I predict that we are laying the basis for disappointment and even anger among a generation of older people and their families—people of modest means—who deserve something better.
My amendment makes the tariff less harsh. Instead of losing £1 for every £250 in assets, you lose £1 for every £500. According to estimates by Ruth Hancock of the University of East Anglia and her colleagues at the PSSRU, the substitution of a £500 tariff for the current £250 would cost around £150 million in public expenditure. That is element one of the package.
I am sorry, but this will take a while because I have three amendments wrapped together. The second component of the amendments is the increase in the personal requirements allowance. It deals with a nasty feature of a very nasty means test. I think that Dilnot himself said that it was the nastiest means test in Britain. If you are on the means test for your care home fees, you are left with just £23.90 a week for all your personal needs. Perhaps you want to give your child or grandchild a birthday present, buy cosmetics or some little comforts, a few sweeties, or even pay for taxis to the doctor when you cannot get about. All that comes out of £23.90 a week. That is not a rich reward for the poorest people in our society to be left with at the end, many of whom have worked long and hard. My amendment raises that to £32.75. That figure, I hasten to add, is completely arbitrary. It is because it costs the same—£150 million—as the change in the tariff. It helps the poorest among us. Thus I have one proposal that helps people of modest means, and one proposal that helps the poorest people. All it means is that they get a smallish share of the goodies handed out by Dilnot to the better off.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I support the creative thinking of my noble friend. The truth of the matter is that we certainly did not have enough time to go into the kind of detail that he has done, which he has explained very clearly. I have to confess that we were not aware of the nursing allowance. Perhaps we should have been. If we had been, I think that we would have justified the scrapping of it by saying that that would be used to help to finance our mainstream proposals.
Also, we said in our report that we thought that the Government should look again at the personal expenses allowance. We thought that it was extremely mean. In a way, it has not kept pace with inflation over the years and it now seems a rather derisory amount. Therefore, anything that could be done to improve that without increasing the cost of public expenditure would seem to us a good idea.
I commend my noble friend for his creativity. I hope that the Government will take his amendment away and look at it seriously to see whether something can be done with it, because I think that it is an improvement on our recommendations.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I, too, have a great deal of sympathy for the core of my noble friend’s proposal to change the means test to increase personal allowances to support people so that they have enough money for what he described as “small treats”. Like my noble friend Lord Warner, I should be interested in the noble Earl’s response to that point.
I also sympathise with my noble friend’s second proposal to help those with modest assets by making the means test less severe. It is clear to most of us that the benefits of Dilnot will go to the better off. I think that one must be sympathetic to my noble friend’s aim of trying to spread the benefits more widely. Of course, that comes with a cost, and my noble friend’s answer to that is the proposal to abolish the nursing care allowance or to phase it out. Perhaps the term is grandparenting; I am not sure of the phrase but the Lords reform proposals come to mind—the transition.
Whether that is the right approach must of course be subject to some debate, and I would certainly need some convincing about the phasing out of the nursing care allowance. However, I think that my noble friend has done us a service and I hope that we will have further discussions on it between now and Report.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, on one level I sympathise with the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, to redistribute funding between health and care and support so as to increase the personal expenses allowance and local authority support for those in residential care. However, we need to face the reality of the current economic climate. One important aspect of our reforms is that the greatest support will go to those with the greatest need, and that is surely the policy aim that we need to keep most closely in mind in this context.
Currently, the NHS funds nursing homes to support the provision of registered nursing care. This reduces the burden on the NHS of having to provide NHS nurses in residential care homes. Removing this funding would risk increasing costs elsewhere in the NHS, but it would also breach a serious point of principle. If we were to stop people in residential care homes from being eligible for NHS-funded nursing care, it would undermine one of the founding principles of the NHS, which is that it should be a service free at the point of delivery. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that we would not like to see that.
I understand why the noble Lord seeks to increase the personal expenses allowance. If someone is contributing to the costs of their residential care from their net income, for example from their pension, the personal expenses allowance is the amount people can retain to spend as they wish. This is currently set, as he rightly said, at £23.90. The amendment would increase it to £32.75. When living at home, people pay for their food and heating from their income. It is right that people should continue to contribute towards these costs in residential care. The personal expenses allowance reflects the fact that for most people these costs represent a large proportion of their income, but it allows people to retain some of their income for other uses. The reality is that spending additional resources on the personal expenses allowance would reduce the resources available to provide support to those with the greatest needs.
I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said about the loss of the attendance allowance meaning that people would be worse off. Local authorities should support people to maximise their income. If a given individual would be better off receiving the attendance allowance, the local authority should support them to achieve this. We will bear this in mind as we draw up the regulations.
I turn now to Amendment 91, which relates to financial assessments. One of the problems the Dilnot recommendations attempt to tackle is the cliff edge between being a self-funder and being supported by the local authority. By extending the means test for people in residential care, we aim to avoid a situation where a small change in a person’s capital results in a large change in what they pay for care.
From 2016, the maximum tariff income for someone with £118,000 in assets will be £404 per week. If we reduced the rate at which people contribute toward their care costs from their assets to £1 per week for every £500 of assets, the contribution for someone with £118,000 in assets would become £202 per week. This means that an individual facing a typical care home fee would be over £200 per week better off if they had assets of £117,000 than if they had assets of £119,000. This would reintroduce the cliff edge that surely none of us wants to see.
I believe that our plans represent a fair balance between the individual and the state. People with care needs will receive additional support with care and support costs through the extended means test, safe in the knowledge that health services will remain free at the point of use and that they are protected by the cap from unlimited care costs. I hope the noble Lord will see that there is method in the Government’s proposals. While I totally understand much of his rationale, I think our proposals have a better balance. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I am usually extremely complimentary about the noble Earl’s replies to debates, but I do not think that he lived up to his normal standards in that one. He seems to be under a number of illusions. He seems to think that this Bill increases the amount of public spending that goes to the worse off, rather than the better off. It does not. The Bill incorporates what is a most extraordinary priority in terms of distribution, for reasons that I believe to be compelling. Concentrating money on those most in need may indeed be the Government’s general philosophy, I do not know, but this certainly is not implicit in this Bill.
The noble Earl seems to say that if you do as I suggested on the nursing care allowance, you would increase spending by the NHS. The exact reverse is the case. The nursing cost allowance is paid for by the NHS. I am subject to correction, but I believe it to be paid for by the NHS, so you would have an immediate reduction in NHS spending of some £500 million-plus a year.
Lord Lipsey
“( ) After section 54(2) of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (funding by resident etc of more expensive accommodation), insert—
“(2A) The regulations shall only restrict the right of residents to top up their fees to the extent that is reasonable, and in particular they shall not limit top-ups to residents using the 12 week property disregard or the deferred payment scheme.””
Lord Lipsey
This is another piece of arcanery, I am afraid, for the House. It is a genuinely probing amendment.
Not everyone may know what top-ups are, any more than everyone knows what nursing care allowances are. They arise for people who are not paying in full for their own care but want a better standard of care than the local authority is prepared to pay for. There are a quite a lot of these people. There are about 350,000 people in care homes and about 50,000-plus of them get care allowance. If a local authority claims a person’s needs can be met in a home costing £400 a week and the old person or their family prefers one costing £500 a week, they get the means-tested support as if they were in a £400-a-week home and the family finds £100 from their own pockets.
However, there is a strange twist. As long as a third party—usually the old person’s family—is prepared to dip into their pockets for the extra £100, there is no legal problem. They can do so under LAC circular (2004) 20, which derives from the National Assistance Act 1948. But if the old person wants better care, they can top up out of their own pocket only in very limited circumstances. They can do so only if they are subject to the 12-week disregard—which is the period you can be in a care home to see whether you get better and come out—or if they have a deferred payment agreement with the council, when the council may make top-up payments on their behalf. In theory, people cannot top up their own home fees but these can be topped up by other people.
As a historian of the Treasury, I can sort of see how this might come about. The Treasury would not want those whose means-tested contribution is offset by the tariff, as has been discussed, running down their assets to pay for better care, thus throwing more of the burden on the state. However, those in the know say that the restriction is widely ignored, often with the connivance of councils that do not want to get into an argument about whether the accommodation they will provide within their own limits is adequate for the old person. As a result, they allow the old person to chip in for their own care—perhaps he or she puts the money into a son’s bank account, the bank account pays the home and we do not know what goes on.
In parentheses, it is perfectly clear that local authorities know very little about what is going on with top-ups. I refer to the report due to be published by the charity Independent Age tomorrow, which analysed this after doing a freedom of information request on all councils. Out of the councils they asked, only 30 or so can be reckoned to have best practice or a good system for keeping account of top-ups. The rest are either bad or worse.
These mysterious top-ups go on, otherwise the old people would have to move out of the home they are in and into a local authority home. As noble Lords know, if you move old people from the home they are in to another home, what frequently happens, I am afraid, is that they die. This strange top-up mess is more difficult in the post-Dilnot world. Because of the extension of the asset limit for means tests, many more people will be receiving means-tested support, and anyone who is receiving means-tested support cannot do a top-up; that is the law. Many more people will therefore find themselves limited in what they can do if they stick by the law—which, as I say, they often do not.
Secondly, because the deferred payments scheme will be made available to everybody, more people will escape through the loophole in the current regulations that allows those on deferred payments to top up—you can do it if you have a deferred loan from the local authority but you cannot if you do not. The injustice between those who can and do defer and those who do not is made worse—the former can top up but the latter cannot. That will be a growing problem and a huge incentive for people to take out deferred payments, because they can legally top themselves up that way.
Thirdly, and potentially more importantly, let us suppose a person is self-funding and in a home where the fee exceeds what the local authority will pay. They reach the cap, having spent their £72,000. What will happen then? The state will meet that part of the cost of the home that they are in which is equivalent to what they would pay if they were in the home selected and provided by the local authority—their limit. If the home costs more than that—£600 a week not £400—where will the rest of the fees come from? Perhaps their family does not have any money for a top-up or is unwilling to provide it. Who is going to top it up? I am afraid that the crude reality is that some people will persuade the council to pay the higher fee while others will be moved—and, as I have already said, people who are moved will as a result, on average, die considerably younger. That is not a side-effect that Dilnot planned for but it is a side-effect of the way it is going to work out. Nothing much has been said by the Government about what happens if you reach the £72,000 cap and are in a home costing more than the local authority is prepared to pay. Until we get reassurances on that, the reality must be that they will be moved out to another, poorer, home and that this is going to be a tragedy.
The irony is that these are not poor people falling back on the state. They may well have assets and might be very willing to put in a bit extra to ensure that their last years are comfortable, but they are prevented by law—if they obey it—from doing so. Either they decide to opt out of Dilnot and fund their care in full, in which case they will not benefit from the cap and Dilnot, for them, amounts to nothing, or they go through the business of moving to the inferior home and we will have inflicted that disaster on them.
This area has not been much explored but there is a simple way of dealing with it, which is incorporated in this amendment. It is simply to end the ban on residents topping up their own fees. I do not think the cost would be very much but if the Minister has some other way of dealing with it, he should tell the Committee now before we endorse a policy which could lead to the mass eviction of old people from the residential homes in which they have long lived, in sharp contravention of all we are aiming to do in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I intervene on this to talk very briefly about what the Dilnot commission said on this issue. I will quote just two sentences from page 22 of our final report, which are worth putting on the record. We said very clearly:
“The state-funded care element will be based on a local authority care package, but people will be free to top up from their own resources, should they wish. If someone moved to a different local authority, they would take with them a record of their contributions to date”.
That is a very clear statement of what our policy was. When we were taking evidence, there was not a lot given to us about the extent of top-ups.
If I fast forward to my time on the Joint Select Committee with other Members of this House, the issue of top-ups seemed to have changed quite significantly between the time when the commission reported, having considered all this, and the time that the Joint Select Committee was working on it. There were not good data, other than that many of us have been increasingly learning that the top-up levels have been quite considerable in some homes. There is clearly a problem with the cross-subsidising of people who are state funded from self-funders. The issue is now complex and I do not know how good the Government’s data are on the use of top-ups. We were clear that you could count towards the cap only what the state-funded element of that payment was, which would be determined by what the local authority would pay in its area for the care being provided. If we depart from that principle, we will end up in chaos—and probably end up with a much higher public expenditure bill.
There is an issue here that the Government need to think about, but in principle we should do nothing to stop people topping up if they and their family are prepared to provide for a higher level of care. The present rules were drawn up for a different time and on top-ups, the world has moved on. We need to get this straight before we finish this Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I, too, would welcome a debate about top-ups and the Government’s present position and response to the Dilnot proposals, as enunciated by my noble friend Lord Warner. It would also be helpful if the noble Earl could give us a little thinking about how the Government expect this to work out in practice.
We start with the fact that a local authority has to have an assessment to add to the baseline to set the clock running, so as to get to the £72,000 cap. We have already discussed transparency and the problems arising where self-funders find that they have in fact been subsidising those people funded by the local authority. I would be particularly interested to know from the noble Earl what calculations have been undertaken by his department about the impact on self-funders when responsibility is taken over by the local authority once the cap has been reached. Has any work been done on the extent to which those self-funders will be forced to move home because the local authority will not fund them at the rate that they have been self-funding, while the home itself is requiring those people to move?
My noble friend Lord Lipsey referred to the general experience—we have seen it in the health service—that when very frail elderly people are forced to move from one care setting to another their life outcomes are very poor indeed. Clearly, it would be wholly unsatisfactory if, as a result of bringing in the £72,000 cap, we had the perverse incentive of forcing a lot of movements by frail, vulnerable people that would have a deleterious effect on their health and life outcomes.
That brings us to whether removing the top-up restriction would be an appropriate response. My noble friends have put forward a persuasive case. It is important that the Government should enable the House to come to a view on these matters, having made an assessment of how the introduction of state support for self-funders who have reached the cap is going to work in practice.
Earl Howe
My Lords, having disappointed the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, on the previous group of amendments, for which I shall try to make amends over the summer holidays, I hope to do a little better with this one but I predict that he will not be completely satisfied with my answer.
People should be supported to receive the care they want and should be able to use their own assets to achieve this when they can afford to do so, but this should never be an excuse for local authorities to underfund the cost of meeting people’s needs. I agree with the noble Lord that people should be able to spend their money on purchasing more expensive care and support for themselves if they wish to do so, provided this is affordable. We are seeking better to understand the impact of such a relaxation and the protections that are appropriate for vulnerable people. It would clearly be undesirable for a person to spend their life savings on residential care and late in life be faced with the prospect of having to move to alternative accommodation purely on affordability grounds. I take that point absolutely. In addition, we want to consider the implications for the ability of local authorities to arrange services for other people. If individuals were to use their resources to purchase more expensive care, this could ultimately reduce local authorities’ income from charges. This in turn would reduce the amount of care the local authorities could arrange for other vulnerable people. There are a number of factors at play here, which we need to think through a bit more.
In principle, people should be able to use their savings to purchase more expensive care if they want to. We are determined to clarify and modernise the care and support arrangements in a way that is fair and reasonable to people who need care, their families and the taxpayer. The revised arrangements for people to use their savings to pay for their own care will be set out in regulations made under Clause 30(2) of the Bill. Through the public consultation on funding reform, we are seeking better to understand how relaxing the existing restrictions on making additional payments, which the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, outlined, might impact on the wider care and support system. The evidence we hope to gather from the consultation will inform the regulations that will set out the revised arrangements. Those regulations will also be subject to further public consultation. In view of that, which is really a long-winded way of saying that this is work in progress but we are on the noble Lord’s side, I hope he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
I can clarify one point in relation to when local authorities take over responsibility for funding care. It may be appropriate for the local authority to meet any additional cost, for example, where moving the person receiving care and support would adversely affect their health. However, where paying the higher cost might limit the local authority’s ability to support other individuals with care and support needs, the person may have to move to less expensive accommodation. In making any decisions, the local authority has to consider the exercise of its duty to promote that individual’s well-being.
I hope that those are helpful remarks. I would be happy to discuss this issue with noble Lords between now and Report.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Having berated him for his previous speech, I can more than fulfil his expectations on this. He has done all that I could have hoped for and more. It will be extremely well received in the world outside that the Government are finally getting to grips with this long-outstanding anomaly. I do not blame this Government. Various Governments have been exactly the same. We are going to get a solution that is essential if the Dilnot scheme is to work as we meant it to work. It is very good news to hear the Minister state so strongly in principle that if people want to use their own money to top up their fees, they should be able to do so, although I understand his reservations about the impact that might have on the local authority market. I look forward to his further work on the subject and to discussing it with him and his officials, as will, no doubt, other noble Lords who have an interest in this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Greengross
where there is a person authorised to do so under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 or otherwise in a position to do so on the adult’s behalf, but that person nonetheless asks the authority to meet the adult’s needs.”
Baroness Greengross
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group: Amendment 92ZZCA in Clause 18, Amendment 92ZZLA in Clause 26, Amendment 92ZZQA in Clause 28, Amendments 92ZZR and 92ZZRA in Clause 30 and Amendment 92ZZRB in Clause 31. I will try to be brief.
These amendments follow on from the discussion relating to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. The first amendment is about the duty to meet needs. We know that carers are often old people themselves. They have often cared for a long time for somebody with dementia or something similar before that adult meets the eligibility threshold for care. In my view and that of the Alzheimer’s Society, those carers should have the right to ask the local authority to arrange that person’s care because it is important that an individual who is in a position to arrange care and support has the right to ask the local authority to do so even when the adult is self-funding. Enabling a carer who would otherwise be required to arrange care to request that the local authority meet that need would help to reduce the strain that that carer is under. Being able to ask the local authority to arrange care would also enable the adult to take advantage of the better rates for care that the local authority can command through block booking and other means. It would be unacceptable if adults who do not have capacity but who have deputies or other representatives were forced to pay higher costs than other people.
Amendments 99ZZLA and 99ZZQA are about the usual rate of independent personal budgets. Clause 26 refers to the calculation of a personal budget that will enable eligible needs identified by the assessment to be met. The budget needs to be sufficient to enable this to happen. Clause 26 treats this as being the cost to the local authority of meeting that person’s needs, whereas a person receiving their direct payment as a cash payment would not necessarily be able to purchase care at the same amount since care homes, as we know, routinely charge self-payers more than they charge local authorities. Legislation has to be clear that local authorities have a duty to meet eligible needs, and personal budgets must therefore be, after application of the local authority’s normal means-testing system, sufficient to purchase that level of care at its local actual cost and not at a tariff rate based on the bulk purchasing power of the local authority.
Clause 28 refers to calculating the independent personal budget, which is, confusingly, different from the personal budget referred to in Clause 26. The independent personal budget is used to calculate the amount that an individual can spend on his or her care that will count towards the expenditure cap. Clause 28, therefore, refers always to expenditure by the individual, so it should be the true cost available to the individual of meeting their assessed needs, rather than the cost to the local authority. Once again, there is a difference.
The amendment to Clause 26 also has an impact on Clause 30. This clause replaces the current choice of accommodation directions which enable a person to choose a different residential care home from that provided by the local authority and to top up the payments if their preferred accommodation is more expensive than the local authority’s usual cost. The Minister has confirmed that this is possible. However, the current system is widely abused with local authorities often requiring top-ups even when there are no places available at the so-called usual cost and the person has chosen the only available accommodation that meets their needs.
Clause 30 does not refer to the usual cost but, instead, defines “more expensive” as being more than the value of the person’s individual budget. If the personal budget is defined in Clause 26 by how much the local authority says it will pay to meet the person’s needs, the system is open to the same abuses as the choice of accommodation directions. However, if Clause 26 requires that the personal budget should be sufficient for the person to purchase services which will meet their needs, this ensures that the rate that the local authority will pay for care is directly related to actual market conditions.
Amendment 92ZZR is about the review of independent personal budgets in Clause 28. People should be able to refuse an assessment as long as they understand the implications of that refusal. However, this clause does not offer adequate protection to people who lack capacity. As it stands, the clause puts people with a deteriorating condition, such as dementia, at risk of falling through the gaps. The proposed new clause stipulates that Clause 28 does not apply when an adult lacks capacity to refuse the assessment. It would stop vulnerable individuals from falling through those gaps as local authorities would be required to carry out a needs assessment and continue to maintain their care account.
Amendments 92ZZRA and 92ZZRB are about the choice of a care home. I declare an interest as chair of the All-Party Group on Dementia and the Alzheimer’s Society shares my concern about this. There is potential that the Bill will not provide the same right to choose a care home as currently exists. Individuals currently have a right to exercise genuine choice over where they live. If an individual has a preference for a particular care home, the local authority should arrange accommodation in that home subject to the following conditions being met: that the home that is chosen is suitable to meet the individual’s needs and as assessed; that it does not cost more than the local authority would usually expect to pay to arrange accommodation for someone with those assessed needs; and that it is available and the provider is willing to enter into a contract on the local authority’s terms.
An individual may wish to move to a home that is more than the local authority’s usual cost, even though there is a home that meets their needs and it is within the local authority’s usual cost. In these circumstances the individual or another person can make arrangements to make a top-up payment, as the Minister has said. The Bill states that regulations “may” provide that the local authority must arrange for the provision of the preferred accommodation. This should be amended to “must” rather than “may” to ensure that the right to choice continues. In addition, the Bill currently says that regulations may provide that where an adult expresses a preference for a particular home, the local authority should act on it. The risk is that this excludes an adult’s representative from choosing a home. Holders of lasting powers of attorney relating to welfare are examples of representatives who should be able to express a preference, and that preference should be acted on by the local authority. I beg to move.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I will speak to two amendments in this group: first, Amendment 92ZZK in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield. This is very similar to an amendment that I tabled to an earlier part of the Bill, and it focuses in particular on transition:
“In preparing a care and support plan, the local authority must have regard to the young person’s education, health and care plan, where such a plan exists, and integrate the care and support plan with the existing education, health and care plan”.
I will not repeat what I said earlier, but this certainly applies to this clause because the integration is very important. This amendment is supported by the Care and Support Alliance, and particularly affects young people who are coming from adolescence into adulthood, where the seamlessness of their care package is very important. As I mentioned in moving the earlier amendment, this has, of course, a read-across into other legislation. I know that my noble friend gave me a reassurance last time, but it is important that the Bill requires that double-banking, if you like, to make sure that there is joined-up government here between not just two government departments but two plans that affect an individual’s future.
I also briefly raise the question of a probing amendment—Amendment 92ZZGA, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton. In Clause 25(1)(e) the amendment seeks to change the words,
“includes the personal budget for the adult concerned”,
to “can include”. What has concerned the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, here is that, although there may well be sanction for a personal budget for the adult concerned, the impression given by this particular wording is that it could possibly constrain the choice as to how that personal budget was spent. I appreciate that the care plan or the support plan would identify that sanction had been given for a personal budget. However, it is very important that it in no way presumes the choices in a prescriptive way that would take away from the individual concerned what is at the very heart of personal budgets—the right to choose services and items, which might well be something that they have a preference for and on which the local authority should not get too much into the detail, having sanctioned the personal budget in the first place. It would be helpful, when my noble friend responds, if he could give some reassurance on that matter.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, I shall speak to two amendments in this group, both of them amendments to Clause 25 —Amendments 92ZZH and 92ZZJ. I must say that I do struggle with all these initials; they make it hard to spot which amendment is which—but it may be that there is no better way of doing it.
Amendment 92ZZH is about people who have fluctuating needs for support because their condition is not constant. A fluctuating condition is a chronic condition, physical or mental, of which a characteristic feature is a significant variation in the overall pattern of ill health and/or disability. There are many millions of people in the UK with fluctuating conditions. Those could include MS—I am an officer of the All-Party Group for Multiple Sclerosis—rheumatoid arthritis, HIV, Crohn’s disease and colitis, epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease; there may also be others. Those conditions cover a large number of people.
The problem is that when people have fluctuating conditions it will be much harder to plan ahead on the basis of the present drafting of Clause 25. There is not the flexibility to enable account to be taken of the ups and downs associated with fluctuating conditions. If the plan could take account of fluctuating conditions, individuals could be assured that they would get the level of care they needed, consistent with the fluctuations in their condition. By allowing for that, we can also prevent costly hospital admissions. That in itself is an important aim both for the well-being of the person concerned and, in terms of cost, for the health service.
For example, a snapshot survey of individuals showed that 30% of respondents with rheumatoid arthritis had been admitted to emergency care as a result of a flare-up of the disease in the past year—of which, of course, no account is taken by the Bill. The benefit of my suggestion is that it would make it possible to plan ahead for variations in care and support, in advance of those variations being required.
Amendment 92ZZJ is about the period over which care will be made available before the need is reviewed. The current wording of Clause 27 gives local authorities the power to,
“keep under review generally care and support plans”.
“Generally” is an all-purpose word which can mean anything. Local authorities are not required to specify when they expect such reviews to take place. Anyone who is subject to something “generally” lives in uncertainty, and what I would like to achieve with my amendment is some element of certainty.
The key benefit of the care and support planning process would be to allow a discussion between the local authority and the person concerned about the best way their care needs could be met. Then there could be an agreement between the local authority and the adult or carer. It is important for such an adult to be confident that their care will remain consistent until their circumstances change. Under my amendment they would not be subject to an early review if there was no need for it, but when things happened, that could be reflected in their care plan. The amendment would give that adult the confidence that their care would continue as agreed until the specified date, or until the adult himself or herself chose to request a review in line with Clause 27(1)(b). That may seem a small change but it would be important to the individuals affected.
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to my Amendment 92ZZS. Its purpose is to ensure that the direct payment system works well. In particular, it would ensure that all parties to the decision to use direct payments fully understood the implications of that decision.
I raised this matter at Second Reading because I was concerned that some successful applicants for direct payments may underestimate the difficulties involved in administering those payments. I was concerned that there was no clarity about exactly how local authorities would make the decision about who was and was not a suitable recipient for direct payments. For example, it is likely that many in receipt of direct payments will want to employ people directly. Will they understand how very complicated it is to employ even one person? How will they find out? Exactly how will local authorities assess their ability to do this, and will people properly understand any contractual arrangements they may enter into? Who will help them understand? Exactly how will local authorities assess their likely abilities in this area?
I suggested at Second Reading that a way of dealing with this was to give local authorities an obligation for friendly oversight of the administration of direct payments for an initial period of six months or so. In his very thorough and helpful letter of 5 June to those who spoke at Second Reading, the Minister pointed out that Clauses 31 and 32 set out that, before a direct payment is made, the local authority must be satisfied that the adult or someone nominated on their behalf is capable of managing the direct payment. He felt that these and other provisions in Clause 4 should ensure that direct payments are used appropriately.
I am sure that these provisions will be very helpful, but they would be more helpful if the local authority had to explain to applicants on what basis their capability was being assessed and the exact criteria for assessment. It would be more helpful still if the explanation was in written form and followed by discussion with the applicant. That is what my Amendment 92ZZS would put in place. It simply requires the local authority to make known in writing and discuss with the applicant the criteria that it uses to satisfy itself that the adult is capable of managing a direct payment. This would have the effect of bringing about a proper discussion of the implications for the applicant of managing direct payments and provide a proper and informed basis for the local authority to make a judgment. I hope that it would also ensure that the criteria for judgment were clear, understandable, user-friendly and completely transparent. Making this simple change would greatly improve the chances of correctly matching direct payments with those who understand the implications and can effectively manage the system. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on the matter.
Baroness Wilkins
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 92ZZSA, which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton. The amendment seeks explicit clarification from the Government that nothing in the Bill lessens the strong duty on local authorities to offer direct payments to those requiring care and support services. A right to request direct payments is a welcome encouragement to those who would like to arrange their care and support with the autonomy that direct payments bring. However, it should not undermine the duty of local authorities to offer direct payments as enshrined in the Health and Social Care Act 2001 and regulations. It would be unhelpful to shift the onus on to individuals to know about and request direct payments and away from local authorities’ duty to offer them.
In general, case studies in this area show that where people already have a care package and then want to convert to direct payments, a battle is often involved. Care services recipients need a clear indication that direct payment is one of the support options available. The Bill requires local authorities to tell an adult which, if any, of the needs can be met by making direct payments. It is vital that local authorities understand that they must always provide information about direct payments. This information must include how to request one, the conditions, and advice and brokerage services.
Local authorities need to provide support to help the adult to manage direct payments. As the Bill stands, they can refuse a request if the adult has no help available to manage the payments. Could the Minister make the Bill’s intentions clear in this regard? It is important that the rights and duties enshrined in the original Act, which have proved so beneficial to many disabled people, are not, as it were, lost in translation, and some reassurance on this matter would be very welcome.
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, this has been a valuable debate and important issues designed to probe and improve aspects of these crunch stages in the care and support journey have been raised. The amendments relate to the duty of the local authority in respect of the care and support plan for the adult, the support plan for the carer, the personal or independent budget resulting from the assessment of the adult’s and carer’s needs, and care accounts and direct payments. This is a large grouping and we have nine amendments. I will speak to them as they relate to other amendments in the group as briefly as I can.
Amendment 92ZZG seeks to specify in the Bill that the adult or carer needs in the care and support plan or support plan include both social care, to be met by the local authority, and health needs, to be met by NHS bodies in the area. This requirement would reinforce the need for local authorities and primary, secondary and community health services to work closely together for the benefit of the adult and the carer. It would also provide a clear, joined-up picture of the adult and/or carer’s interlinking care and support and health needs and how they are to be met. Amendments 92ZZP and 92ZZQ also provide for this important joining-up mechanism to apply to the care and support plan and support plan reviews by underlining that in the review process, local authorities must have regard to any changes in the health needs of the adult or carer, including any health provision that they are entitled to receive.
Amendment 92ZZK, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, extends the intent of our amendment by specifying that in a young person’s care and support plan, both health and education, in addition to care and support, should be included, integrating with any existing plan in these areas. The importance of this amendment to young people with autism—or indeed to their carers, as the amendment is not specific—has been underlined by the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, has tabled a number of amendments. In the time available I will refer to four of them. Amendments 92ZZCA and 92ZZR address the need for the Bill to be explicit and thorough in relation to the assessment and eligibility entitlements where the adult lacks mental capacity to arrange for the provision of care and support. The amendments are designed to ensure that the local authority provides free care and support in the circumstances where the person authorised to represent the adult under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 asks for the care and support on the adult’s behalf.
Amendment 92ZZR addresses concerns raised by the Alzheimer’s Society and other groups that Clause 28(7) does not offer adequate protection to people who lack capacity and puts people with deteriorating conditions such as dementia at risk of falling through the gaps. Government Amendment 92ZZQC is designed to address this and the Minister’s recognition that the clause is open to misinterpretation is welcome. These are complex issues but we all recognise the importance of ensuring that the Bill is watertight in respect of adults lacking capacity to arrange care and support, and of having clarity in respect of the local authority’s duty to carry out a needs assessment and to continue to maintain their care account. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Government’s amendment addresses the concerns raised by noble Lords in this debate?
The noble Baroness also raises a key issue in her Amendments 92ZZRA and 92ZZRB, which go to the heart of the choice agenda to ensure that the current right for individuals to choose a preferred care home, and the ability of their representatives to choose a home on their behalf when, for example, the individual has dementia, is upheld in the Bill. Currently the Bill does not make this mandatory on local authorities and it is important that it does. I ask the Minister how the Government’s policy on patient choice can be met when the Bill does not reinforce the current right for people to choose their preferred care home.
Our Amendments 92ZZRAA and 92ZZRAB probe this issue further and are intended to explore the Government’s appetite for including the right to express a preference for the nature and location of accommodation. We support the intention of the Government, the Law Commission and the Labour Party that the Care Bill should increase the choice and control of adults using social care and their carers. I am, however, intrigued to determine whether the Minister thinks that this right in Clause 30 might be made more meaningful if it were extended to include the nature and location of this accommodation. It is important to seek to give adults needing care and support both choice and voice, including them in decisions about them. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
I support the intention of my noble friend Lord Dubs in his Amendment 92ZZH to ensure that care and support plans or support plans specify contingency planning for an emergency, ensuring that plans reflect the flexibility needed for fluctuating conditions, such as MS and other conditions referred to by my noble friend, where there can be severe changes and rises and falls in care needs. Having discussions and planning in advance for this, so that the care is there when it is needed, would be a significant step forward.
It is also important to look at contingency plans in case the carer suddenly becomes ill or is unable to provide care. The self-direct assessment model includes discussion on contingency and risk, but the extent to which clear provision is covered in the care and support plan is patchy. Indeed, it is not always easy to be specific about what would happen because often the reality is that instant emergency care cover is hard to organise when relatives live a considerable distance away or the cared-for person is not able to summon emergency help themselves.
My noble friend also underlines the importance of including a review date in the plan. It would be valuable to require social services departments and providers to be clearer about not just the review date for the plan but what the monitoring and review process is, and what kind of client feedback, or complaints process, there will be, as well as client/carer involvement in assessing quality of care and standards of service. I suspect that very few care plans currently address these issues. Our Amendments 92ZZMA and 92ZZQB probe how a reasonable request for a review of a care and support plan is to be interpreted and, most importantly, to be interpreted fairly across the country. We support a national care service and a national entitlement to care.
We also in our Amendment 92ZZEC draw attention to the important issue of the need for the completion of the care and support plan and support plan to be conducted within a reasonable timeframe. The assessment is a worrying and often traumatic time for the cared for and carer, so knowing what the timeframe is from interview to completion, and then for the personal budget decision, is pretty important. Getting an early assessment and getting the clock ticking towards the cap will also be crucial, so there must be targets and timeframes for the local authority to adhere to and meet. Assessments under the self-directed support process in my local experience as a carer involved four meetings with social services, including with the domiciliary care agency provider and with the daycare provider, and a lot of supported work to be undertaken by the adult or the carer on the client’s behalf. Is the Minister confident that local authorities will really have the capacity and resources to cope with the demands of the new system, including the estimated quarter of a million additional assessments for self-funders that will need to be carried out?
Finally, our Amendment 92ZZSB seeks to implement the recommendation of the Joint Committee on lifting the Department of Health’s current ban on direct payments being used to pay for local authority services if the individual chooses to achieve the agreed outcomes. Our amendment would bring this into effect by underlining in the Bill that there should be no restriction in terms of type of provider placed on the services which can be purchased by direct payments. I hope that the Minister agrees, and I look forward to his response.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate on an issue which is crucial to the Government’s vision for a personalised care and support system—the care planning process.
In relation to Amendment 92ZZCA, I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that it is already the case in the Bill—the Explanatory Notes make this clear—that where the adult lacks capacity to make a request, it may be made by someone else on their behalf. This is the effect of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It is not necessary to set this out in legislation each time. We will also make this clear in guidance. Condition 3 in Clause 18(4) imposes a duty on the local authority to meet needs in cases where the adult lacks capacity and has no one to arrange care on their behalf. This is an additional safety net, enacting a provision previously set out in guidance.
On Amendment 92ZZEC from the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, it is vital that local authorities retain the ability to be proportionate to the needs to be met. For some people the care planning process may be relatively simple and therefore can occur relatively quickly, but that may not be the case for people with multiple complex needs. As we discussed earlier, there may be a need for experts to be engaged in some cases, and this should not be overlooked in order to meet a centralised target. Introducing a defined timescale may also have the unintended consequence of some plans being rushed in order to meet the deadline, or even introduce gaming into the completion of care plans. I hope that the Committee will agree that this does not fit very well with our vision of a personalised care and support system.
We will work with stakeholders to set out best practice for conducting care and support plans in guidance. This will include indicative but not definitive timescales for care plans. Amendments 92ZZG, 92ZZP and 92ZZQ in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, raise the issue of specifying health needs in the care plan. The Bill creates a clear legal framework to enable such integration to happen in practice. However, it is not for the local authority to specify in the care plan which needs the NHS should meet. Clause 25 requires local authorities to involve the adult and carer, and take all reasonable steps to agree the plan with them, which would include whether to refer to any health needs.
In relation to Amendment 92ZZGA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, we believe that everyone should receive a personal budget as part of their care plan to ensure individuals are made aware of the cost of their care and the contributions both they and the local authority need to make. Giving local authorities discretion on whether to provide a personal budget would undermine our aim of giving people more choice and control over their care and support. Removing this duty will also affect the ability of the local authority and adult to track progress towards the care cap. I realise—at least I hope I realise—that the amendment was a probing one.
Baroness Browning
I think the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, was not about the discretion over whether or not to give the budget, but about discretion over how that budget should be spent. I think that she was concerned that the personal budget, if it were put into the plan in a certain format, might start to prescribe how the budget was spent. That, I think, is what she was concerned about and why she suggested the change of wording.
Earl Howe
I am very grateful to my noble friend and I think I had better reflect further in the light of those comments.
I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in relation to Amendments 92ZZH and 92ZZJ, that a modern, comprehensive care and support system should be able swiftly and effectively to respond to changing patterns of need. But the issue of fluctuating or emergency needs and anticipated review dates should be left to the local authority and the adult to discuss and agree when going through the care and support planning process. Again, we will consider these matters when producing statutory guidance with partners.
I turn to Amendment 92ZZK in the name of my noble friend Lady Browning. As I have indicated previously, the transition of children to adult care and links between this Bill and the Children and Families Bill merit further consideration and will be discussed at a later date. But I share my noble friend’s expectation. Where an adult has an education health and care plan, their care and support needs assessment and plan should be integrated with it. Both the guidance supporting the Care Bill and the SEN code of practice will set out how we expect this to work.
I turn to Amendments 92ZZLA and 92ZZQA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. The Bill is intentionally very clear that the personal budget and independent personal budget must be the cost to the local authority of meeting the adult’s needs, not an arbitrary or hypothetical figure. I can reassure the noble Baroness that the local authority may not set the personal budget to an amount which is less than it would cost the authority to meet the adult’s needs. The personal budget or independent personal budget must reflect the cost to the local authority of meeting the adult’s needs, not the cost to the individual of doing so himself or herself. Otherwise, this would create an unfair advantage for those with more means who are able to pay more for their care and would therefore reach the cap quicker.
I turn now to Amendments 92ZZMA and 92ZZQB, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. Enabling adults to request a review of either the care and support plan or the independent personal budget without a determination of reasonableness may leave the process open to abuse and create frivolous reviews costing the local authority time and money. For example, it would not be reasonable to request a review when a review has recently been conducted and needs have not changed. If an adult request is considered unreasonable, then the adult should be informed of the grounds for the local authority’s decision. We will cover this further in guidance.
On Amendment 92ZZR, we wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that if an adult lacks capacity the local authority must carry out the assessment if it believes that this would be in the adult’s best interests. We have addressed this in government Amendment 92ZZQC. This puts beyond doubt that the provisions of Clause 11 should apply to any refusal of a needs assessment by an adult with an independent personal budget. As a result, where an adult lacks capacity or is at risk of abuse or neglect, the local authority must carry out the assessment if it believes it to be in the adult’s best interests.
On Amendment 92ZZRA, I can reassure the noble Baroness that it is the Government’s intention to make regulations on choice of accommodation in residential care.
I turn to Amendments 92ZZRAA and 92ZZRAB, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. It is important that people should, as far as reasonably possible, be able to choose the accommodation they live in. People may wish to move into a care home in a new area—for example, to be close to relatives—and they should be able to do this even if this is in another local authority area. I can reassure the Committee that we intend to make regulations that enable people to exercise choice of accommodation both within and outside their current local authority. However, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to require local authorities to find and arrange care in another local authority area. While some might choose to do so, others might lack the local knowledge effectively to undertake this task. The requirement may also potentially have significant costs and could reduce the funds available to support those with the greatest needs.
I turn to Amendment 92ZZRB of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. Our approach in the Bill is simple. It allows any “person” nominated by the adult to receive a direct payment on their behalf, provided of course that the conditions specified in the Bill are met. In legal terms, a “person” means anyone with legal personality. Therefore, Clause 31 already allows the local authority to pay the direct payment to a person of a type specified by the adult. This includes user trusts set up as companies and organisations set up as companies.
On Amendment 92ZZS, I understand my noble friend Lord Sharkey’s concerns, and I hope I can reassure him that the local authority cannot fulfil its duties under the Bill unless it tells the adult what he or she needs to know in order to make a decision and reach agreement about whether or not to take a direct payment. Further, the Bill contains a regulation-making power at Clause 33(2)(f) to set out cases or circumstances in which the local authority must review the direct payment to ensure that it is being used and managed appropriately.
I turn now to Amendment 92ZZSA of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, spoke. There may be only a limited set of circumstances in which a direct payment would not be appropriate, such as where needs can be met only through local authority-provided care and support. It is not our intention to for this to be used to limit access to direct payments. However, it is important that this provision remains in order to ensure that the adult’s needs are met via the most appropriate method.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 92ZZSB, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. It has always been our policy that, as long as used legally, there should be no restrictions on the type of services purchased with a direct payment, provided it accords with the care and support plan. Indeed, this reflects current guidance. Clause 25 requires the care plan to detail the needs to be met by the direct payment and, under Clause 31, a direct payment must be an appropriate way to meet those needs. There is no need to state in the Bill the type of providers from which people can purchase care and support.
The noble Baroness asked me what kind of client feedback there will be in the planning process. I am sure that she will agree that deciding the way that care needs are to be met is at the heart of a person-centred care and support planning process. These decisions should be agreed between the local authority and the person after considering the range of options and the person’s own wishes and goals.
We have made a number of changes to the draft Bill to address some of the concerns that we heard—that the balance of the care and support planning process was not adequately weighted towards the wishes of the adult. The process must also include involvement with the carer or any other nominated person, so that all people who can contribute have the opportunity to do so. It will in some circumstances not be possible to reach agreement between the local authority and the service user on the care and support plan, much as that is the aim. In those cases, the local authority will have to act to ensure that the person’s needs are met and that any risks to their safety are prevented. I hope that I have reassured the Committee that the care and support planning process is robust, and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Greengross
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have raised issues and amendments in this discussion, which has been extremely interesting. I also thank the Minister for his response, which was very positive in all but one or two areas, where I am still not absolutely certain that we are clear on the different levels of payments in care homes. However, I shall come back to the House on Report or speak to the noble Earl later. Again, I thank everybody, and particularly the Minister for his very positive responses. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.