House of Commons
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
1. What assessment her Department has made of the role of the voluntary sector in dealing with the legacy of the past.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I begin, Mr Speaker, by offering my apologies for the absence of the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan). He is recovering from an operation and looks forward to returning to the House soon.
The voluntary sector plays an important role in supporting those whose lives have been affected by the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past. I pay tribute to organisations such as Wave and the Warrington Peace Centre, which do such valuable work.
David Mowat
The Secretary of State will be aware that nearly 20% of the victims of the troubles reside on the UK mainland, whereas funding is restricted largely to the island of Ireland. For example, the Peace Centre, based in Warrington, has no access either to EU PEACE III funding or UK funding. Are there any plans to review the criteria by which this works?
Mrs Villiers
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I very much enjoyed my visit to the Warrington Peace Centre, which does a fantastic job. I have heard directly from it about its concerns regarding its inability to access the funding that supports victims in Northern Ireland. I know that is a concern for it, but it is for the Northern Ireland Executive to decide whether they open up those funds to any organisations in Great Britain and outside Northern Ireland. However, I welcome the work that the Warrington Peace Centre does for the UK Government on the Home Office’s Prevent scheme to counter radicalisation.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The voluntary sector had an unfair burden in the past, particularly in dealing with sex abuse victims. Will the Secretary of State comment on information I have received about a fixed committee that existed within the republican movement in 2000, which dealt with almost 100 sex abuse victims and in which some very prominent republicans were involved, and will she join me in calling for those people to come forward and help those many innocent victims deal with the nightmare they are still dealing with 13 years on?
Mrs Villiers
The hon. Gentleman raises some very grave matters, and I would certainly encourage anyone who has been the victim of abuse to approach the police with that information, and anyone who has knowledge of such cases to do so too. It is obviously crucial that this scourge of society is eliminated and that the voluntary sector, the police and the Government give all the support possible to victims of abuse.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
The Secretary of State rightly recognises the role of the voluntary sector in helping victims, but does she recognise that the ludicrous restrictions in the Government’s lobbying Bill will prevent these very groups from carrying out important advocacy work on behalf of victims and others because the Government say that they will not be allowed to engage with politicians in the year up to a general election? Will she ask her colleagues to reconsider this aspect of the lobbying Bill?
Mrs Villiers
I think I can provide the hon. Lady with some reassurance. The lobbying Bill will continue to permit the voluntary sector to campaign on general issues, but if a voluntary organisation seeks to campaign for particular candidates in a general election, it will be asked to account for its finances and spending and will be subject to limits. I think that that is a fair reform.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I urge the Secretary of State, in dealing with the legacy of the past, to ensure that the case of my young constituent Lisa Dorrian is not forgotten. She was murdered and then disappeared by those with loyalist paramilitary connections eight years ago. Her body has never been recovered, her family need closure and she certainly needs a Christian burial.
Mrs Villiers
The hon. Lady is right to raise one of the greatest tragedies of the troubles: people lost their lives, and some families still do not know what happened to their loved ones and still have no body to bury and no funeral to attend. It is a continuing tragedy, and the Government are very supportive of all efforts to try to locate them and get answers for victims, including her constituents.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
2. What recent discussions she has had with the Justice Minister of the Northern Ireland Executive on the remit of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
My most recent discussion with the Justice Minister concerning the remit of the National Crime Agency took place on 9 October. The NCA will provide support and expertise to partners in Northern Ireland in a number of areas. We are keen to extend its remit to cover crime falling within devolved responsibilities, if agreement can be reached on this within the Northern Ireland Executive.
Paul Goggins
Does the Secretary of State agree with my reading of yesterday’s debate in the Assembly that there is a willingness to explore a way forward on this issue, and will she therefore facilitate urgent discussions between Home Office Ministers, the Justice Minister and the political parties in Northern Ireland to ensure that the NCA, with proper accountability and in partnership with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, can get on and do its job properly?
Mrs Villiers
I can give the right hon. Gentleman that undertaking. He assesses the current situation correctly. There is a genuine willingness to reach a solution across the political parties in Northern Ireland. Further discussions with the Justice Minister and Home Office Ministers would be a good idea, and I will try to facilitate them as soon as possible.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I thank the Secretary of State for acknowledging the progress on understandings about accountability and primacy that have affected this issue, but will she also address the concerns that we have put to her directly about MI5 potentially using and abusing the future role of the NCA—as it abused the role of the Serious Organised Crime Agency—in nefarious ways and ways that have affected the performance and perception of the PSNI?
Mrs Villiers
The Home Secretary has always been clear that she will make every effort to ensure that the NCA’s role in Northern Ireland is completely consistent with the devolved settlement on policing and justice and the primacy of the Chief Constable. She has made a number of concessions along those lines to provide that assurance, and she and her colleagues at the Home Office are keen to continue the discussion on how to provide the reassurance asked for by the Social Democratic and Labour party and others in Northern Ireland.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
May I welcome the new shadow Secretary of State to his post and wish the outgoing shadow Secretary of State well in his new post? I look forward to working with the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) in the same way as I did with his predecessor.
Will the Secretary of State cut to the chase and tell us the estimated cost, in lost revenue to the Treasury and human misery, of the decision by Sinn Fein and the SDLP to block the full establishment of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland?
Mrs Villiers
The NCA’s current remit in Northern Ireland will provide useful assistance on criminal matters that fall within the responsibilities that have not been devolved, such as fuel smuggling, international smuggling of drugs and firearms. The NCA will also be able to provide advice and assistance on matters within the devolved sphere, such as child protection. However, it is important for Northern Ireland’s political parties to look carefully at this issue. I believe that extending the NCA’s remit to devolved matters would considerably assist the fight against serious crime in Northern Ireland, and I hope that the current discussions result in an agreement on these matters.
Mr Dodds
Does the Secretary of State agree with the assessment of the Northern Ireland Justice Minister—who has been quite unequivocal in his denunciation of the current situation—in which he said:
“We are effectively asking some law enforcement agencies to operate with one arm tied behind their backs”?
This is an outrageous situation that can be of benefit only to drug smugglers, human traffickers, cyber-criminals, fuel launderers and all the rest. Apart from convening talks, can the Secretary of State tell us what the Government will do to ensure that the citizens and taxpayers of Northern Ireland are not subject to this criminal empire building?
Mrs Villiers
A huge amount of work has been done to provide the reassurance that Northern Ireland political parties have asked for on consistency with the police and justice settlement. Productive work has also been done between the Home Office and the Justice Minister on transitional arrangements—for example, on the cases that SOCA had taken on that can be continued by the NCA within the provisions for the current purposes. We will continue to work hard to make the case for the NCA’s full operation in Northern Ireland as a potent fighting force to bring to justice those responsible for organised crime and other serious criminal activities.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
I strongly support the Secretary of State’s efforts to persuade all those involved, including in her discussions with the parties in Northern Ireland, to ensure that the remit of the National Crime Agency is extended. Whatever the circumstances surrounding the hesitancy about that from Belfast so far, everybody will want to see every possible effort made to tackle these issues—particularly after two executions attributed to dissident republicans last week and 12 security threats recently—and she ought to make sure that happens.
Mrs Villiers
I agree and will continue to do everything possible to make the case for the extension of the NCA’s activities in Northern Ireland. It is also worth bearing it in mind that there were some ways in which the legislation on the NCA would have strengthened accountability in Northern Ireland, because it would have extended the remit of the police ombudsman to proceeds of crime matters, which are not currently covered by the policing and justice settlement. In many ways, the legislation, which does not currently have agreement in Northern Ireland, would have enabled us to strengthen accountability on police activities in Northern Ireland.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
13. The Secretary of State cannot be happy with the current situation relating to asset recovery, which affects England, Scotland and Wales as much as it affects Northern Ireland. The situation has been known about for at least nine months and it has been raised in the Committee, but it has still not been resolved. Will she take personal ownership of convening a meeting with the political parties—not just with the Justice Minister—to get the matter resolved?
Mrs Villiers
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the proceeds of crime is one of the most serious issues resulting from the gap left by the failure so far to agree a legislative consent motion. I am keen to convene as many meetings as possible to get the matter resolved, but the reality is that the devolution settlement gives the Executive a choice and, unless there is consensus across the political parties in Northern Ireland, that choice will be to reject the extension of the NCA’s remit. I will continue to make the case for that extension because I think that the NCA will be an asset to fighting crime in Northern Ireland.
Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble) (Con)
3. What discussions she has had with the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland about recent disturbances in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I meet the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Justice Minister on a regular basis. Discussions at those meetings cover a wide range of security-related matters, including the outbreaks of public disorder that occurred in Northern Ireland during the summer.
Lorraine Fullbrook
I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning the street violence that we saw in Belfast over the summer. Does the Secretary of State agree that such disgraceful behaviour damages the economy of Northern Ireland, and that it is essential that the determinations of the Parades Commission should be obeyed and the rule of law respected?
Mrs Villiers
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The scenes that we witnessed in Belfast over the summer were disgraceful. It is utterly unacceptable for the police to be attacked as they were during the several days of sustained rioting following the 12 July parades, and such scenes do significant damage to the Northern Ireland economy because they deter inward investment.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
I should like to begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) for his excellent work as shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I should also like to thank the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) for his kind remarks about my appointment. I say to the Secretary of State that we will continue to work in a bipartisan way whenever possible, and that peace and stability for the people of Northern Ireland must always take precedence over any party political differences. In the context of the recent disturbances and the need for peace and stability, the Haass talks are crucial. Will she tell the House how many times she has met Ambassador Haass, and when their most recent meeting was?
Mrs Villiers
I have met Ambassador Haass twice and had a number of telephone conversations with him as well. My officials have met Dr Haass and his team on a number of occasions. I have also had a series of meetings with the political parties, business representatives and members of civil society to determine what they want from the Haass process. This Government are entirely engaged in the process because, like the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis), I believe it represents an important way forward in resolving the continuing tensions. I thank him for his reiteration of the bipartisan approach taken by his predecessor, and I welcome him to his new post.
Mr Lewis
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. It is incredibly important that she and her counterparts in the Irish Government—as well as the five Executive parties—remain totally engaged in every stage of the Haass process. Will she give the House an assurance that that is going to happen?
Mrs Villiers
I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, and he will be delighted to hear that Dr Haass is expected to visit No. 10 tomorrow. I am also staying in close touch with Eamon Gilmore on these matters, because working together with the Irish Government and across the community in Northern Ireland is an important way of building consensus to resolve the problems that Dr Haass is looking at.
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Ind)
I am sure that the House will agree that we can only admire the way in which the Police Service of Northern Ireland handled the crowd disturbances during the summer, but is the Secretary of State convinced that the PSNI would have the resources to deal adequately with any armed disturbances that might occur, as they could do at any moment?
Mrs Villiers
Yes, I believe the PSNI does have the means and resources to deal with street violence in Northern Ireland. We keep these matters under constant review, but we supplemented PSNI funding by £200 million in the last spending review and will supplement it by £31 million in the next spending review. The provision of expensive mutual aid from GB police forces proved to be extremely successful during this summer’s parading season.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
During discussions with the Chief Constable on matters relating to civil disturbance and terrorist attack, was the demand for additional resources included to enable the Chief Constable to employ officers on the ground to deal with other criminal activity, such as the despicable attack on an 81-year-old man in my constituency at the weekend in which he was tied up, beaten and terrorised in his own home?
Mrs Villiers
I am very concerned to hear about what happened to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent and I hope he will pass on my sympathies to him. Yes, I am afraid that one consequence of street disorder and extensive demonstrations night after night is that police resources get tied up with those matters, which makes it more difficult to fight crime across Northern Ireland. That is why I urge those who are contemplating street violence not to proceed with it. That is not the way to further their cause and they are likely to end up with a prison sentence if they continue on that course.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Is it not the case that more police officers would have been injured and that it would have taken longer to quell the disorder were it not for the effective deployment of water cannon? Will my right hon. Friend use her best endeavours to ensure that the lessons learned are understood by police forces here on the mainland?
Mrs Villiers
These are clearly operational matters for the PSNI, but I agree that its job would have been made more difficult if it had not been able to access water cannon. I am sure that the Home Secretary and her colleagues will be interested to learn from the experience of using this equipment.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
The Secretary of State will be aware that the security situation in Northern Ireland has deteriorated not just in respect of civil disorder, but in respect of an increase in paramilitary activity both from dissident and republicans and from loyalists. Will the right hon. Lady ensure that everything she can do to ensure that those who are responsible for those attacks, murders and attempted murders, including in my own constituency, are brought to justice and that the police have the resources to deal with them?
Mrs Villiers
The Government and I are fully supportive of all the efforts being made by the PSNI and its partners to bring to justice those responsible for dissident republican violence, those responsible for criminality and those responsible for the disgraceful punishment shootings that have taken place. I am particularly concerned about the situation in the hon. Lady’s constituency and the continuing protests and intimidation to which she and her staff are being subjected. The threats that she, along with other elected representatives in Northern Ireland, has received over recent months are utterly disgraceful, and I urge anyone with knowledge about who is responsible for this kind of criminal behaviour to bring it to the attention of the PSNI as soon as possible.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
4. What steps the Government are taking to strengthen the Northern Ireland economy.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
5. What her policy is on the Northern Ireland economy; and if she will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
The Government are working closely with the Executive to promote growth and rebalance the Northern Ireland economy. Last week, we published an update on progress made on the economic package signed in June, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister attended a very successful investment conference at Titanic Belfast.
Andrea Leadsom
Does my right hon. Friend agree that access to finance is critical for small businesses in Northern Ireland, and does she welcome as I do the Government’s decision to bring forward an independent payments regulator to promote more competition in banking and better access to finance?
Mrs Villiers
I am happy to give that assurance. I, too, welcome the setting up of an independent payments regulator, and I pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend and the Treasury Select Committee in bringing that about. It is crucial to the success of banking in Northern Ireland that we encourage new entrants into that market. This regulator will help to achieve that. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. These exchanges are of very great importance to people in Northern Ireland and beyond, and I feel strongly that these questions and the Secretary of State’s answers must be heard.
Karl Turner
With almost half of the population of Northern Ireland in fuel poverty and 90,000 pensioners suffering because of the granny tax, does the Secretary of State agree that Northern Ireland is in the clutch of a cost of living crisis?
Mrs Villiers
We are concerned on both sides of the House about cost of living pressures. That is why the Government have taken steps to cut income tax for more than 600,000 people in Northern Ireland, have taken 75,000 people there out of income tax altogether, have halved the income tax bills of those on the minimum wage and are freezing fuel duty. Above all, our deficit reduction strategy is keeping mortgage rates low, which is crucial for the cost of living in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware that the Republic of Ireland has announced the scrapping of its equivalent of air passenger duty. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact that could have on airports in Northern Ireland? Will she reconsider the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee’s proposals that attention should be given to removing the tax on flights to and from Northern Ireland?
Mrs Villiers
I know that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has a strong view on air passenger duty. I understand the concerns about competitiveness and the recent announcements by the Irish Government. The Government have not had a request from the Northern Ireland Executive to devolve short-haul APD. We would consider such a request seriously, but it would be an expensive change to make.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will join me in welcoming the visit to the House today by the Northern Ireland Assembly and Business Trust, an effective organisation that brings political and business leaders together. How does it strengthen the Northern Ireland economy to centralise jobs in the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea, resulting in the loss of hundreds of jobs and millions of pounds from our local economy?
Mrs Villiers
The issue is a difficult one. The Government must look carefully at proposed efficiency measures. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) is looking with care at the proposal, and I have had a lengthy conversation with him, as I did with his predecessor. He is very much aware of the issues, and I have made it plain that it is important to consider the onward economic impacts in Coleraine of the decision that he will be making in due course.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
Now that Northern Ireland has the second highest per capita inward investment of any region in the UK after London, what can the Minister do to ensure that that investment is spread across the whole of Northern Ireland and not concentrated in Greater Belfast?
Mrs Villiers
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The investment conference that the Prime Minister attended last week was incredibly successful. There was huge interest from current investors in expanding, and from new investors in setting up business, in Northern Ireland, which is a great place to do business. Several investors at the Belfast conference were interested in the whole of Northern Ireland, and we will do our best to ensure that the benefits are spread throughout Northern Ireland, as we did in bringing the G8 to County Fermanagh.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
May I say to the Secretary of State, as one survivor to another, that I agree with her analysis of last week’s investment conference, which provided an excellent opportunity to showcase Northern Ireland’s potential? But all is not sunny optimism in the land. What steps does she plan to take to support the small businesses in Northern Ireland that are struggling to get credit?
Mrs Villiers
We have introduced an allowance for employer’s national insurance, which will make it cheaper to employ people and create jobs; we are keeping interest rates low through our deficit reduction programme; we are freezing fuel duty; and we are cutting corporation tax to boost business. We are determined to make Northern Ireland a fabulous place to do business in, and to help small businesses.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I welcome our new shadow Secretary of State and pay tribute to his predecessor for the great work he did. Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that an economic boost would do a lot to defuse the current community tension? Will she commit herself to helping us to achieve some of the measures, such as the maintenance of low VAT and others that have been mentioned, announced in yesterday’s Irish budget? That would be a major achievement.
Mrs Villiers
I am afraid that EU rules mean that we cannot have a different level of VAT in one part of the country, but we will certainly look at the measures introduced by the Irish to see what lessons can be learned. We are also determined to help rebalance and boost the Northern Ireland economy, which is why we signed the economic pact in June. Last week I announced an update, which demonstrated real progress on start-up loans, research and development, support for Bombardier, and a ministerial taskforce on banking to ensure that businesses get the access to finance they need.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
6. What assessment she has made of the recent meeting of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
The Northern Ireland Grand Committee is a valuable forum for the debating of Northern Ireland issues. The recent meeting in Belfast on 9 September provided an opportunity to reaffirm the importance that the House of Commons ascribes to Northern Ireland matters.
Neil Carmichael
Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government were absolutely right to extend the start-up loan scheme to Northern Ireland, and that the scheme will provide a huge number of opportunities for young entrepreneurs by giving them access to £117 million?
Mrs Villiers
The start-up loan scheme has been one of the most successful of the schemes that the Government have introduced to support businesses and help them to gain access to finance. It was extended to Northern Ireland within weeks of the signing, in Downing street, of the commitment to do so. I am sure that it is providing great benefit for young entrepreneurs, and is helping us with our efforts to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
As the Secretary of State will know, at the Grand Committee meeting I asked how the Government could make it easier for young people to gain access to apprenticeships and training centres without needing sponsorship from various companies. She agreed to refer my question to the Minister. Has there been any progress since then?
Mrs Villiers
I have no further developments to report, but these matters are of course very important. I am sure that enhancing skills in Northern Ireland is a high priority for the Northern Ireland Executive, as it is, of course, for the United Kingdom Government in areas that are not devolved.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 16 October.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in congratulating the England football team on their excellent win last night, which has enabled them to qualify for next year’s World cup competition. I send my commiserations to the other home nation teams, including Scotland, who delivered an impressive win over Croatia last night, but I am sure that everyone in the United Kingdom will now swing behind the English team—you can always dream and hope, Mr. Speaker.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Paul Blomfield
May I associate myself with what the Prime Minister said about the English football team? I only hope that Sheffield United will follow their lead.
We will all have heard from constituents who, while struggling to make ends meet, have taken out payday loans and then found themselves trapped in spiralling debt owing to excessive charges and escalating interest. Yesterday all the major national consumer and debt advice organisations came together in Parliament to launch a charter calling for the tough regulation of payday lenders, which has been backed by Members representing every party in the House. Will the Prime Minister add his support to it?
The Prime Minister
Let me first commend the hon. Gentleman for the work that he does in relation to payday loans and the need for tough regulation. I think it absolutely right for us to look at the issue, and to ensure that we get things right.
Earlier this month, the Government published two reports which showed that the problems in the payday market persist, and that consumers continue to suffer. As a result, the Financial Conduct Authority has made a series of proposals, all of them worth while. They include proposals to use powers to ban loans and advertisements of which it does not approve, to ensure that lenders cannot roll over loans more than twice, and to limit the number of attempts that a payday lender can make to take money out of accounts.
We are still considering the issue of a cap, and I do not think we should rule it out, although we must bear in mind what has been established in other countries, and by our own research, about whether a cap would prove effective. It is absolutely right for us to regulate this area properly.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
May we have a full and transparent assessment of whether The Guardian’s involvement in the Snowden affair has damaged Britain’s national security? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is bizarre that from some the hacking of a celebrity phone demands a prosecution, whereas leaving the British people and their security personnel more vulnerable is seen as opening a debate?
The Prime Minister
I commend my right hon. Friend for raising the issue. I think the plain fact is that what has happened has damaged national security, and in many ways The Guardian itself admitted that when, having been asked politely by my national security adviser and Cabinet Secretary to destroy the files that it had, it went ahead and destroyed those files. It knows that what it is dealing with is dangerous for national security. I think that it is up to Select Committees in the House to examine the issue if they wish to do so, and to make further recommendations.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in sending warmest congratulations to the England team on its victory last night and on getting to the World cup finals next summer, and I add my commiserations to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Today’s economic figures show a welcome fall in unemployment. They also show that prices have risen faster than wages, and that is 39 out of 40 months that living standards have fallen since he became Prime Minister. Will he confirm what everybody knows: that there is a cost of living crisis in this country?
The Prime Minister
First of all, let me welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s welcome for the unemployment figures. Not everyone in the House will have been able to study them, but it is good news. The number in work is up 155,000, unemployment is down 18,000, women’s unemployment is down, youth unemployment is down, long-term unemployment is down and vacancies are up, and crucially the fall in the claimant count is 41,000 this month alone. That is the fastest fall in the number of people claiming unemployment benefit since February 1997. These are welcome figures. Of course we all want to see living standards improve, and last year disposable income increased, but the way to deliver on living standards is to grow the economy, keep producing the jobs and cut people’s taxes.
Edward Miliband
There are almost 1 million young people still out of work and record numbers of people working part-time who cannot find full-time work. That is no cause for complacency from this Government, and I think the British people will be very surprised to hear the Prime Minister telling them that their living standards are rising when they know the truth: under him, living standards are falling month upon month upon month. There is a cost of living crisis, and one of the reasons is rising energy bills, which one leading charity reports today is one of the things driving people to food banks. In the light of that, does the Prime Minister think that the energy company SSE’s decision to raise its customers’ energy bills by 8.2% is justified?
The Prime Minister
Let me come back to the right hon. Gentleman on the youth unemployment figures which he mentions, because the youth claimant count—the number of young people claiming unemployment benefit—is down 79,000 since the election. There is absolutely no complacency—we need more young people in work, we need more jobs—but one of the remarkable things about today’s figures is that they show for the first time that there are 1 million more people in work than there were when this Government came into office.
Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of something he predicted. In October 2010 he said this—[Interruption.] I think people will want to listen to this. He said the Government clearly
“have a programme which will lead to the disappearance of a million…jobs.”
That was his prediction. He was 100% wrong, and he should apologise to this House of Commons. Of course we all want to see energy prices come down. That is why we are putting people on the lowest tariff, but the one thing that will not work is a price con, and that is what he is recommending.
Edward Miliband
The person who should be apologising is this Prime Minister, for the cost of living crisis facing millions of families. Let us talk about SSE. It says on its website—and I quote—that it has just one strategic priority and it calls it its “dividend obsession”: it is not to get bills down; it is not to be on the side of the consumer. So it is make-up-your-mind time for the Prime Minister. Whose side is he on: the energy companies’ or the consumers’?
The Prime Minister
We are on the side of hard-working families, which is why we have cut income tax for 25 million people, why we have frozen the council tax, why we have lifted 2 million people out of tax. Let me make this simple point about living standards: if we want to help with living standards, the best way to do that is to cut people’s taxes. Now, we can only cut taxes if we cut spending. The right hon. Gentleman has opposed every single spending cut that we have proposed; even now he still wants to spend more money. That is the truth: more spending, more borrowing, more debt. It is the same old Labour.
Edward Miliband
Is it not striking that the one thing the Prime Minister does not want to talk about is energy prices? He cannot talk about that because he has no answer. Let us have an answer on the energy price freeze. Can he confirm that in opposing the freeze he has on his side the big six energy companies, and in supporting a freeze we have on our side consumer bodies such as Which? and small energy producers such as Co-op Energy and the vast majority of the British people?
The Prime Minister
If an energy price freeze was such a great idea, why did the right hon. Gentleman not introduce it when he stood at this Dispatch Box as Energy Secretary? The fact is that it is not a price freeze; it is a price con. He is not in control of worldwide gas prices, which is why he had to admit the next day that he could not keep his promise—that is the truth. The reason why he does not want to talk about the economy is because he has not got a credible economic policy. He cannot explain why the deficit is falling, the economy is growing and unemployment is coming down. I have to say to him that given that his problem is having no credible economic policy, he does not help himself by having a totally incredible energy policy.
Edward Miliband
I thought that the right hon. Gentleman might get to the record of the last Government, because his Government have found a new tactic; they have been floundering all over the place and they blame the last Government and green levies. Let us talk about green levies, because who said, “Vote blue, go green”? I think it was this Prime Minister. Who said, as Leader of the Opposition:
“I think green taxes as a whole need to go up”?
It was him. He has been talking about my record as Energy Secretary, so I looked back at the record on the Energy Bill of 2010. Did he oppose that Bill? No, he supported it. You could say, Mr Speaker, that it was two parties working together in the national interest. Does he not feel faintly embarrassed that in five short years he has gone from hug a husky to gas a badger?
The Prime Minister
Oh dear! The only embarrassing thing is this tortured performance.
The right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about the record of the last Labour Government. Let me remind him, on the cost of living, that they doubled the council tax; they doubled the gas bills; they put up electricity bills by half; they put up petrol tax 12 times; they increased the basic state pension by a measly 75p; and then when it came to the low-paid, they got rid of the 10p income tax band altogether. Labour has absolutely no economic policy, and that is why the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), said on 9 September:
“I’m waiting to hear what we’ve got to say on the economy”.
We have all been waiting, but I think we should give up waiting because they are a hopeless Opposition.
Edward Miliband
I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what happened, because he talks about the last Labour Government: living standards went up by £3,700 over the 13 years of the last Labour Government; living standards are down by £1,500 under him. This is the reality of Britain under this Prime Minister: food bank use on the rise; energy bills soaring; even if you are in work, you are worse off; and a Prime Minister in total denial about the cost of living crisis facing millions of families.
The Prime Minister
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to debate the last Labour Government, I say, “Bring it on.” They crashed the economy; they bust the banks; they doubled the national debt; and they bankrupted this country. I have to say to him that today we can see that 1 million more people are in work in our country, and that is 1 million reasons to stick to the economic plan that we have, it is 1 million reasons to keep on getting the deficit down, delivering on education and delivering on welfare, and it is 1 million reasons to say, “More borrowing, more spending, more debt—that is the same old Labour.” Never again.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
Last night, Mr Speaker, you presented an Attitude magazine award to the nieces of Alan Turing, the gay world war two code-breaker who helped this country to win world war two. The Government indicated in July that they would move to give a pardon to Mr Turing for his conviction for gross indecency which led him to take his own life. Can my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister tell us when that pardon will be granted?
The Prime Minister
Let me pay tribute to what Alan Turing and all the people who worked at Bletchley Park did for our country—it was absolutely remarkable and it was crucial in winning the second world war. Clearly what happened to him was completely wrong and now, looking back, everyone can see that—everybody knows that. I am very happy to look at the specific issue of the pardon and respond to the hon. Gentleman, but above all what we should do is praise Alan Turing and the brave people who worked for him.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Q2. Today is world food day. The Prime Minister embraced the IF campaign, including the need to cut pseudo-green biofuel mandates, which in effect hijack food productivity for the world’s poor for fuel consumption by the rich. Today the EU presidency is proposing a 7% cap, as opposed to the 5% cap advocated by the European Commission. That difference could feed 68 million people a year. What efforts is the Prime Minister making actively to avert EU Governments compromising the fight against world hunger?
The Prime Minister
First, let me pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the campaign that he has waged on this issue. We are absolutely clear that the production of biofuels should not undermine food security, and on some occasions in some countries it clearly does. A 5% cap on biofuels made from crops was one of the key asks of the IF campaign. I support the IF campaign and pay tribute to what it did. That is exactly what we are pushing for in current EU negotiations, and I hope we will be successful.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The use of contaminated blood products by the NHS in the 1970s and 1980s exposed 5,000 people to hepatitis C and some 1,2000 included in that number to HIV as well. Of those 1,200, only just over 300 are still alive. There has never been an apology or a public inquiry. Will my right hon. Friend, who has an outstanding record in seeking to close historic wrongs, meet me and one of my affected constituents, look again at the possibility of public acknowledgement of perhaps this last historic health scandal, and ensure that those who survive now are treated equally and fairly by a state that wronged them in the first place?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this issue in the way that he has. I, too, have constituents who have been affected by this appalling thing that happened in our country. In January 2011 we announced a package of measures to provide additional support for those affected, not least because there has been a change in the potential outcomes for people with HIV compared with those with hep C. I am very happy to meet my right hon. Friend, consider all the issues that he raises and see whether there is more we can do to bring this very sad chapter to a close.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Q3. The Prime Minister will know of the many injustices that have been meted out by Atos in the past few years. They were mentioned again on Monday at Department for Work and Pensions questions. The latest victim was a farmer and a butcher in Bolsover who went to Atos in December 2012 and was stripped of his benefit. For 11 months he waited for an appeal and then his aggressive cancer took his sight, took his hearing, and then last Friday took his life. Is it not time that we put an end to this system whereby people who are really suffering should not be allowed an appeal, having to live on £70 a week, for him and his widow? There are two things the Prime Minister should do: first, with immediate effect, make an ex gratia payment to his widow to cover the suffering, the pain and the loss of income, and secondly, abolish this cruel, heartless monster called Atos—get rid of it. It is not fit for purpose.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman rightly raises what is clearly a desperately sad case and I am very happy to look at the specifics of it. Everyone who has constituency surgeries and talks to constituents knows that we have to improve the quality of decision making about this issue, but where I take issue with him is that I think it is important that we carry out proper assessments of whether people qualify for benefits or do not qualify for benefits. [Interruption.] That is why, before Members on the Opposition Benches shout about this, they started to look at work capability—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The question was heard, and heard, I think, with great courtesy, and the answer must be heard.
The Prime Minister
That is why the previous Government did look at the issue of work capability assessments and making sure that we have a proper way of judging who should be receiving benefits and who should not. As I say, we can always improve the system. There are appeals in the system, but I am very happy to look at the individual case.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
The Arctic 30 include six British citizens, including Alexandra Harris, a friend of my daughter. I am really concerned that their ecological protest about Sakhalin Island and the grey whales is being misinterpreted as piracy because nobody wants the scrutiny of the environmental work they are doing. Will something be done?
The Prime Minister
I share my hon. Friend’s concern. One of the people involved is a constituent of mine. We need to follow this case extremely closely, and that is exactly what the Foreign Office is doing. A Foreign Office Minister had a meeting, which I am sure my hon. Friend attended, and we are daily seeking updates from the Russian Government about how those people are being treated.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Q4. Last week, in answer to a question on his marriage tax policy, the Prime Minister said that“all married couples paying basic rate tax will benefit from this move.”—[Official Report, 9 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 151.]That was not correct, was it? Will he confirm that?
The Prime Minister
What I said was that the married couples tax allowance tax is available to all couples who are on basic rate tax. Anyone who has unused tax allowance is able to transfer it between the husband or the wife. It comes back to a very simple principle: we want to back marriage in the tax system. We do not want to do so only in the inheritance tax system, as the Labour party did; we want to back marriage for less well-off couples. If the shadow Chancellor wants to raise another point of order, I am very happy to stick around and hear it out.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Q5. I had originally intended to raise the A14 with my right hon. Friend, but a really important announcement has been made today by the Supreme Court. It has unanimously turned down the appeal on prisoners’ voting rights and, importantly, reasserted that it is the role of this Parliament to make the decision, rather than others. Will he ensure that we will not be voting for prisoners’ voting rights in this Parliament?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for forsaking the A14 to raise this very important issue. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on this excellent result. He fought this case himself in front of the Supreme Court and made a compelling and forceful argument. This is a victory for common sense. My views on the issue are well known: I do not believe that prisoners should have the vote, and I believe that that is a matter for this House of Commons. The Supreme Court has today stood up for common sense and democracy and made it clear that this issue has nothing to do with the European Union, and I think that we can all rejoice at the result.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Q6. The number of people helped by food banks in 2012-13 was triple what it was the previous year. Is the Prime Minister proud of that achievement?
The Prime Minister
Food bank usage went up 10 times under the previous Labour Government. Of course, I want all families being helped with their living standards. That is why we should recognise that we are getting more people into work, we are growing our economy, we are keeping interest rates down and, crucially, we are cutting taxes—four things that are vital to living standards and four things we would never get from a Labour Government.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
Q7. In September Solihull’s ambulance service moved to a make ready system, and today there are no two-man ambulances based in the borough. Several of my constituents have already been left for totally unacceptably long periods waiting for an ambulance to take them to hospital. Talking to ambulance chiefs is like a dialogue of the deaf, so will the Prime Minister agree to meet me to see what can be done before a constituent dies waiting for an ambulance to arrive?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s concern about the importance of ambulance response times. I think that we then have to task the NHS with how best it meets those targets, because what matters most of all is swift attendance for people who need it. I am very happy to arrange a meeting with her and Health Ministers to look at this. I know that the West Midlands ambulance service is looking at ways of improving its service, and clearly she will encourage it to do just that.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister will know that yesterday the Independent Police Complaints Commission published a damning report on an event involving the former Government Chief Whip. The report goes to the heart of the integrity and ethics of the police. Does he agree with the Home Secretary, who said in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee yesterday that it would be right for the relevant chief constables to apologise to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and wrong if the relevant officers did not face disciplinary proceedings?
The Prime Minister
I agree 100% with what the Home Secretary said yesterday. We should be clear about what we are discussing here. The whole case of what happened outside No. 10 Downing street is with the Crown Prosecution Service and we have to leave it on one side until it makes its decision. What is being discussed here is the fact that my right hon. Friend the former Chief Whip had a meeting with Police Federation officers in his constituency where he gave a full account of what had happened. They left that meeting and claimed that he had given them no account at all. Fortunately this meeting was recorded and so he has been able to prove that what he said was true and what the police officers said was untrue. That is why the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) is absolutely right: my right hon. Friend is owed an apology. The conduct of these officers was not acceptable. These things should be properly investigated, as the Home Secretary has said. Crucially, it is absolutely right for the right hon. Gentleman’s Committee to discuss this with the chief constables concerned and try to get to the bottom of why better redress has not been given.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
Q8. May I congratulate the Prime Minister on taking 2 million people out of income tax but note the 1.3 million earning salaries of about £40,000 who have been sucked into the higher rate? As he pursues the Tory mission to take the low-paid out of tax, may I urge him to deliver it by cutting Government spending so that we can also ease the squeeze on the middle classes?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point. We have taken 2.7 million people out of income tax altogether because we have lifted the first £10,000 of what you can earn before you start paying taxes. This means also that someone on the minimum wage working full-time—the Leader of the Opposition asked about the working poor—has seen their tax bill come down by something like two thirds. Yes, I want to see taxes cut for all, but the only way we can do that is to continue to get the deficit down, to bear down on public spending, and not listen to Labour Members, who even today are making massive commitments to more welfare spending and more public spending, which would mean higher taxes, higher borrowing, and more of the same old Labour.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Q9. Does the Prime Minister consider it a source of shame that on his watch the Red Cross has announced that it will be distributing food to British families for the first time in 70 years?
The Prime Minister
What the Red Cross is choosing to do, and it is its choice, is to work with FareShare, which is an excellent charity that makes sure that supermarkets do not waste food but make that food available to people who need it. I think that is thoroughly worth while. But what we need to see—I repeat it again—is a rise in living standards which we will get if we keep growing the economy, keep getting more jobs, keep cutting people’s taxes, and keep interest rates and mortgage rates low. Those are the four things this Government are delivering—four things that we never would have delivered if we had listened to a word from Labour Front Benchers.
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
Q14. Yesterday I presented a petition to the Department of Health calling for a £420 million hospital redevelopment in Brighton, Kemptown. Does the Prime Minister agree that this money would make a real difference to patients right across Sussex and to the hard-working staff at my local hospital?
The Prime Minister
I understand that the business case for the £420 million redevelopment of the regional centre for teaching, trauma and tertiary care at Royal Sussex County hospital in Brighton is currently being considered. Let me make the point that obviously we can only consider it because this Government decided not to cut the NHS but to put extra resources into it. I am sure that when it is considered an announcement will be made.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
Q10. Tax cuts for millionaires, tax cuts for the wealthiest companies in this country and a bonus bonanza in the City, while millions are denied the right to work and people who are hard working in work have had their pay cut by £1,500: when are this Government, made up of privileged, privately educated millionaire Ministers, going to do something and get in the real world instead of being the political front of the hedge funds and the bankers in the City?
The Prime Minister
Well, we all know who did the most for the hedge funds and the bankers—it was the people who allowed the banks to go bust in the first place. It is this Government who are cutting taxes for working people, taking 2.7 million people out of tax, compared with the disgrace of the Government the hon. Gentleman was in, who scrapped the 10p income tax rate.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Q11. We all appreciate that government requires hard choices about priorities. Does the Prime Minister agree that a generous basic state pension based on a triple lock should have greater priority than more generous benefit payments?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I am proud of the fact that, last year under this Government, the basic state pension went up by £5.30 a week. We have the inflation figures for September, so we can say that, because of our triple lock, the basic state pension will go up by the rate of inflation—2.7%—next year. Of course, the Labour party’s commitment to an earnings increase in the basic state pension would not see anything like that, and yet at the same time it is choosing to uprate welfare by 2.7% when we think it should go up by 1%. We have the priorities to stand up for people who have worked hard, done the right thing and saved during their lives and who deserve dignity in retirement. Unlike the Labour party, we will never let our pensioners down.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Q12. This week the Office for National Statistics reported that house price inflation in London was running at 8.7%. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is inevitable that his mortgage guarantee scheme will simply feed this property price bubble at the expense of individual, low-cost home buyers?
The Prime Minister
I do not accept that for a moment. It is interesting that Labour has now come out against the Help to Buy scheme. Whereas we want to help people get on the housing ladder and own a place of their own, the Labour party is, as ever, standing against those people. If the hon. Lady looks at house price increases outside London and the south-east, she will see an increase of 0.8%. Mortgage activity is still way below what it was before the recession struck. We want to help people get on the housing ladder and achieve their dream of home ownership. Clearly, the Labour party does not care for them.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
Q15. The Prime Minister will know that in my constituency some businesses are paying almost as much in business rates as they are in rent. What steps will he take to persuade local councils to use the powers this Government have given them to reduce those rates and make the right choices to support hard-pressed retailers?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a real champion on this issue for small business. Obviously, the first thing we need to do is get passed through the House of Commons the Bill that will cut the national insurance bill of every business in the country, helping Britain’s small businesses in particular. It will mean that single traders will be able to take on three people earning the minimum wage without paying any national insurance. That is the most important thing we can do. We should continue to look at the business rate system and encourage councils to make sure that they do everything they can to apply the discounts where they are available and to continue to work on this issue.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Q13. Under this Government, wages in real terms have fallen in every region of the UK. Given that those in Harrow and across the rest of London are, on average, £2,200 worse off each year, when will the Prime Minister take personal responsibility for this?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman has to look at disposable income as well as wages. Because this Government have cut people’s taxes and because we are allowing people to keep £10,000 of what they earn before they pay taxes, disposable income went up last year and is rising as we speak. This is important for the Labour party, because if it goes on attacking spending cuts and asking for more and more spending, everyone will know that with Labour you get—repeat after me—more borrowing, more spending and more taxes. It is the same old Labour.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment has fallen in Harlow and jobseekers are encouraged by lower tax for lower earners? Will my right hon. Friend go one step further and look in the long term at raising the threshold at which low earners pay national insurance?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to look at what my hon. Friend says. He is a real champion of the low-paid and people who want to work hard and improve their circumstances. Clearly, taking people out of tax is hugely helpful. We should always look at national insurance. The priority there is to help small businesses take people on. It is worth recognising in the figures announced today that there are 1 million extra people in work and that three quarters of those jobs are full-time jobs, not part-time jobs. What I think we can see is that the country is getting stronger, the economy is improving and more people are getting into work. We need to encourage that, rather than set it back.
Mr Speaker
I know that the substantial throng of colleagues who are leaving the Chamber will do so as quickly and quietly as possible. An expectant House can now hear Mr David Morris.
Petition
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
The petitioners urge the Government, and in particular the Ministry of Justice, to think again about their proposals for the privatisation of the probation service. Megan Elliott, of the National Association of Probation Officers, and her colleagues have collected a petition of 2,138 signatures from the catchment area of the Northumbria Probation Trust. It is not surprising that feeling about this issue is strong in the north-east of England—the Northumbria Probation Trust received an exceptional rating in 2012-13. Indeed, the wider probation service received the British Quality Foundation gold medal for excellence in 2011.
The petitioners firmly oppose the Government’s plan to privatise up to 70% of probation service work. They defend a publicly accountable probation service in the public sector. They oppose the Government’s plan to abolish the 35 separate probation trusts and oppose contracting out through a competitive process that excludes the probation service but includes 70% of their current work. At the heart of the petitioners’ objection is the risk to the public that the Government’s proposals so obviously pose. It offends against common sense to proceed with these untested ideas without, at the very least, piloting them first and learning the lessons of the pilot. I side with the petitioners and believe we should heed their warning.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioners oppose the Government’s plan to abolish the Probation Service in its current form and to privatise up to 70% of work currently undertaken by it. The Petitioners believe that those convicted by a Criminal Court should be supervised by those employed by a publicly accountable Probation Service such as currently exists; further that the Petitioners oppose the Government’s plan to abolish the 35 public sector Probation Trusts replacing them with one Probation Service that only supervises those deemed to be of a high risk of harm to the public. It is envisaged under the current plan, 70% of probation’s work will be subject to a competitive process which excludes the Probation Service. We believe that such a plan is “high risk” in that it could place the public at a greater risk of harm.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to stop the planned changes to the Probation Service.
And the Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
[P001225]
Gibraltar (Maritime Protection)
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision to protect the seas around Gibraltar; and for connected purposes.
I thank colleagues from both sides of the House who have agreed to sponsor the Bill. I received offers from many more Members than the 11 I was allowed to use. I am sure that the people of Gibraltar will take great pride in the amount of support that there is in this House for their interests. Many right hon. and hon. Members have great affection for the people of Gibraltar. That is vital at a time when Gibraltar needs the support of the British Government.
The Bill would define the territorial waters of Gibraltar in primary legislation as 3 nautical miles from the coast of Gibraltar. I do not wish to anger Spain by introducing this Bill. Spain is a key ally, friend and neighbour of the UK. I therefore believe that we should be polite, clear and firm in our approach to this sensitive issue. I believe that cementing in our statute book a definition of the Gibraltan territorial waters would be the most agreeable way forward.
I decided to introduce the Bill after visiting Gibraltar and seeing at first hand the frustration of its people that their waters are not being protected. In the summer, various news reports showed scores of people waiting at the border to enter Spain. That stemmed from an argument that the Spanish were having with Gibraltar over their territorial waters. In July, Gibraltar dropped 70 concrete boulders into the waters around its coast to create an artificial reef. The purpose of the reef was to protect marine life in the area and to ensure that fish stocks improved. The Spanish press were strongly against the reef and claimed that the boulders were stopping Spanish fishermen being able to fish, as their nets were being destroyed. In fact, only one Spanish fisherman was affected by the reef.
Spain has used the same kind of concrete reef in its waters as part of an EU project to protect and improve fish stocks. It has received millions of pounds in EU funding to produce that reef. I do not know why Spain has turned on this kind of reef, nor why it decided to use the reef as an excuse to hold up Gibraltan people who were passing into Spain at the border.
What I do know is that the Gibraltan people are proud of their membership of the EU and want to work with Spain to their mutual financial benefit. That does not take away from the fact that they are immensely proud of their Gibraltan heritage. During the recent tensions, Gibraltarians have begun to treat the artificial reef as a hero and have affectionately named it “Reefy”. It has become a symbol of their national identity and an unofficial logo for their national day celebrations.
It is clear that Spain is choosing to flout the historically recognised boundaries of Gibraltan waters. It is time for Britain to stand firm and make it clear to Spain what the legal boundaries should be. I do not want to see a repeat of the incident in which a British jet skier was hounded and fired at with plastic bullets by the Spanish Guardia Civil while in Gibraltan waters.
The Bill has become even more relevant in the past week because a Spanish navy patrol boat has again been found sailing 2 miles off Gibraltar without the relevant permissions. The vessel, which was carrying out fisheries and coastal patrol duties, was challenged by the Royal Navy as it sailed in the waters south of the Rock of Gibraltar. The Spanish ship lingered in Gibraltan waters for 30 minutes before moving off. I understand that the Gibraltan Government will be launching a diplomatic protest about that incident, which showed that the Spanish are not letting up their campaign. We must step up a gear and legislate to define Gibraltar’s waters.
Gibraltar was formally ceded to the British in article 10 of the treaty of Utrecht 1713. At the time no mention was made of its territorial waters, and some have made much play about that. In reality, however, the right of every country to define its territorial waters is clearly defined in international law, and 18th-century international treaties provided for a claim of up to 3 nautical miles. In 1982, the UN convention on the law of the sea gave us the right to 12 nautical miles, or the middle of the sea where the two waters overlap. That treaty was ratified by the United Kingdom and Spain. Admittedly, the Spanish issued a statement at the time, but—critically—they signed the convention anyway, making the Spanish claim to Gibraltan waters baseless in international law. The British and Gibraltarians have never chosen to take 12 nautical miles. We have long believed that three are enough, and it would be wrong to claim more territorial waters than are needed, especially given the sensitivity of the issue. Nevertheless, the Bill does not close the door for Gibraltar to claim 12 nautical miles in future should it wish.
My Bill aims to enshrine in law a position that has already been formally adopted for many years and that recognises a 3 nautical mile stretch of water as Gibraltar’s. Indeed, questions have been raised in the past about why Gibraltar does not stake its legal claim to 12 nautical miles of territorial waters. That issue was the subject of a Foreign Office question on 14 February 2006, when the then hon. Member for Hereford asked why we do not claim the full 12 nautical miles. The shadow Foreign Secretary, then a Minister in the FCO, stated:
“Under international law, States are entitled, but not required, to extend their territorial sea up to a maximum breadth of 12 nautical miles. Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent, the general rule is that neither is entitled, unless they agree otherwise, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line. The UK Government considers that a limit of three nautical miles is sufficient in the case of Gibraltar.”—[Official Report, 14 February 2006; Vol. 442, c. 1902W.]
Of course Gibraltar could at some point in future claim the full 12 nautical miles, but the aim of the Bill is to claim 3 miles of territorial water in legislation, making the greatest effort to keep a good working relationship with Spain while supporting the interests of the Gibraltarians. Should the Bill be passed, it will complement the work of Gibraltar’s coastguard agency, which has been protecting 3 miles of territorial waters since 2011. The dedication of that team who, among other tasks, conduct general patrols of territorial waters and enforce shipping laws and port rules, should be applauded. By backing the Bill we are supporting the hard-working team who work tirelessly to protect Gibraltan waters.
I was lucky enough to visit Gibraltar recently, along with other Members of the House, many of whom are sitting on these Benches today. The overwhelming feeling we received was the pride that the Gibraltarians feel for their country, and their independence was astounding. We as a country should never forget the Gibraltan people and their right to decide their own destiny, and I fully support my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary when they say that we must never enter into any discussions about the sovereignty of Gibraltar without its say so.
It is also important that when the Gibraltarians are crying out for assistance and assurance, we act in the clearest and strongest way possible. Let me be clear: Spain is our ally and friend, but we must not let Gibraltar be bullied by Spain for that reason. Spain should embrace Gibraltar as Gibraltar could be the financial powerhouse of that region. It could be similar to what Hong Kong is to China, but with one crucial difference—it will not be claimed back. I hope the whole House will back this Bill and send a resounding message of our support to our brothers and sisters in Gibraltar. Gibraltar has a right to its territorial waters, and this House supports that right.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That David Morris, Alec Shelbrooke, Andrew Rosindell, Bob Stewart, Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil, Mr Graham Brady, Mr Nigel Evans, Caroline Dinenage, Ian Paisley, Sir Gerald Kaufman, Jim Dobbin and Sir Peter Bottomley present the Bill.
David Morris accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February 2014, and to be printed (Bill 115).
Opposition Day
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Zero-hours Contracts
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
15:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 244 / Noes: 298 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the marked rise in the use of zero hours contracts with recent estimates that as many as a million employees are employed on them and that they are used in over a quarter of workplaces, contributing to growing insecurity for families across the UK; and therefore calls on the Government to initiate a full consultation and formal call for evidence on the use of zero hours contracts and on proposals to prevent abuses by employers of such contracts, for example, by stopping employees on zero hours contracts being required to work exclusively for one employer, stopping the use of contracts that require zero hour workers to be available on the off-chance they are needed but with no guarantee of work, banning the use of zero hours contracts where employees are in practice working regular hours and putting in place a code of practice on the use of zero hours contracts.
We are in the midst of the biggest living standards crisis in a generation, a crisis that is affecting every community in the country. We know that at its heart is the issue of pay. People are working harder than ever before but earning less: they have on average suffered a £1,500 pay cut since the Government came into office. We know that at the same time as wages have been falling, costs have been increasing, with prices rising faster than wages in 39 of the 40 months of this Government.
We also know that insecurity goes to the heart of this living standards crisis, too. Those in work now feel less secure and more pressurised at work than at any time in the past 20 years, according to the most recent UK skills and employment survey. The UK Commission for Employment and Skills, which co-funded the survey, says that what we have now is a climate of fear. Indeed, research shows that double the number of people feel insecure at work today compared with three years ago.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the biggest collapse in living standards occurred from 2008 to 2010 under the Labour Government, when they bankrupted the country and drove people out of work? We are trying to recover from that position.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that wages have been cut by about 5% in the three or four years since this Government came to power, and that it was the bankers who started it? More importantly, does he agree that zero-hours contracts are a throwback to the 1930s when miners and dockers had to turn up to work not knowing whether they would get a job. This is a modern veneer on an old, tried and tired system that was chucked out many years ago.
Mr Speaker
Order. Just before the shadow Secretary of State responds to that intervention, may I gently say that it is helpful if everybody is clear to whom the Member who has the floor is giving way? The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) is sorely pained as he thinks the intervention was supposed to be his. I know not, but the shadow Secretary should make it clear.
Ian Lucas
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I just wanted to correct the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). In my constituency, the average male wage in real terms was £530.80 in 2010. That fell to £453.50 in 2011, the first year of the Tory-Liberal Democrat Government.
Mr Umunna
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and he is right to point that out. We are in the fourth year of this Government and blame is continually attributed to the Labour party. This Government ought to look at what they are doing to our country and our economy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) made a point about insecurity at work. That insecurity is not just born out of three wasted years of a flatlining economy following the Government’s 2010 comprehensive spending review which caused confidence to fall and demand to nosedive; it is also because the nature of work has changed in recent years. Half the rise in employment since 2010 has been in temporary work, driven primarily by people doing temporary jobs because they cannot find permanent work—more than 500,000 people fall into that category—while record numbers of people are in part-time work who would prefer to be working full time, meaning that there is huge underemployment.
But perhaps the most shocking symptom of the changing nature of work is the proliferation of the use of zero-hours contracts, under which a person is not guaranteed any work, is usually expected to be around whenever the employer wants them to be and is paid only for the work he or she gets, meaning, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South said, that individuals engaged under these contracts never know when work will come and therefore whether they can sustain themselves and their families week to week.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Is it not tough to listen to the Prime Minister giving answers about rising employment, given the type of employment that that represents, as we have just heard? Should the Government not come clean about the falling claimant count and listen to what my hon. Friend is saying about the type of work people are having to go into?
Mr Umunna
This is a key point. Will any job do? We are clear that any old job will not do. We want to ensure that people have decent work that is paid a salary they can live off and which is secure too. That has to be our ambition for the country.
I do not deny that these contracts have been in use for many years—I will turn to their use in the House a bit later—but until recently they were very much the exception to the rule. The problem is that now they are becoming the norm in some sectors, with the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development estimating that up to 1 million people are on such contracts.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman will understand that across the House there is concern—or there should be—about this issue, and I am glad that we are debating it. He touched on the point I wanted to ask him about. Will he confirm, however, that the Labour Government never addressed this issue by making it illegal, so it remained possible throughout the whole period of their Administration? Neutrally, does he have any objective, accurate statistics on the number of people affected by zero-hours contracts during the last Government and the number of people affected since 2010 under this Administration?
Mr Umunna
I will come to both those points in the remainder of my speech.
Some Government Members trumpet this insecurity and talk about it as evidence of flexibility in our labour market, and it is true that some workers like these arrangements, but for most working families they mean insecurity for them and their families and leave them subject to the whim and demands of their employer to work at short notice, so the flexibility is not a two-way street; it is a one-way street in favour of the employer, and that is insecurity writ large and totally unacceptable.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
On Friday, a heavy goods vehicle driver for Royal Mail and his wife came to my surgery and told me that one week he works two nights, the next he might work three, and his wife explained what that meant for them as a family. What does that say about companies such as Royal Mail that use this practice continually?
Mr Umunna
Some argue that we should not point to bad practice in the business community because to do so is to fuel anti-business rhetoric. I think that it is important that we call out people who are systematically exploiting and abusing others under these contracts. For example, Sports Direct uses these contracts across the board, whereas others, such as Asda, acknowledge that they could use them if they wanted, but do not want to treat their people in that way, and if that means that they have to spend more time drawing up rotas and using overtime arrangements in contracts, so be it; they do not want to treat people in that way.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that firms that exploit people by using zero-hours contracts are undermining good employers who institute flexible working and annualised contracts, meaning that we are in danger of the bad driving out the good?
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent points he is making in support of good companies that recognise, as I know from my time in business, that those with insecure jobs will never deliver for their companies the same quality of work or be as motivated as a well-paid, secure employee.
Mr Umunna
That was exactly the point I was just about to make. Of course, insecurity at work lowers a person’s standard of living and makes managing their family commitments impossible. As my hon. Friend says, insecurity is bad for business because insecure, poorly paid workers are less committed and less productive. It is also bad for the public finances, because if people are not getting the hours or earning a decent wage, that means less income tax and national insurance going to the Exchequer and more being paid out in credits, so everybody loses out.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
A few weeks ago, I was talking to a constituent of mine on a zero-hours contract with the Co-operative group. Is the Co-operative group exploiting its workers?
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
My hon. Friend referred to the impact on families. Will he expand on that? What is the impact of zero-hours contracts on a mother’s or father’s ability to plan picking their children up from school in a week’s time, to plan family holidays or Christmas or to plan whether they can afford a mortgage?
Mr Umunna
I will come to that point shortly and tell the House the story of a zero-hours contract worker I met recently in exactly that position.
The Government and policy makers can acknowledge the problem, but the question is this: at a time when people feel more insecure than ever, will they just heap further insecurity on them, or will they act to do something about the situation? What have the Government done? First, we have their failed economic plan. Thanks to the policies they have pursued, unemployment and underemployment remain stubbornly high, with almost 2.5 million people still out of work, including, tragically, almost 1 million young people. I do not think that that is cause for celebration. It is welcome that growth has returned, but for all the talk of rebalancing, in the fourth year of the Government, that rebalancing looks as elusive as ever. We just have to look at the statistics that came out this morning. In today’s employment figures, of course it was good to see unemployment fall in parts of our country, but in many regions—London, the north-west, the east midlands and the south-west—it increased.
Mr Umunna
I will give way shortly.
Secondly, what are the Government doing to the protections for working people in the workplace? They are watering them down left, right and centre. They have increased from one to two years the length of service required before someone can enforce their right not to be treated unfairly at work and they have introduced employment tribunal fees of £1,200. The Minister for Skills and Enterprise described that as a moderate charge, but for low-income workers it is the equivalent of several weeks’ pay. The Government have also reduced the consultation period for collective redundancy. I could go on.
Thirdly, what have the Government done on zero-hours contracts? They have done little, if anything at all. Has a full consultation and call for evidence been issued? No. To date, there has been none, despite promises at the Liberal Democrat conference by the Secretary of State to do so. Has the Office for National Statistics been asked to clarify how many of these contracts might be in use, given that research suggests there are far more than in the ONS estimates?
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
indicated assent.
Mr Umunna
I don’t think so, because Ministers keep quoting statistics from the ONS to me, despite its having conceded that there is a real risk that they do not reflect reality.
Have the Government devoted the same energy and time to protecting people from the exploitative use of these contracts as they have to implementing the recommendations of the Prime Minister’s employment law adviser, Adrian Beecroft, for watering down people’s rights at work? No, they have not.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the insecurity that zero-hours contracts can create, which happens in three ways: by insisting on availability even when there is no work; by requiring workers to work exclusively for one business; and by using zero-hours contracts to erode and water down the basic rights in the workplace of employees who work regular hours. Is that not what we need to clamp down on?
Guy Opperman
The hon. Gentleman was talking about the unemployment figures. Does he accept that in the north-east they have fallen by 17,000 since February this year and are now lower than when we came into office in May 2010, and that youth unemployment is down since February by 7,000, from 12% to 9.2%? Is that not evidence that things are changing for the better?
Mr Umunna
I do not deny that it is welcome to see anybody who is out of work getting into work, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) put it, the question is: what is the nature of that work?
In fairness to the Secretary of State, I think he wants to act. I know, for example, that he has hit out at people in his Government who want to slash away employment protections, describing them as “head bangers” who see liberalising the labour market as “an aphrodisiac”. Who on earth could he be referring to? I suspect that he is prevented from acting by the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon)—who is sitting next to him—who has described his boss as “slipping his electronic tag” for daring to speak about the need for a more responsible capitalism, which I would argue includes companies treating their workers fairly. In any case, the Secretary of State has allowed what has happened to go on and has therefore been complicit in watering down people’s rights at work in the way I have described.
Where this Government have failed, we will act. To pick up on the point made earlier, there are few firm data on the extent of the use of zero-hours contracts, partly because many people do not realise that they are on them. However, over the summer months, the Office for National Statistics produced revised figures, putting the number at more than 250,000. That is likely to be a severe underestimate, given that others have estimated that more than 300,000 employees in the care sector alone are now on such contracts. Consequently, I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), who has campaigned hard on this issue, wrote to the chair of the UK Statistics Authority asking whether the ONS would clarify the data and publish new figures in the light of the evidence that has arisen. He said that the ONS was reviewing the way it collects the data and looking at whether it can include the data collected by organisations such as the CIPD. However, finding out how many of these contracts are in use is one thing; looking at how they are used is another.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I do not like zero-hours contracts because of the insecurity they create for people, and we should have planning, but they are a fact of life. Somehow or other, this House and all of us have to find a way to reduce them. There are still six Labour-controlled councils in London using zero-hours contracts, and we have to try to stop it. It is not easy: I like to see people employed, but I also like people to have some security in their lives, and zero-hours contracts sometimes do not give that.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
My constituency has the 10th highest unemployment in the country. In the main, the people who come to my surgeries would prefer to be on full-time contracts rather than zero-hours contracts, which they are all too often forced into. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must try to stop unscrupulous employers taking advantage of those who are less able to support themselves because of their personal circumstances?
Mr Umunna
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who, as it happens, intervenes just as I was about to talk about Merseyside. I was talking about collecting data on the number of zero-hours contracts being one thing and the evidence about their use being another. He will know that our hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and for Wirral South and our right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) produced an excellent report in June detailing the use of zero-hours contracts in the Liverpool area. In that report they told the story of a care worker, whom I have subsequently met and spoken to myself, as I mentioned earlier. She told me that she had to be available to visit clients at their homes at least six days a week, including evenings. Her rota could change in a flash. If visits were cancelled at late notice, she would often not be paid. If visits were added at the last minute, she would have to manage her child care commitments as she best could—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane). That is the reality of life for people under these contracts.
In July, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) held a Westminster Hall debate on this issue. Seventeen Opposition Members contributed to that debate, giving further testimony about people’s experiences on such contracts. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon)—I do not know whether she is here today—talked about how she had been employed on a zero-hours contract for two years in the retail sector. I note that not one Government Back Bencher spoke in that debate—save for the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), who was chairing it—but it is good to see a few more Government Members here today.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I was one of the Members who spoke in that debate. I raised the case of my constituent who had to leave her children locked in a car while she undertook home visits that were given to her at short notice under threat of not getting any work in future. In response to that debate, the Under-Secretary of State said that that was clearly “not right”, but since then we have seen absolutely nothing from the Government on how they will protect constituents such as mine and others, to whom my hon. Friend has referred. Does he agree that that is an absolute disgrace?
Mr Umunna
I do agree, and I read my hon. Friend’s speech from that debate. She talked about what the Government are doing. The Secretary of State said he was carrying out an informal review, but given that that consisted of just three officials spending part of their time “speaking informally” with stakeholders—as he told me in answer to a parliamentary question that I tabled on this issue—that is clearly insufficient. Therefore, in August, I and the shadow employment relations Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), formally convened a summit, involving more than 20 different organisations representing employers, employees, legal experts and people employed on zero-hours contracts, to hear evidence and consider what action should be taken to clamp down on their exploitative use.
Two things arose from the evidence we heard and the consultations we have been carrying out. The consensus across all stakeholders and groups was that the exploitative use of such contracts is a problem—everybody agreed with that—particularly in the care sector. Those looking after some of the country’s most vulnerable people are themselves vulnerable under these contracts. Given that it is important for those whom they are looking after to have stable and continuous care from people with whom they are familiar, I cannot see how that state of affairs can have anything other than a detrimental effect on the quality of care received.
That state of affairs creates issues for many local authorities because of the way in which social care services are commissioned. Many of them will tell us that it is helping to drive the use of zero-hours contracts in the care sector. They say—some would say that this is not an excuse, but an explanation—that they are left with no option but to commission in that way because of the huge funding cuts they have been subjected to under this Government. I understand the challenges that local authorities face—I think we all do—but I urge them to follow the example of Southwark council, which is working with providers to eliminate the use of zero-hours contracts, particularly in the care sector.
Simon Hughes
The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time, and I am grateful to him for giving way on that point, which is directly relevant. He said he would come back to whether there were statistics on the incidence of this form of employment before 2010. To reinforce the point he is making, to my knowledge, the care sector has used zero-hours contracts for many years, under the Labour Government and this Government, and under local authorities of all political colours contracting services. There are real abuses, and if we can reach consensus, without partisanship, that one of the sectors in which we need to address them most urgently is the care sector, that will be a great service to some of the lowest-paid people doing the most difficult face-to-face jobs.
Mr Umunna
I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that what Southwark is doing is a good thing. I note that he is agreeing with me.
The Office for National Statistics suggests that the numbers under the previous Government were around 140,000 across all sectors, although I acknowledge that the way it has collected those data has been somewhat faulty, in part because it relies heavily on people understanding what their contractual situation is. It is fair to say, however, that there has been a significant proliferation of zero-hours contracts over the past few years. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the care sector. The use of these contracts in that sector might have been a niche arrangement before, but it is certainly now becoming the rule. That is what we need to act on.
I do not believe that there is consensus on advocating an outright ban on these arrangements. There are people who want them, and there are employers who use them responsibly, but, as I said to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), the key is to outlaw them where they are exploiting people. In doing that, we need to acknowledge the people who are doing the right thing as well as draw attention to those who are doing the wrong thing.
We should also acknowledge the need for this House to get its own house in order in respect of the use of zero-hours contracts. We know that there are people who look after us here and help us to do our jobs here who are engaged on those contracts. That is unacceptable. We should be setting an example. I know that this is being looked into at the moment, but we have not yet had a clear commitment from the House authorities not to use such contracts. I think that everyone would agree that we want to see their use in the House stamped out.
Mr Redwood
I want my constituents to have well paid, decent jobs, and I have a lot of sympathy with those who do not wish to see exploitative contracts. Will the shadow Secretary of State say a little more about how he would define an exploitative contract, and whether there is more we could do by way of leadership? He is an influential and talented man. Surely there is more that he could do with Labour councils and trade unions, just as those on the Government Benches can do more with the Government.
Mr Umunna
One of my colleagues has just said to me that being praised by the right hon. Gentleman will spell the end of my career. People will point to examples of Labour-controlled local authorities, but we do not care who is using these contracts. We simply do not want them to be used exploitatively, and I will explain how we can stop that happening.
Chris Ruane
My hon. Friend has mentioned the use of zero-hours contracts in the Palace of Westminster. I have contacted the Speaker about this matter, and I commend him for his positive response. The problem also exists across the way in Lambeth palace, and I have tabled parliamentary questions to the Church Commissioners about it. The number of zero-hours contracts in Lambeth palace has gone up from five in 2008 to 34 today. Their proliferation is rampant around the country. The problem is out there, and without proper monitoring it will continue to progress. I congratulate my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State on securing this debate, which is shining a torch into those dark places and establishing that this is a big political issue that affects millions of poor people out there.
Mr Umunna
I completely agree with my hon. Friend.
In answer to the question of how we should deal with the problem, our motion proposes four measures that we hope the Government can support or, at least, commit to properly consult on. First, we would ban employers from insisting that zero-hours workers be available to work—be on call, effectively—even when there was no guarantee of work to give them. Secondly, we would stop zero-hours contracts that required workers to work exclusively for that employer. The Secretary of State has talked about that aspect of the matter before. Thirdly, we would prevent the misuse of such contracts when employees were, in practice, regularly working a number of hours a week. We would ensure that they became entitled to a contract that reflected the reality of their regular hours. Finally, alongside those measures, we would introduce a code of practice for the use of the contracts that would ensure, for example, that an employee recruited on a zero-hours contract would know that those were their terms of employment. We have announced the appointment of the former head of human resources at Morrisons, Norman Pickavance, to lead an independent consultation on how we could best implement those measures.
In conclusion, I want to say something about where this will fit with the future of our economy. We need to reform our economy so that it is fit for purpose, and so that it delivers better and fairer outcomes for people. We consistently hear from some people that the best way to do that is further to liberalise our labour market, which is already the third most liberal labour market in the OECD. That is why they recoil from taking action on exploitative zero-hours contracts, but that approach amounts to a global race to the bottom in which we seek to compete with China, India and the other emerging economies by screwing down the pay and terms and conditions of working people in the name of growth.
That is not the way in which we should be competing, because it will not deliver better outcomes for the people we represent. We will deliver better outcomes for them, ultimately, by growing those industries that can provide more of the better paid, secure jobs that they want. Of course that means promoting innovation and ensuring that our people have the skills to do those jobs. That is why I am always banging on about the need for an industrial strategy. We must act to protect those who continue to work in low-income, insecure jobs in the less internationally competitive sectors. Heaping insecurity on them is not the right thing to do.
Mr Umunna
No, I will wrap up now as I want to give others time to speak in the debate.
In short, we on the Labour Benches do not think that any old job will do. We aspire to full employment, and to secure and decent work that pays a wage that people can live on. That is our ambition for this country, which is why I hope that Members on both sides of the House will support our motion today.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
We very much welcome this opportunity to debate this issue. It has had a lot of media coverage, and we have already had several debates on it in the House. I am happy to engage with it. I realise that the purpose of Opposition day debates is to generate opposition, but the truth is that there is quite a lot of common ground on this issue. None of us wants to see employers abusing their employees.
The thrust of the motion seems to be to ask me to do what I am already doing. I made it clear a month ago that we were going to have a consultation on this matter, and I can tell the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) that we are aiming to clear the process through government by mid-November in order to launch the consultation formally. There is no disagreement about that.
There are elements in the motion that I could pick holes in and disagree with. There is a call for evidence, but also, slightly oddly, a series of concrete action points that have been put forward regardless of any evidence that might emerge. That seems to be making slightly odd use of evidence-based decision making. That is a quibble, but I do not have an enormous problem with the basic thrust of the motion. I guess the hon. Gentleman has to criticise the Government, however, as this is an Opposition day debate, and I will take head-on the three specific points that he has made.
First, he talked about our failure to act, but the problem has been around for many years, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has pointed out. The trade unions repeatedly told the last Labour Government that there was a problem in this area. The 1998 White Paper drew attention to it and suggested possible courses of action, but no action was ever taken. I know that several of my Labour predecessors looked into the matter, because concern had been expressed, and while acknowledging that there was abuse in some areas, they broadly took the view that the benefits outweighed the costs.
The second criticism was that I did not mobilise a small army of civil servants to look at the problem earlier this summer, but what would be the point of mobilising the civil service to reinvent the wheel? A lot of sensible research has already been done. We have talked to 10 trade unions, all of which have done quite a lot of in-house work. We have also talked to several think-tanks, including the Resolution Foundation and the Work Foundation, both of which have done good work in this area. We did not need to reinvent anything; the evidence and the anecdotes are there and we are drawing on them. That is the direction in which we are proceeding.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman criticised the statistics. The problem is that we have one basic official set of statistics from the Office for National Statistics, suggesting that there are about 200,000 zero-hours contracts. That statistic is drawn from the labour force survey, and the hon. Gentleman was right to say that this is quite a narrow definition. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development came out with a figure of 1 million, using a different measure—in other words, what employers judge the number of zero-hours contracts to be—while the union Unite has come up with a figure of 5 million. Different people are obviously measuring this in different ways. What I have done is write to the head of the Office for National Statistics, asking him to take this problem on board. We have a very serious problem of definition and numbers, so I have asked the head to pull together the relevant people so that, from now on, we can have a proper database on the basis of which to make rational decisions.
Ian Lucas
Is not the difficulty the fact that the Government have acted by removing the rights of employees to enforce their employment rights by doubling the qualification for unfair dismissal and by introducing what appear to my constituents to be huge fees to initiate industrial tribunal or employment tribunal proceedings? The right hon. Gentleman is undermining the taking of such action by legislating to take away employees’ rights. How liberal is that?
Vince Cable
There are still significant opportunities for people who are subject to unfair dismissal. We reformed the system because we considered that it provided a very significant barrier to small and medium-sized growth companies and thus to employment opportunities with them. We think we have got the balance right.
Alison McGovern
Let me take the right hon. Gentleman back to the statistics for one minute, if the House will forgive me, because they really matter. The statistics provide the only way of finding out what is going on in our economy from the Government’s point of view. The care Minister told me that 300,000 people working in the care sector were on zero-hours contracts, so that is what the Government say; yet the Office for National Statistics—and therefore the Government again—have reported that there are 250,000 such workers in that sector. That discrepancy cannot stand. In a recent parliamentary answer in October, one of the Secretary of State’s Ministers said that his review did not seek to collect any statistics, but the Department is now reporting an inconsistency in them. Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that his Department can do better than that?
Vince Cable
That is precisely why I am in touch with the head of the ONS, so that we can get some high-quality and consistent data. That is the whole point of the exercise.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the problem is exacerbated when zero-hours contracts are taken in combination with the decreasing value of the minimum wage? That has created conditions under which, either consciously or inadvertently, rather large companies have developed business models that rely on top-up benefits to subsidise a work force whose take-home pay is not large enough to cover their monthly bills. That means we end up with a multinational company such as McDonald’s, with up to 83,000 staff on zero-hours contracts, being subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of about £200 million a year. We need to find a way of dealing with these contracts in order to deal with the taxpayer interest in the situation.
Vince Cable
That depends on what the hon. Gentleman means. I think he is merely saying what is obvious, although it may need restating—that we are dealing in the wake of the financial crisis with very weak labour markets, and not just in the UK. This has had impacts on wages and on the nature of contracts. The question for the Government and legislators is whether the problems around zero-hours contracts are the symptom or the cause. The hon. Gentleman is right that the problem interacts quite powerfully with the minimum wage issue. I have made it clear that I want the Low Pay Commission to look at the minimum wage in a more positive way, but it is, of course, an independent commission and it is not my job to tell or prescribe to it how the minimum wage could evolve. I want to respect the institution that the hon. Gentleman and his Government set up.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Let me take the right hon. Gentleman back to his earlier point when he was, as ever, berating Labour for not taking action. Has he not chosen his own priorities? If he thinks that the previous Government were dilatory on the issue, why has he not taken it up sooner? Other legislation, including to take away people’s employment rights, has been passed, so he has had time to do this if he wanted to.
Vince Cable
To help us move on from this point, let me say that I am the first Business Secretary out of the last seven or eight—I cannot remember exactly when the issue first came to the surface—who is actually taking action on the issue. Action will emerge from the consultation. We recognise that there is a problem and we recognise that there are some abusive situations, but we also recognise some positive things about zero-hours contracts, which I shall come to in a moment. We have determined to take action, and I am the first Secretary of State to have done so for a long time, after a whole series of Labour predecessors who, for whatever reason, decided not to.
Simon Hughes
I applaud my right hon. Friend for that. It is evident to people outside that there has been no action for many years and that now there will be. Before he completes his speech, will my right hon. Friend not only set out the timetable beyond the consultation plan, as far as he can envisage it, but say whether we can find a way of linking the discussion and review of the minimum wage with the zero-hours contracts issue? It is obvious from how the labour market works that these issues are interconnected, so it would be worth trying to bring those considerations together.
Vince Cable
Yes, and I hope that happens. I have made it clear to the Low Pay Commission that we want to look at the minimum wage in a somewhat more holistic way than has been the case in the past. Of course I cannot guarantee what the commission will conclude; that is not my job.
Before considering the advantages and disadvantages of zero-hours contracts, let me make a basic point that will probably explain why my Labour predecessors did not deal with the problem: it is intrinsically tricky. There is an issue about what zero-hours contracts actually are; they are not clearly defined. As the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said a few moments ago, we do not have a definition of exploitation, and we do not even have a definition of what a zero-hours contract is. There are a whole lot of contractual arrangements, which have two basic conditions attached to them. One is that there is no guarantee of work and no requirement under British employment law for an employer to provide a minimum number of hours. Equally, however, an individual is not required to accept an offer of work. Those are the two defining characteristics of a zero-hours contract.
A wide spectrum of practices has come out of that. At one end of the scale, we have casualisation of different forms—we have heard about the history of the docks and other similar traditions, many of which were highly undesirable. Equally, at the other end of the scale, however, there are large numbers of traditional systems of freelance-type employment—in the creative industries and education, for example. When I started thinking about this subject, I realised that my late wife spent much of her working career on a zero-hours contract working for a further education college. She taught music to sixth formers, depending on how many turned up for their classes. It was effectively a zero-hours contract. Many people in FE and adult education worked on the same basis, and this is established practice in many other industries. In these cases, it has not been viewed as a problem before.
I make that point to stress that the definition of a zero-hours contract is not precise. Hundreds of thousands of people—and if we believe the shadow Secretary of State, millions—are on these contracts, which vary enormously. Some people carry the rights attached to being a worker—[Interruption.] Well, Unite think it is 5 million people. Some people in these contracts have basic employee statutory rights attached to them as well. They are enormously varied.
Guy Opperman
To add to the list of contexts and sectors in which this type of contract is the norm and is welcome, let me cite rural Northumberland—represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) as well as myself. Zero-hours contracts are in place there, and because of the nature of rural employment, neither of us has found anyone complaining about them.
Vince Cable
There are many industries of that kind, and I shall shortly enumerate them. I do not want to eulogise this system of employment because there clearly are problems in many sectors, but it has worked well in other sectors. That is why when it comes to rushing to prohibitions, we need to be careful about the unintended consequences.
Nick de Bois
The Secretary of State gives me the opportunity of raising the point that I was hoping to raise with the shadow Secretary of State. I would never have knowingly employed someone on a zero-hours contract, because I do not like such contracts and do not think them appropriate, but it is clear that many managerial, technical and education people are working on them. However, the suggestion in the Opposition motion of
“banning the use of zero hours contracts where employees are in practice working regular hours”
will catch people who are quite content to work on that basis, when, I imagine, the target is those who are abusing the system. That is why I would find it difficult to support the motion. I would welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on that.
Vince Cable
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that is why a rush to ban certain forms of general practice could have serious negative unintended consequences. That is not to say that we should not do something, but a commitment to ban without having obtained the evidence would be highly premature.
Mr Umunna
First, of course people will not want to complain about being on such contracts, because they worry whether they will get the hours of work if they do so. Secondly, the evidence suggests that such contracts were not used during our time in government to the same extent as they are being used now. That is why action was not taken. The right hon. Gentleman said he would do something about the issue back in June. Why was a consultation not started then? Why has he waited until October?
Vince Cable
After years of waiting and a long discussion about the technicalities, the idea that we are somehow failing in our duty because we did not rush to act within weeks or months is utterly absurd. We are taking action. A proper consultation will be launched, we hope, in mid-November. On the back of that, all the organisations that have not yet had an opportunity to make representations to me can do so, and we can proceed to the appropriate action.
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the tone and content of the Secretary of State’s comments. As he may be aware, the Scottish Affairs Committee has also started an inquiry into zero-hours contracts, and I hope we will have co-operation from the Government. Will he clarify the timetable, on which he was asked for information earlier, for the consultation? When will it start and finish? When does he envisage making decisions? When does he envisage bringing forward legislation?
Vince Cable
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a concrete date. The consultation will be launched in the middle of November, and such consultations normally take several months. The level of feedback will determine how quickly the Government can respond, and that in turn will dictate how quickly we can introduce legislation, if that is what is required. I am happy to co-operate with him and his Committee, which I am sure has specific Scottish insights.
I want to enumerate some of the positive and negative aspects of zero-hours contracts that our review has revealed so far. There are some groups of people for whom such contracts provide a useful and appropriate kind of employment, regardless of sector. For many people, for example, who are at or beyond retirement age and want to keep in touch with the labour force but do not want permanent employment or even an agreed part-time employment contract, such contracts are quite an attractive proposition. There are other people, in industries that are subject to quite a lot of volatility, who want to remain connected with the labour force but do not want to be in a position where they have taken on permanent employment and are then made redundant. The car industry provides a good example. One reason the car industry is successful is that our labour market has a mix of people, some of whom are on zero-hours contracts. When I went to the United States to negotiate with people in General Motors, who were deciding whether to come to Britain or Germany, one factor that weighed heavily in favour of the UK was our flexible approach to employment, including zero-hours contracts, along with the fact that the unions, mostly Unite, had been constructive in putting those arrangements in place.
Vince Cable
I will finish my list of points.
Another group is students, some of whom are looking for work experience, and most of whom want to be in a flexible arrangement that reflects the fact that their timetable varies. Another group—a very important one—is people with family and caring responsibilities. For someone in that position, the most important attraction of a job is to be able to say no when work is offered, without facing disciplinary procedures, and to be on a contract that explicitly acknowledges that work can be declined.
Sheila Gilmore
Does the Secretary of State not realise that there is a huge difference between someone who wants to work part-time and to know what part-time hours they have, and a situation where they do not know and have no control over the hours they work? The notion that it is easy for people on such contracts to say, “I won’t take those hours because they do not suit my child care arrangements this week” is not the reality that many people are facing.
Vince Cable
I am going on to explain some of the problems and, sometimes, abuses that we encounter, some of which are of the kind that the hon. Lady describes. I am trying to set out both sides of the argument. The arguments are quite complex, and the more we dig into the evidence, the more it becomes clear that there is not a simple black-and-white approach to these problems. Let me take her challenge. Clearly, there are abusive situations, and I will go through some of the most obvious ones.
The first was mentioned by the shadow Secretary of State: exclusivity arrangements, where people are bound into a contract with one employer and are not offered any hours, but cannot take employment from someone else. At first sight, that is a very unsatisfactory arrangement. We discovered that that kind of arrangement operated, for example, with the staff at Buckingham palace. When we pursued it, we discovered that one reason is security vetting, as the arrangement prevents people from being able to pop in and out of different firms. I do not know whether that is the justification in the case of Buckingham palace; there is some complexity to the argument. In general terms, however, I would accept that exclusivity is a very, very undesirable practice.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
It is exactly that practice that happens in railway maintenance, only because certification is needed. Surely in such circumstances it should not be legal for people to be forced into a situation in which they do not get any work for weeks on end.
Vince Cable
I am sure the hon. Gentleman has given a totally genuine example. I am not a lawyer, but there is at present a common law defence against exclusivity. I can see the practical problems of bringing a legal case against big companies, but none the less some legal protection exists. I accept that in many cases exclusivity may be highly undesirable, and in our consultation we will try to establish what concrete action, if any, we can take about it.
Mr Redwood
When the Secretary of State holds his consultation shortly, will he consult on the extent to which there is a problem and try to get a definition of it, or will he consult on possible remedies to the abuses he has identified?
Vince Cable
Such abuses are highly relevant, but people may come forward and explain, as I have done, that for certain contexts, groups of workers and sectors, such a contractual arrangement is necessary and positive and it would be unhelpful to take action. We have an open mind. We are not trying to close down the debate.
Mr Watson
On remedies, the Secretary of State raises an important point. He referred to the success of the Low Pay Commission earlier. Could one outcome be a new and enduring institution—a triumvirate model that involves employers, trade unions and Government—to resolve the complex issues that will continue to face industry in years to come, after the consultation is over?
Vince Cable
It could be, but I know from my interaction with them that setting the minimum wage is a complicated enough issue in itself, but I will certainly bear the suggestion in mind.
Vince Cable
I will enumerate a few more points and then take further interventions.
Exclusivity is a serious issue. The second point, which I think one or two Labour Members have been trying to make, is that there are cases where the simple lack of predictability is damaging for families trying to manage their personal finances responsibly, especially those who are employed on a regular basis for a long period of time and are then, in the jargon, zeroed down. A problem would flow from that. Then there are people who are on zero-hours contracts for many years and for whom it becomes a way of life. There may be good sectoral reasons for it, but in some cases it is a way of keeping them out of regular employment with the various obligations that are attached to it. In our gathering of evidence, we have encountered two specific instances. There are people who sign up to a zero-hours contract in good faith, because it gives them and the employer flexibility, but they then take advantage of their right to reject work and are discarded because they are allegedly inflexible, defeating the whole purpose of the contract in the first place. We found that other people were indeed pressurised into taking zero-hours contracts against their better judgment and against their preference. All those things happen, and they must be weighed against the undoubted advantages that some individuals and some industries gain from having the option to make such arrangements.
Jim Shannon
At a time of economic squeeze, when those who tender or apply for contracts find that their prices must be lower, they are forced to apply the minimum wage and to restrict working hours, and that has an impact on those who are on zero-hours contracts. Does the Secretary of State feel that the Government have a duty to ensure that the tender process gives workers rights, whether it takes place at Government level, at council level or at regional level?
Vince Cable
The hon. Gentleman is right to view the matter in that broader context. Several Members, including the hon. Member for Streatham, have already given the example of domiciliary visits in the care sector. I have encountered cases in my constituency involving people whose working conditions are very poor, who are on zero-hours contracts, whose pay is very low, and for whom there is no chance of progression. When we dig into such cases, as I did on one occasion, we may discover that the companies concerned are not profit-making companies but charities, and that the real cause of the problem is the very poor price at which they took the contract. The origin of the problem therefore lies in local government. The zero-hours contracts and, indeed, the minimum wage issues are symptoms rather than causes.
Let me list some of the matters that we will be considering in the consultation, and explain how we will approach them. It is important for us not to close down options. First, there is the issue of exclusivity. We could do nothing, and rely on existing law; we could ban it; or we could provide effective information and guidance requiring employers to justify it. A number of legal interventions are possible.
Secondly, we must consider the cases of people who are employed on zero-hours contracts for very long periods when they do not choose to be. Should we introduce a system requiring employers to offer permanent employment at some stage?
Thirdly—and probably most important—there is the issue of transparency. We can argue in favour of fairness, and we can also argue that, for the economic purposes of a flexible labour market, if rational people know what they are doing, that is a considerable improvement. The problem that we have discovered, and to which many Members have already referred, is that when people accept a job offer they are often not clear about the obligations and limitations that are involved. Should we introduce a code of conduct requiring proper transparency and information? Should it be voluntary, should it be a Leveson-style code with statutory underpinning, or should it be controlled by a stronger sanction-based body? We have a range of options, and we will view them with an open mind and act accordingly.
Mr Donohoe
Given that many employees have recently been denied access to tribunals, what the Secretary of State has said is surely illogical.
Vince Cable
I think that the hon. Gentleman is exaggerating the problem. It is true that we have reformed the tribunal system, and access is less easy than it was. As I have explained, we are trying to create a framework within which small and medium-sized enterprises can expand and take on workers.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Much has been made of the potentially exploitative nature of the contracts, but if an employer is up against it, is it not more likely that a zero-hours contract will become an exploitative contract? Should not the Secretary of State consider ways of squeezing and squeezing to make zero-hours contracts not the norm, but very difficult for any employer to enter into such contracts with employees?
Vince Cable
The hon. Gentleman has made, in his own way, a point that I have made several times, namely that a zero-hours contract may be a symptom rather than the cause of the problem. Many employers are indeed up against it, on the margin of survival—those in Northern Ireland probably more than most—and use such contracts in order to survive. That presents challenges of its own.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I think that the overall issue of enforceability is critical. Without trade union rights, these commissions and contracts become unenforceable.
I should also like the consultation to consider a public interest issue. The example of track maintenance was given earlier, and it is a matter that I have raised on previous occasions. Network Rail, for instance, has contracted out a large amount of work to subcontractors, who have then subcontracted it themselves. Some track maintenance workers are now employed by as many as eight or a dozen employers, and are all on zero-hours contracts. That has undermined the safety regime that we introduced following the disasters at Southall, Paddington and elsewhere.
Vince Cable
I was not aware of that particular detail. I hope that the rail regulators and the Health and Safety Executive are taking it fully into account.
An issue that has not been mentioned today, but which arose several times during our discussions, is the relationship with jobseeker’s allowance. Many people feel that if they decline a zero-hours contract there will be a sanction, and they will lose their benefits. I can make it absolutely clear that that is not the case, but during the consultation we will examine the processes that are being followed just to reassure people that there is no hidden sanction.
We recognise that zero-hours contracts present a real problem. We also recognise that it is a very difficult problem, which may be why our predecessors did not engage with it. There are issues of definition, and there are enormous gaps in the database. However, I can assure the House that if, as a result of the consultation, we identify serious issues for which there are practical remedies, we will take action.
Mr Speaker
There is no formal time limit, but approximately 10 Members are seeking to catch my eye, and we have just under two hours left for Back-Bench speeches. Members can do the arithmetic for themselves.
Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)
I will keep my comments brief, Mr. Speaker.
It is clear that the increasing number of zero-hours contracts is one of the last taboos of employment policy. The firms involved have no need to use those contracts: they know exactly how many employees they need each week. Moreover, zero-hours contracts are immoral, they exploit hard-working people, and they enable the powerful to dominate the powerless. In Halifax, unemployment levels are very high, job security is low, and youth unemployment has almost doubled in the last three years. That appears to me to be a licence for some employers to introduce zero-hours contracts.
What most people want—like the rest of us—is stability, security and reassurance in employment. What zero-hours contracts provide is exactly the opposite. Some say, “Is such a contract not better than no job at all?”, but that misses the point. Many advances in employment practices would never have been made in the last 100 years if the “status quo” option had always been taken. Only recently, the very same argument was used to warn of the dangers of the minimum wage.
This is obviously not a stable time to be in employment, especially in northern towns. They have borne the brunt of the Government’s cuts, which have affected both public and private sector jobs. There are many well-run companies and decent employers in both those sectors in the town that I represent. They include J&C Joel and Harveys. They care about their employees, they know what it is like to manage a budget and they want to keep the town on an even keel. So when I talk about zero-hours contracts, I should add that not all companies in my constituency are practising this policy, but sadly it is an increasing trend, and, quite simply, they are an unethical and unwanted means of employing people. They are an employers’ charter to make shortcuts, reduce wage bills and avoid employment rights obligations.
I know there are various contract laws that prevent an outright ban, but as the shadow Secretary of State said, they should be outlawed. Things can and should be done to water down the opportunity for them to be used. We need to look at guaranteeing hours and extending statutory employee rights to all workers, whatever contracts they are on. All workers should have trade union rights and family-friendly rights. Equality in employment should not be decided by a worker’s contract.
It is in times of economic hardship that employers exploit and those without a voice do not get listened to. This is exactly the time when we should be doing more to protect those hard-working people we constantly hear about in sound-bites, but who are actually ignored because of the lack of sound policies.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making some excellent points, but will she at least acknowledge that there are groups in society who do appreciate the flexibility that zero-hours contracts provide, such as young students and some single mums?
Mrs Riordan
We have had these debates about students before, and I have a stepson who is a student and has a zero-hours contract, and that is all very fine, but there is no reason why the employer’s manager cannot get together with my stepson and arrange the hours for the following week. It happens all the time.
This Government are actually on the wrong side for hard-working people. I know of a company in Halifax. A very hard-working young man came to my last surgery. He had been made redundant and had his benefits cut. He was living off family. He wanted to work and was given a zero-hours contract and told to turn up every morning at 6 am. The company has a board and if a person’s name is not on it, they are sent home and told to come back the day after—after they have spent money on travel. This young man so much wanted a job that he said, “Please don’t send me home. I’ve travelled all this way and spent money getting here. Can I sweep up today? I’ll do anything.” He was told, “No, your name’s not on that board. Come again tomorrow.” It is not rocket science to find a way to let people know the day before—or the week before, in my opinion—whether there is work for them. That is a long-established company. It has not been around for just two minutes and is on a budget. It knows exactly how many employees it wants but it keeps people dangling. These are Dickensian practices that would be out of place in Victorian England, let alone 2013.
There are thousands and thousands of people, many in my Halifax constituency, who are exploited in this way, with lower wages, fewer holidays, no sick pay and fewer rights, and who are unaware of their employment status. The employers are in a dominant position and they know it. We have come a long way in improving working conditions in this country over many years, but clearly the journey still has a long way to go.
When people look back in years to come, I think they will look at the exploitative policies of zero-hours contracts and find it hard to believe that in 2013 such practices were in place as a means of suppressing workers who need and deserve better. For my Halifax constituents, and those across the country, we need to do more to end the shabby practice of zero-hours contracts that have no place in a society that deems itself to be a progressive one.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
It is an honour and a privilege to speak in this debate and it is right that we debate low pay and the nature of contracts. I should make a declaration: as a former barrister, I was unquestionably on a zero-hours contract in that I was an employee whose employer was not obliged to give me work, and I had to accept that. It is certainly the case that in rural Northumberland there is an acceptance that these types of contracts help to plug a gap. I am not going to attack local authorities, whether Liberal, Conservative or Labour, which have utilised them in the past and continue to do so. I suggest it is a question not of this House being for or against zero-hours contracts, but of this House being against inequitable and exploitative zero-hours contracts.
Alison McGovern
I am intrigued by what the hon. Gentleman says about his previous experience. In a report that I and two of my colleagues produced, one person told us:
“It has been very difficult as I want to move on with my life but can’t as I don’t know when and if I will be next out of work so this stops me from committing into anything financial like moving out or furthering my education”.
I hope he can identify with that experience, perhaps not in his own life, but in reality, in our economy now. He says we should not be for or against, but I really hope he is against that sort of experience, where people cannot commit to bettering themselves because of these sorts of contracts.
Guy Opperman
As a barrister, I spent two and a half years without a contract. With respect, I therefore suggest I do have some experience of that, with no contract whatsoever. I accept that it is right that this House is addressing these issues, and it is right that we are collecting and assessing evidence. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has put in place the consultation and that over this winter we will be obtaining evidence on this issue.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
One thing that strikes me is that there is a big difference between employment and self-employment. Is it not important that we are clear which of those zero-hours contracts relate to self-employment and which to contracted employment, and are therefore not being used appropriately?
Guy Opperman
My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The shadow Secretary of State said that the jobs figures are not satisfactory, but he also accepted that we in the north-east are delighted that the jobs figures are finally improving significantly. Youth unemployment has fallen by 7,000 since February and is now back to the level of May 2010. Adult unemployment in the north-east has fallen, too.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Is it not a fact that the unemployment figures for the north-east have been the highest in the country for a number of years? The figures released recently appear to show a reduction, but a lot of that is to do with people who are on zero-hours contracts.
Guy Opperman
I accept that the north-east has higher unemployment figures than some parts of the country, but the May 2010 unemployment figure for the north-east was 80,105, a 6.4% rate, and it is now 78,525, a 6.3% rate. It is also true that successive Governments have welcomed the fact that part-time work and some types of zero-hours contracts have formed the basis of employment. That continued under the previous Government and it has continued under this Government. The question is the extent to which there is exploitation.
Ian Lavery
The figures have fallen very minimally in the north-east since 2010. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is largely due to people being on zero-hours contracts?
Guy Opperman
I have no evidence to suggest that a fall of 17,341 from February 2012 to September 2013 is all due to zero-hours contracts—in fact, I suggest that it is not, although clearly some of these contracts are involved, and nobody disputes that. As I said to the Secretary of State, in the north-east the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and I have not received a specific complaint about the utilisation of these contracts in the rural environment in which we work, because such freelance contracts are generally welcomed, although not in every case, I am sure.
In welcoming the job numbers, may I make my final point—
Guy Opperman
I will not, because a number of people wish to speak.
My final point is that we need to widen the terms of the debate on zero-hours contracts to consider the minimum wage and the living wage. I welcome the work of the Archbishop of York. I should declare that I serve in the High Pay Centre with such notable right-wingers as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who leads the Green party in this House, and the TUC general secretary, Frances O’Grady. We have been looking at not only high pay, but low pay; we have been trying to address the problems that definitely do exist and making the case that the living wage and the minimum wage need to be addressed and embraced as we go forward. I agree with the earlier point that it is bizarre that we have a subsidy system whereby tax credits, in effect, subsidise the employment of low-paid workers. That needs to be addressed.
The final point must surely be this: the living wage has been proven not only to save the taxpayer money in the longer term, but to improve productivity and to benefit the business. One need only look at the US retail giant Costco to see that. It has broken the mould, paying its staff $11.50 an hour compared with the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Its chief executive has said:
“We know it’s…more profitable in the long term to minimise employee turnover and maximise employee productivity, commitment and loyalty”
by paying a living wage. I certainly continue to support that.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, I am glad to see that the House rota with Madam Deputy Speaker is working, so that you all know what guaranteed hours of work you have in this place.
With up to 1 million or more people subject nowadays to the sometimes pernicious insecurity of zero-hours contracts, it is timely that we return to this subject now that the House has returned. For me and for many people, not least those in the trade unions, it comes with a weary, sad sense of déjà vu. It was back in 1995, nearly 20 years ago now, when I worked at The Independent, that I remember first pursuing the issue of the abuse of zero-hours contracts, as they have come to be known. Those with long memories like mine will recall that the controversy was sparked by the case of Michael, a 17-year-old student in Glasgow who was asked to clock off and on up to four times a day at Burger King, and was sent home unpaid when there were not enough customers around. Burger King was then owned by Grand Metropolitan, part of the old-school “beerage”, and the irony was not lost at the time that its charitable arm, the Grand Met Trust, was in line to run a big, privatised careers service—of all things—in London.
Burger King eventually paid more than £100,000 in compensation to nearly 1,000 employees who had been either sent home or made to stand around, unpaid, until business picked up. Craig Bushey, Burger King’s then managing director in western Europe, said all the way back in 1995 that
“the action taken by Burger King puts this issue to rest and demonstrates our commitment to equitable employment practices.”
I do not know where Mr Bushey is now, but I wonder what he would have to say about Burger King still being right up there at the top of the list of users of these contracts, along with other high-street names ranging from Sports Direct to Wetherspoons.
However, by no means all, or the biggest or most successful, high-street names use these contracts. Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons, for example, see no need to use them; my hon. Friend the shadow Business Secretary also mentioned Asda. Responsible employers, they recognise a trade union, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. They negotiate with that union flexible contracts that provide workers with guaranteed hours, and other rights that most of us take for granted in a civilised society, but that also mean the work force can respond to fluctuations in consumer demand, as in other industries.
If Burger King’s Mr Bushey were still around, one might expect him and his counterparts to ask, “Why does my business need these contracts when these other great high-street names and other businesses do not?” One would certainly expect him, if only for damage limitation purposes, given the controversy now, to look at all his outlets to investigate what was happening in practice, and to see whether poorly paid, unrepresented workers were being abused these days in other ways. One would certainly expect him, having done so, to have no fear of engaging full on with the full-blown consultation and formal call for evidence over the use of these contracts which Labour’s motion calls for today.
Along with other Labour Members, I welcome the content and tone of the Secretary of State’s response to this debate and his plans for November. After all, there is a recent precedent: the last Labour Government did exactly the same in the run-up to the agency workers directive, another measure that we discussed to promote fairness in the workplace. I will say a little more about that in a moment. Following the debate in recent months, there is already ample evidence to support such a call, to look at the causes and sometimes deeply damaging effects of zero-hours contracts and short-hours working, and, indeed, how the agency workers legislation is functioning in practice.
We have mentioned examining the use of these contracts in respect of care workers and the effects on the care at home of the most elderly and vulnerable people in our society. We also need to look at their use in further and higher education, at their growing use in contracted out publicly commissioned services and the public sector, generally, and at their overall effect on the services provided. Last but not least, we need to examine their use in the private sector, on the high street and beyond, and their effect on young people and on families, on their further education and training, and, therefore, on our society and economy as a whole.
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful and considered speech. My constituents in Dover and Deal are also deeply concerned about zero-hours contracts and that there should be fairness in the workplace. Does he agree that it is important that we understand how many of these contracts there are? The Office for National Statistics says that the number has not changed much over the past 10 years, whereas Unite gives a figure of 5 million and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has another figure. Is it not really important that we nail down exactly how many of these sorts of cases there are?
Paul Farrelly
The hon. Gentleman is correct; getting the right statistics is absolutely germane to implementing proper evidence-based policy. Coming from Dover, he will appreciate the example cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs Riordan) from her constituency, which sounded tantamount to some of the practices employed at ports in years gone by.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Like him, I have long been a trade unionist, in my case with the GMB, which shares his concerns. What he said about care workers was right, but will he also take on board the impact on their clients of the uncertainty that is created?
Paul Farrelly
My right hon. Friend is right to say that we must focus on the effects on not only the people themselves, but the services they provide. Only at the beginning of this week, on the “Today” programme, we had a vibrant discussion about what these employment practices mean on the ground for the amount of time that care workers are able to give to the people they are supposed to be looking after. That should be part and parcel of this continuing debate.
I welcome the Government’s call for consultation, but hope it is implemented properly, with a wide-ranging call for evidence. I wish to conclude with a few choice words for my own Front Benchers, too. I welcome my hon. Friend the shadow Business Secretary’s opening remarks and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition’s commitment to remove some of the insecurity and vulnerability involved in these sorts of contracts, because taking advantage of vulnerability, a relationship where power resides all on one side, lies at the root of exploitation that a civilised society should simply not tolerate in the modern age.
I remind my hon. Friend the shadow Business Secretary that fair treatment of agency workers was there in black and white in our 2005 manifesto. It was long before his time but he gets the point that I am coming on to, as he is nodding. In 2007, I and many of my hon. Friends sought to put that pledge into effect through a private Member’s Bill, the Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill. The Government, though—and it was before my hon. Friend’s time—far from welcoming that with open arms fought us, bayonets fixed, in the trenches. It took our late colleague, the former Member for Crewe and Nantwich, Gwyneth Dunwoody, at her magisterial best to press a closure motion in the Chamber against Government filibustering even to give that Bill an airing.
The Bill was followed by another private Member’s Bill in 2008, sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) and again contested. Eventually the Prime Minister—our Prime Minister—relented, the agency workers directive was implemented but the compromise, with a 12-week qualifying period open to all sorts of abuse, was not a happy one. I am not recounting this for old time’s sake or gratuitously to open old wounds. That measure was aimed at tackling the unfairness and insecurity, the fear of substitution by cheaper agency workers, people on cheaper contracts which, for example, lay at the root of many people’s support for parties such as the British National party and their fears about immigration. Business opposed that measure, as it opposed the minimum wage.
The Government were content to go along with and, frankly, acquiesce in what I would call economic growth on the cheap, but nothing comes cheap. Nothing comes for free. There is always a price to pay and we certainly saw the political effects with the rise of the British National party, and in many areas the UK Independence party. I am glad to see that we on the Opposition Benches have now got it fully, as is clear from everything that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said about levelling up, not levelling down, and not engaging in a doomed race to the bottom.
To conclude, I look forward to continuing to pursue the Government to have a proper consultation on zero-hours contracts and to look at wider aspects of the issue, such as short hours working and the use of agency workers. I look forward also to safeguards being included in our manifesto and being implemented by a Labour Government after 2015.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I shall begin my contribution by continuing to quote from some of the people who kindly gave their view to the report that I and two colleagues undertook earlier this year. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), whose idea it was that we do that. He was very insightful in encouraging me and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) in our campaigning on the issue.
The people who shared their experience with us were brave to do so and I want their words to be heard in the House. The example that I gave when I intervened earlier shows the impact of zero-hours contracts on ordinary members of the work force. That person said:
“It has been very difficult as I want to move on with my life but can’t as I don’t know when and if I will be next out of work so this stops me from committing into anything financial like moving out or furthering my education more as I do not know if I will be in long term work as I am always waiting for them words that I am now a permanent employee. This has not only brought stress on myself but people that are nearest to me as it tends to be them that I vent my frustration to”.
That shows not only the economic impacts, but the social and emotional impacts of those contracts.
Somebody else told us that it was
“Awful. It’s depressing and demoralising. I feel I have no rights and constantly question ‘why am I even bothering to work?’ Some weeks it would be more beneficial for me to sign onto job seeker’s allowance”.
I am sure that is not what this Government want. It is certainly not what those of us on the Opposition Benches who believe in the dignity of work want to see, but I am guessing that it is not even what this Government want—people who feel that it might be better for them just to claim benefits.
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Lady makes a very powerful speech. Does she welcome the fact that the Business Secretary held a review over the summer and is conducting a consultation? Does she, like the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), regret that more was not done in past times?
Alison McGovern
My grandfather, who was a great trade union rep, always told me: “When you go in and see the boss, never say you’ve done nothing; always say you’ve not done enough.” I think my hon. Friend has learned that lesson.
The big problem is the one that I raised earlier with the Secretary of State, which is that the Government seem to be all over the shop with the number of people affected and what is really going on. My only regret is that they did not take the opportunity of the summer to clear the matter up properly. We will engage with the Government and move forward to try to get a resolution, especially on the care sector, which is very important to me. I shall come on to that.
First, I want to say something about values. Although the economics are extremely important, so are the values. Some of the worst effects of zero-hours contracts are felt not where people have a high level of skills, but where people have little other option. In the care sector, for example, workers often have a low level of skills and are often women, possibly later in their career, who already have little power in the workplace. When zero-hours contracts are used in place of proper management, they are left in a terribly vulnerable position. It leaves them, in effect, begging for work. To me the indignity of begging is not tolerable. It is not tolerable for people to beg on the street and it is not tolerable for people to beg for work. That is what is wrong with zero-hours contracts. They risk far too much power being put on one side of the table in discussion of the contract of employment. This is an economic issue, of course, but it is a question of how we want to live together and relate to each other in society.
We are storing up some serious economic problems with zero-hours contracts. In the short term they involve a cost because people’s income is likely to be reduced as a result of their underemployment. If they are wasting time constantly trying to get more hours, as we heard in our survey, people have no time left to find another job, which might be a better job and might improve their prospects, which would, in turn, improve their and their family’s capacity to spend money and keep our economy going. Also, the insecurity that they are suffering means that in the short term they cannot commit or make spending choices that would otherwise be helpful.
By the way, we heard examples of people who were constantly told that they were going to get more hours than they did. That short-term impact of feeling that they would have money coming in and then finding that they did not has a massive knock-on effect on the rest of our economy, but it does not affect the whole economy equally or in the same way. The parts of the country with a lower skills base are much more likely to suffer from this, so zero-hours contracts feed into the imbalanced economy that we already have.
There are long-term economic effects from such insecurity. I quoted earlier from one of the people in our report speaking about their inability to invest in themselves, for example by going back to school, college or university and making a long-term choice to improve their prospects, which they felt unable to do because they did not know what was going on at work. Similarly, people were unable to get a mortgage or decide to make a long-term investment in their housing, which will have a knock-on impact. A further effect is the impact on the skills base of our country.
I am aware that in the case of students, who have been mentioned as an example, zero-hours contracts are a fair arrangement. There is no power imbalance and that is fine. I am also aware that for some people on zero-hours contracts there is an investment in their skills. But do the Government think it is more or less likely that employers in this country would invest in the skills of people who had permanent, stable contracts or those whom they had put on zero-hours contracts? I think that the skills base in particular parts of the country will inevitably diminish as a result of this so-called flexibility in the labour market.
Zero-hours contracts clearly do not affect every part of the country in the same way. The Merseyside city region has developed well over recent years—against expectations, I think—and we did much better through the recession than anyone thought we would. I am extremely proud that the Liverpool city region is doing well—no one will catch me running it down. However, the biggest barrier to Merseyside’s development is our people’s level of skills. We cannot afford to have employers who are not committed to investing in our people, not just because it is bad for our people today and they do not get the opportunity to improve themselves, but because it stores up problems. If the Government are not prepared to take this matter seriously because of concerns about the amount of money people will have in their pockets, I hope that they will take seriously the long-term impact such contracts have on the prospects for a balanced economy. I wanted to ask the Secretary of State to include the impact on skills in his review and consultation. He is no longer here, but I am sure that the Minister will pass on the request.
What is the solution? I am sure that it will come as no great shock to the House to learn that I am extremely supportive of the Labour policies outlined in the motion. I am incredibly pleased that the leader of my party has chosen to take such a stand on this issue. It is not fair to say that the previous Labour Government did not act to protect vulnerable people in the work force. One of our greatest achievements was the national minimum wage. The regulations that implement it contain all kinds of requirements to ensure that people earn a decent amount of money. That is at the heart of this debate. I think that we ought to be extremely proud of that institution that protects people in our country.
However, it is right that we should go further, and it is absolutely right that we should crack down on exclusivity and look at the people who work regular hours but whose employers are not prepared to commit and give them a proper contract. In the short term, the report that colleagues and I produced suggests a code of practice, and that has been the first stage in our discussions with employers and others. I think that we can get on with that. If there are employers who want to discuss that with us, as there are in Merseyside, we should do so.
I also want briefly to pay tribute to Unison for its work as a trade union and for its ethical care charter. It is a shame that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) did not congratulate Southwark council—I speak with a slight interest, as I am a former deputy leader of the Southwark Labour group—on adopting the stance that Unison did a good job in articulating what is needed in the care sector. We know that in that sector zero-hours contracts are wrapped up in a whole other agenda about ensuring that people have proper dignity and respect. I hope that Ministers will focus their review on what is going on in the care sector. There might be whole swathes of the economy where there are fewer problems, but there most certainly are problems in the care sector, and I hope that Ministers will pay attention to that.
Mr Newmark
I have been listening to the hon. Lady carefully but am still not clear where she is coming from. Is she objecting to the use of zero-hours contracts or simply to the abuse that can occur when they are used?
Alison McGovern
As I said earlier, there will be examples of employment—student employment is the classic example—where there is no power imbalance and where we can look at the practice in an industry and say, “This could be okay.” I have said that from the outset and all the way through this debate. However, if the hon. Gentleman would like to read the report that my colleagues and I put together, he will see quotes from people who spoke with us about their experience. If he is not concerned about the experience of those workers, I think he should be.
Alison McGovern
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is rising to tell me that he is concerned.
Mr Newmark
I totally agree with the hon. Lady that we should be stamping out abuse, but I have listened carefully to all Opposition Members who have spoken and it seems that their direction of travel is to cut zero-hours contracts completely. The Government want to stamp out the abuses, but does the hon. Lady—I will ask her once again—want to abolish zero-hours contracts completely?
Alison McGovern
I will end this here, because other Members wish to speak. That is not what I have said, and it is not what other Members have said.
In conclusion, zero-hours contracts are clearly a massive issue for our economy. We have seen the Government move from saying at the beginning of the year, “This isn’t a problem and we don’t know what the statistics are saying” to saying now that it is an issue. I only wish that they could have done more. I absolutely applaud the motion.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. First, the hon. Gentleman was here for the opening of the debate but had to pop out briefly, so I held him back in the list of speakers and have just dropped him back in. I do not want to hear Members shouting, “He hasn’t been here.” Secondly, I point out that some Members who have indicated that they wish to speak were not here for the opening speeches. They will be dropped down to the bottom of the list. While I am on my feet, I remind Members that the debate will end at 3.40 pm, so if Members do not make shorter speeches a time limit will have to be introduced, and it will be quite tight.
Gordon Birtwistle
Thank you for clearing that up, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was here at the start of the debate and approached Mr Speaker to explain that I would have to leave for a brief appointment that I could not change. He kindly said that that was fine and that I should come back, which I have done.
I will not delay the House for long, because the Secretary of State covered most of the concerns I have. I think that he covered the questions set out in the motion fully by agreeing to undertake a full consultation on the issue in November and to come back to the House in a few months with his conclusions and some proposals.
One aspect of the motion that I agree with relates to exclusivity in zero-hours contracts. A good friend of mine who works as a security operator at Burnley college approached me a few weeks ago and said that he thought that his zero-hours contract was very good because it suited his lifestyle and the way he wanted to work. His objection was that it was exclusive. He would have liked to have been able to have zero-hours contracts with numerous employers, because that would suit him down to the ground. He could work to suit his lifestyle and that of his family, because he found it difficult to work for just one company that occasionally did not give him any work for five or six days, and that could be taken away, so it would benefit him greatly if he could have various zero-hours contracts with different companies.
Zero-hours contracts have been used for years. My wife worked as a personnel officer for a number of Boots stores 20 years ago, and zero-hours contracts worked perfectly. People were called in as they were needed and they were happy with what they got. It still works like that. One of the benefits is for young people who are out of work. My new researcher in Burnley was working in a bar on a zero-hours contract because she could not get a proper job before she came to work for me. Having come straight from university, she found that getting into the habit of going to work under a zero-hours contract was absolutely brilliant, because it got her into the ethos of going to work. She found that a really good start to her working life. It is really good. Stacks of zero-hours contracts are given out in the pub and entertainment trade, and most of the people who work in those industries are very pleased about it.
One of the benefits of zero-hours contracts, as I have said, is that they get people used to getting up for work. Three years ago, Burnley was one of the top 10 unemployment blackspots in the country. Unemployment was dreadful. Since then we have dropped to 159th place on the list and unemployment has dropped from over 8% to 5.7%. I keep hearing that the north of England’s unemployment is climbing and that things are really bad. Burnley, which was an unemployment blackspot, is now a very prosperous town. A lot of people who were working on zero-hours contracts have now transferred into full-time employment and are enjoying the jobs and roles that they are carrying out.
Ian Lavery
Will the hon. Gentleman give the figures for how many people are on zero-hours contracts in Burnley?
Gordon Birtwistle
I do not have those figures. I only know that I have spoken to a lot of people who were on zero-hours contracts, were happy to be so rather than not working, and have now transferred to permanent contracts that are part-time or even full-time. The figures for Burnley show how successful they have been. That has been a boost for the town and for the people who work there.
I accept that, as the Secretary of State says, there are problems that need to be resolved. Those problems have always been with us; they have not started in the past three years. The Secretary of State is facing the issue head on, unlike Labour Members, who for 13 years did absolutely zero about it. In fact, their zero attention to zero hours was quite marked. He is asking for a full report and will come back to this House in a few months to give us his conclusions.
I hope that the problems are resolved and that zero-hours contracts continue. I would not like them to end, because that would take away the choice that working people have. They can work zero-hours, part-time or full-time, and it is really important that they have that choice. However, there are problems with companies taking advantage of these contracts, and we need to sort that out. I am delighted that the Secretary of State has taken that on and look forward to seeing his conclusions in the near future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Having considered how much time is left for the debate, I am now going to set a time limit. I have accounted for every Member in the Chamber who has indicated that they want to speak, and I am setting the limit at seven minutes starting with the next speaker. Obviously, if there are lots of interventions I might have to review that in order to make sure that every Member gets at least some time during the debate.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
In the interests of other people being allowed to speak, I will not take any interventions because it would be unfair at this stage, although I am usually quite happy to do so.
Let me first say that I do not know how extensive zero-hours contracts are in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the debate so far indicates that we do not know the quantum of what we are dealing with. Anecdotally, however, I am becoming more and more aware of the problem because people come to tell me about how they find themselves being squeezed by this form of employment, whether it is parents complaining about the conditions for their children who are going into jobs for the first time or care workers on contracts in the public sector.
Government Members have said that for many people this situation is acceptable. In many cases that is only because there is no alternative. It is not that people want and welcome this with open arms; it has huge consequences for them. They do not have security of employment. They do not have what many of us have been fortunate to have during our working lives, whereby people can take on loans and mortgages, know that there are prospects of advancement in their work, and know that their employer is investing in them and is therefore prepared to enhance their skills to make them even more employable in future. All that is lost to people on zero-hours contracts.
I understand the need for flexibility in the labour market, but I am increasingly concerned that zero-hours contracts are being used as a tool by managers who are too lazy to look ahead. Sometimes it is not the case that they do not know what is ahead. For example, last Monday, I was with a constituent who told me about her care workers who are on these kinds of contracts. They are called into work in the morning until lunchtime, called in again in the afternoon until teatime, and then called in again in the evening. The employer’s contract is with a health board. I do not believe that he does not know for how many hours he is contracted to undertake work for that health board. Therefore, I do not understand why he cannot properly utilise his work force and take the opportunity to give those individuals more security of employment.
Some Members have drawn a distinction between zero-hours contracts that are normal and those that are exploitative. I do not believe that there is such a distinction, because potentially every such contract is exploitative. When an employer is really squeezed, he or she has the flexibility to say to someone, “There’s no work for you today. I took you on on certain conditions and you accepted that you were on a zero-hours contract. I could probably offer you 12 hours a week, but I’m sorry that’s not available any longer”. Then people can sit for days or weeks with no work. They may have taken on the contract only because the employer said, “Normally this will be what’s available to you” even though it was a zero-hours contract. Those contracts do become exploitative. When the Secretary of State is looking at the way forward, if there cannot be a total ban—for which, in certain circumstances, a good argument could well be made—we should at least start to look at how it can become the exception rather than, as I suspect, increasingly the norm.
Several aspects have been well highlighted in this debate. First, these contracts should not be exclusive because this should not be a one-way relationship. It has been said that it suits both partners, but very often it does not. I think of what has been said by people on zero-hours contracts who have come to see me. The contract is operated by the employer and the employee is afraid to say, “I’m not coming in tomorrow because it doesn’t suit me” because they probably accepted the contract in the first place only because they were desperate for work. At least, as suggested by the Opposition, there should be no exclusivity. That would be one way in which an employee could say, “I’ve got other options open to me.”
Secondly, where zero-hours contracts operate in the public sector—many are found in charities and employers who work on public sector contracts—there should be much more rigour about the conditions attached to those who are employed in firms that win public procurement contracts. That would squeeze out an awful lot of these contracts.
Thirdly, if it is shown that an employee has had regular work over a period of time even though they are on a zero-hours contract, the employer cannot really argue, “I need that flexibility”, because the employee has had regular hours already. That should be another area where we can start to squeeze out these contracts.
Zero-hours contracts are not only bad for employees but bad for the economy. If employers themselves thought about it, they should realise that there is no better way to have a work force that is loyal to them than by treating them right. These contracts, especially when they are used in an exploitative way, do not treat employees right and therefore have an impact on the quality of the work force. In the longer run, as the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) said, what employer is going to invest in their work force if they treat them as people who can be taken on and disposed of when they feel like it?
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the shadow Business Secretary has secured this Opposition day debate, which is about an issue that many hon. Friends and I have been campaigning on for months, if not years.
In July, as we have heard, I led a debate in Westminster Hall on zero-hours contracts. I do not intend to condense that rather longer speech today. In it, I referred to individual cases in care homes and explored the wide-ranging use of these contracts in the NHS, including for tens of thousands of nurses and midwives. Instead, I intend to take a broader approach and look at what the widespread use of these contracts says about our labour market.
I am pleased to note the presence of Conservative and Liberal Democrat colleagues, because in my Westminster Hall debate in July I was dismayed to see not a single Conservative or Liberal Democrat Back Bencher in attendance. Although the 17 Labour MPs who spoke led to an interesting and worthwhile debate, I have attended many Labour party meetings in my time and the debate was a missed opportunity for real cross-party dialogue.
It cannot be that not a single person in coalition constituencies is employed on zero-hours contracts. In fact, unlike the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who has said that he has not come across anybody in rural Northumberland who is unhappy with these contracts, I have met such people and they are out there.
I have spoken to many people who are on these contracts. Some are happy with them, but the vast majority are not. We should all be concerned that this country essentially has a large pool of workers living permanently on call, without guaranteed incomes, who do not know whether they will be able to pay their bills. We cannot sit by while workers on zero-hours contracts earn, according to research by the Resolution Foundation, 40% less than those on regular contracts.
A Labour Government would ban employers from insisting that zero-hours workers be available when there is no guarantee of work; stop zero-hours contracts that require workers to work exclusively for one business; and end the misuse of these contracts where employees are, in practice, working regular hours over a sustained period.
I believe that an outright ban would be neither helpful nor practical. Labour is clear on that. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) seemed to be under the illusion that we were calling for an outright ban, but that is not the case. A ban on zero-hours contracts could lead many less scrupulous employers simply to introduce one-hour contracts. We know that that is a realistic possibility, as the rise of zero-hours contracts seems to be linked to the closure of loopholes by the introduction of temporary and agency workers regulations.
As I have said on previous occasions, the issue is not zero-hours contracts, which have always been around, but the massive increase in what seems to be exploitation of workers, by which I do not mean employees, because the people on these contracts are not classified as such.
Paul Farrelly
My hon. Friend will remember from her time at the GMB—which, to correct the record from earlier, represents Asda employees in my constituency—that many agency workers find it hard to get mortgages, because they are not considered to be full-time employees. If someone on a short-term, zero-hours contract is asked whether they are a full-time employee and they answer honestly, does my hon. Friend agree that they, too, may find it difficult to get a mortgage at a time when mortgages are far more difficult to get hold of?
Julie Elliott
I agree. In fact, those people face difficulties in getting not just a mortgage, but a rental agreement, because they are not classified as an employee.
We need to take a more holistic approach to reforming the labour market. We need to understand that zero-hours contracts are just one of many ways that people in this country are having their rights eroded and their living standards squeezed. Energy costs, food costs, rail fares and private rental costs are hitting people’s pockets on the one hand, and unfair working practices are making them feel insecure for their incomes on the other.
The Labour party, like everyone in Britain, wants to see economic growth, but there is more than a lingering sense that sustained economic growth, when it comes, will not halt this cost of living crisis, because rail fares will still go up, the price of food will still soar and the cost of rent will continue to go through the roof. The hundreds of thousands of Britons who are on zero-hour contracts, temporary contracts or the minimum wage will not see the fruits of that growth.
Julie Elliott
No. I am going to carry on so that others have a chance to speak.
Many lost their jobs or were forced to accept stagnant wages during the downturn, but they are seeing none of the proceeds of growth during the upturn. Those in work are earning, on average, £1,500 a year less than they were in 2010, while others have no choice but to put up with zero-hours contracts. Meanwhile, those out of work have been left on the failing Work programme.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has calculated that for every pound spent paying the living wage, the Treasury saves 50p through not needing to pay tax credits and benefits. The Resolution Foundation has calculated that if everyone receiving the minimum wage received the living wage, there would be a £2.2 billion net saving, comprised of higher income tax and national insurance receipts. There is growing evidence that living wages boost productivity, motivation and performance and reduce the leaver and absentee rates, thereby offsetting the cost of the higher wage. The people who reject this analysis are the same people who said that the national minimum wage would lead to vastly higher levels of unemployment, but they were wrong—it simply led to higher wages.
I have welcomed the Government’s review of zero-hours contracts, but I think it is wholly insufficient. Indeed, parliamentary questions tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) have found out that the Government have allocated all of three officials to the consultation. They are holding informal discussions with stakeholders without any formal calls for evidence or consultation. The irony that these three officials are looking into zero-hours contracts on a part-time basis should be lost on no one.
Reforming zero-hours contracts and increasing the number of people on the living wage is not just the right thing to do for hard-working people; it will also be good for the economy. Instead of shares for rights, we need to improve working conditions and boost wages. It is an injustice too far to expect people to live a life of permanent uncertainty, and I urge the Government to take a small step that will make a big difference.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
We all know that a job is the building block of a decent society and a decent economy, that the creation of jobs is the most urgent imperative that this economy faces at present, and that holding a job is the key to the dignity and respect that we want everyone to experience and that we want to spread to those who, sadly, have not experienced it to date. The appalling debt crisis that we face and the crisis in youth unemployment that we inherited from the previous Government make this mission more urgent and vital than ever. The creation of new jobs is, and should be, at the heart of the mission of this Parliament.
We all agree that long-term employment with a stable employer and the investment in training that goes with it is the model to which we aspire. Indeed, in most cases that is the model that prevails. The proudest achievement of my life before coming to Parliament was helping to create six new businesses that now employ more than 500 people in the life science sector. I agree with a number of my colleagues that the creation of jobs is one of the most important things we have done.
This crisis reminds us that the private sector is the only sustainable basis for the prosperity on which we all rely. It is the private sector that creates the tax revenues that fund schools, hospitals and the public sector, which employ others. One of the lessons of the past 14 years and the previous Government’s mismanagement of the economy must be to restore that truth and remind ourselves that private sector job growth and business growth are absolutely key to our prosperity.
We need to make it easier for youngsters in particular and others to get into work, and we need to encourage flexibility for the modern work force, including women, students and part-time workers. That is why I have recently called for a new deal for new business. Having worked in the creation of small businesses, I know at first hand how often the regulations and red tape that have been designed for, and often with, big business make it harder to create new businesses and new jobs.
Nobody wants to see exploitation. It may suit Opposition Members to claim that we are living in a dark age of Victorian exploitation, but that is not the picture that resonates—we are not. I welcome the fact that the Government have launched a consultation, and the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), and his colleagues have been very clear that we want to stamp out abuse. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) intervened earlier to highlight the important difference between stamping out the abuse and exploitation of zero-hours contracts—which may well go on; indeed, I have no doubt it does in some cases—and saying that zero-hours contracts themselves are a bad thing and should be banned. I welcome the fact that the Minister himself is an ardent and passionate advocate of the importance of flexibility in the work force, and that he is bringing that zeal to the two Departments he represents in order to drive and support the Government’s growth agenda.
I say that for three principal reasons. We are living through a profound revolution in the world of work and in the economy. Call it the new economy or the innovation economy—the truth is that many more people in this country are now working in small businesses and are self-employed, and the projections for the next decade or two suggest that the numbers will grow. Small businesses and entrepreneurial, innovative businesses demand far greater flexibility than the bigger businesses that we have relied on in the past.
More women and students are coming into the work force. I recently visited the maths department of a university and during the break, there were 40 start-up companies in the foyer that were run not by graduates of the maths department, but by undergraduates. The students of today are entrepreneurial and are starting businesses. We need to embrace that new world. We can only trade our way out of the debt crisis. To do that, we must rediscover our buccaneering spirit of enterprise and entrepreneurship as we take on the global forces of competition. We will not succeed with a work force and a labour market that are shackled by the old ways.
My second reason for supporting the Government on this matter is that zero-hours contracts have received strong support from senior and respected voices in the worlds of business and human resources. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has said that zero-hours contracts can benefit employees as well as employers. The Institute of Directors has referred to zero-hours contracts as a
“vital tool in our economic recovery”.
John Cridland has said that if we had not had zero-hours contracts,
“unemployment would have topped 3 million”.
My final reason for supporting what the Government are doing is that it is working. The Government’s labour market reforms have had a stunning impact on our rate of job creation. There are 872,000 more jobs in the economy than there were at the time of the last election. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are shaking their heads. They do not like it, but it is true. Some 1.4 million private sector jobs have been created since the last election. Three jobs have been created in the private sector for every one job that has been lost. This country is creating jobs at twice the rate of the United States of America—a market that we have traditionally looked at and envied its rate of job creation.
Let us stamp out exploitation. Let us criminalise the exploitation of zero-hours contracts where we can, but let us not shackle the flexibility that we need to create the new businesses and jobs on which we will all rely.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) says that what the Government are doing is working and that the picture that the Opposition are painting does not resonate around the country. If he had listened to the speeches of the shadow Secretary of State and my hon. Friends in this debate and if he had heard the debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) earlier this year, he would know that what the Government are doing is not working and that a picture of misery is unfolding in communities around the country, including in my own community in Wigan.
I do not intend to rehearse that picture, because the shadow Secretary of State described it eloquently. Suffice it to say that over the past 12 months, I have represented low-paid women who work in the care sector, which has been mentioned in this debate, countless young people, and adult men and women with families to support who are trapped on zero-hours contracts. Does it surprise the Minister that this week, the British Red Cross launched its first ever emergency appeal to feed families in the UK? The picture is unfolding, but we have a Government who will not take action to tackle the problem. Other hon. Members have spoken about the problems of low pay, insecurity in the workplace and deskilling.
I want the Minister to know that there is an anxiety that lives with people who are on zero-hours contracts, not just from week to week, but from day to day, about whether they will be able to feed their children, about whether they will be able to pick their kids up from school and about whether they will be able to arrange child care. That anxiety is corrosive and devastating. Alongside it, there is an indignity and humiliation that runs through people’s lives when they do not know whether they will be able to provide for their families, whether children or elderly relatives, or even themselves. People are being put in a situation in which they are powerless and that is wrong.
Although I welcome the Secretary of State’s tone and his promise to do something about the problem, too often in the years before I came to this place I heard consultations used as an excuse not to do something. I hope that is not the case with this consultation. In any case, there is an urgency to this problem because many families up and down the country simply cannot wait.
I will make a few brief points in the short time that I have remaining. First, there has been a lot of debate about whether zero-hours contracts should be banned outright and whether that is practical. It has been said that in some circumstances, zero-hours contracts are good for people. I do not really understand the argument about students. I do not understand why anybody would want a job in which they were guaranteed absolutely no work. I have never met anybody who wants that. I listened to the Minister carefully, but I still do not understand that point. There is clearly a difference between people who are trapped on zero-hours contracts and are desperate for more work but cannot get it, and people who value a bit of flexibility. The problem is that zero-hours contracts used to be a stepping-stone into better paid, more secure work. It is becoming increasingly clear that they are no longer a stepping-stone.
I was proud to stand alongside the Hovis workers in my constituency when they went on strike because 28 workers who had had full-time contracts were replaced by people on zero-hours contracts. They stood alongside one another and said that they would not accept two people doing the same job at different rates of pay and with different levels of security. That sort of two-tier work force is the thin end of the wedge and is bad for everyone. I was proud that Premier Foods accepted that argument, stepped in and reversed the situation. Premier Foods has gone from being a buzzword for bad employment to being a buzzword for how to take action to become a good employer. I am proud that that happened in my constituency.
Ian Lavery
Is it not the case that a number of Hovis workers were made redundant and that other people were taken on on zero-hours contracts to save the company money?
Lisa Nandy
Indeed. I am grateful to all the hon. Members who supported those workers and me. That situation reflects something that is happening in their constituencies as well.
The Hovis strike was not just about zero-hours contracts. As my hon. Friends have made clear, there is a growing casualisation of the work force in this country that is corrosive and is deeply worrying to all of us. As the shadow Secretary of State said, we have one of the most deregulated labour markets in Europe. Many more people are now in temporary work and low-paid jobs. Clamping down on zero-hours contracts and their exploitation is just one part of what we must do. I hope that the Minister understands that.
This problem affects young people disproportionately. We know from history that when young people are trapped in situations in which they cannot advance themselves or their families, it causes hopelessness, despair and anger, and the associated problems that go with those feelings. We owe young people better than that. I would like to hear what the Minister proposes to do urgently for those young people.
What we are saying is not anti-business. We have heard much about the employers who are using the flexibility that zero-hours contracts provide to exploit the work force, but there are many employers who are not doing that. The shadow Secretary of State gave the example of Asda, which is taking a stand against such treatment of the work force. It is essential that the UK leads the way in showing that things can be levelled up, not levelled down, for the benefit of everybody. Otherwise, employers such as Asda who are making decent choices, doing the right thing and investing in their communities will be at a disadvantage and we will be tilting the playing field.
Lisa Nandy
I will not, I am afraid, because many of my hon. Friends have sat through this debate and are desperate to speak.
As many hon. Members have said, this problem affects entire sectors. We should be very concerned about that because, as I have said, such contracts are not a stepping-stone. I am particularly worried about the care sector and home help. This problem affects the low-paid people—mainly women—who work in that sector. It affects their children, their parents and their whole family. It also affects us, because if we value that profession so little that we allow this practice to be used across the country, we allow people to be given no money for travel time between appointments and we allow packed rotas that mean that older people get 15 minutes to have all their care needs met, what does that mean for our parents, our grandparents and our neighbours? I hope that the Minister will listen to the voices of people around this country who are devastated by what they are seeing.
Finally, the Secretary of State spoke a lot about getting redress and taking on employers, and about a code of conduct. In truth, however, it is incredibly difficult for someone who is being threatened with no more work to take action. Have we learned nothing from the blacklisting scandals that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) has done so much to uncover and condemn? Ministers say that we want to give people the ability to take action on that issue, so why are they restricting access to legal advice and hiking up employment tribunal fees?
It strikes me that the Government are frightened of challenge, and they are standing together with their friends in the business community to stop people who have everything to lose being able to take action. Whatever the Government do, the Minister must understand that rights are no good without the means to enforce them, and we need concrete action to ensure they can be enforced.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and I have a feeling we are in danger of violently agreeing with one another—I do not think there is any Government Member who does not agree that we should be stamping out abuses, and as we heard, the Government are beginning a consultation to look into that issue. However, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), it is the responsibility of the Government to turn things around—particularly given the mess we inherited in 2010—and to create growth and jobs. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during Prime Minister’s questions, we have created more than 1.5 million new private sector jobs, including 1 million net new jobs. Last week the IMF turned around its criticism of the UK from a month earlier, and said that compared with the rest of the world, the UK is doing pretty well. Growth is returning, which is good news, and jobs are being created.
I do not think any Labour Member said that they completely oppose zero-hours contracts, which is because an economy needs flexibility on both sides. As we heard from the Secretary of State, the elderly want flexibility in employment, for example, as do young students or young mothers who have child care and do not necessarily have natural fixed hours. Zero-hours contracts can suit a number of people in our economy. I listened carefully to what Opposition Members said, and it is important to have robust employment protections. As we heard from the Secretary of State, and as we will no doubt soon hear from the Minister, the Government are beginning a consultation to look into the practices raised by Labour Members. I oppose such practices as strongly as they do.
The previous Government did nothing to investigate how zero-hours contracts were used when they were in power. Is any Member aware of an investigation into that issue during Labour’s 13 years in power? In fact, according to the Office for National Statistics, in 2000 there were 225,000 people on zero-hours contracts.
Charlie Elphicke
Has my hon. Friend also noticed that the Opposition raised the issue of blacklisting, about which they also did nothing whatsoever when in government?
Mr Newmark
My hon. Friend is right, and I point the finger at several Labour-run councils in London that use zero-hours contracts: Tower Hamlets, Ealing, Merton, Hounslow and Newham. Those councils do not provide guaranteed hours or any such thing. Are Labour councils stopping the use of zero-hours contracts? Not a bit of it. The Government, however, have helped the low-paid by taking more than 2 million people out of tax altogether, and cutting taxation for another 25 million people. That is what the Government should be doing—encouraging jobs and protecting those on low pay.
As we have heard, the Government have been doing a good job trying to create jobs in the private sector, but we must protect people against the abuses to which Opposition Members referred. We heard wonderful statistics from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk, who mentioned the number of jobs created in the private sector. I repeat: 1 million net jobs have been created, even though, as we heard in Prime Minister’s questions, Labour Members predicted 1 million job losses. The Government have been doing a good job.
As someone who is a champion of women, and the founder of Women2Win, I note there are now more women in work today than ever before in our history, which is good. As the hon. Member for Wigan said, however, we must also protect those women who need flexible hours from abuses. I believe and am confident that the Government will look into the abuses to which she referred, which we do not approve of or support.
There are, I think, about half a million job vacancies, some of which are on zero-hours contracts. That is a good thing and gives people the opportunity to get on the employment ladder. Overall, I believe the Government are doing a good job. Statistics are coming out, and in the past week alone, British manufacturers have said that they have seen the strongest growth on record, breaking the figure for every quarter since 1989. That proves that the Chancellor has been rebalancing the economy. That is the challenge we inherited from the previous Government. We over-relied on the financial services sector, and the Chancellor is rebalancing the economy.
Caroline Dinenage
I congratulate my hon. Friend on a fantastic and dynamic speech. Does he agree that manufacturers need a dynamic and flexible workplace to flourish? I speak as someone who owns a manufacturing company. Those who may not have previously been in employment also need a dynamic, flexible workplace so as to consider getting into the working world.
Mr Newmark
My hon. Friend is right, particularly about small manufacturers who cannot necessarily take on fixed costs. I was in business for 20 years and know it is tough out there. It is still tough for many manufacturers who are working with low margins. They cannot take on fixed costs, so zero-hours contracts are a good thing that suits them and people in that environment who are looking for flexible hours. The services sector, too, has had its strongest growth in 16 years.
Overall, zero-hours contracts have a role in society. I have not heard a single Opposition Member condemn absolutely zero-hours contracts, although they all mentioned the abuses. The Government are doing their bit to ensure that we remain ever vigilant against the abuse of zero-hours contracts, and I applaud their initiative to take forward that consultation to tackle those abuses as soon as possible.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), because it gives me an immediate opportunity to rebut the bulk of his remarks and give him a reality check. Far from the blue skies that appear to be above his constituency and those of Government Members, yesterday a factory in Wrexham closed and 231 people lost their jobs. In 2010-11, the median gross weekly earnings for a male in my constituency fell from £530.80 to £435.50, and for a woman from £416.60 to £364.30. That was the immediate impact on the earnings of my constituents of the first year of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government coming to office. That is what I call a cost of living crisis.
The Conservative party also introduced a VAT increase, supported by their Liberal Democrat comrades—before the election they said they were not going to do that—which imposed an immediate financial burden on individuals in my constituency, whatever their income. That is the reality of the cost of living crisis that the Government parties are imposing.
We are debating zero-hours contracts today, rather than five years ago, because the increase in the number of those contracts is a response to the massive inequality of bargaining power that now exists between employers and employees, and the fact that employees are desperate for any type of work. The worst employers exploit them because those people are under major financial pressures.
I will not take any lectures from Government Members on running a business. I ran my own business for four years, employing 10 people, before I became an MP in 2001. I know that it is best to treat employees with respect and work with them. If employers are flexible with employees, employees will be flexible with employers. Unfortunately, with zero-hours contracts, we have the worst type of exploitation. Employers exploit the financial weakness of individuals who are desperate for work and to secure any type of employment.
A constituent came to see me—
Ian Lucas
I will not because my constituent’s story needs to be told. He told me not to use his name or the name of his employers because he is scared he will get sacked if I speak publicly. He had been employed for more than three years and was on a contract for 10 hours per week. He normally worked 36 hours per week—he worked those hours regularly, but invariably worked for more than 30 hours. However, because his employers would not give him a contract for more than 10 hours, he could not get a secure tenancy or apply for a mortgage. He had to ring up on Friday evenings to find out what hours he would be working the following week. That was the impact of a zero-hours contract on that individual.
I was pleased at the tone of the Secretary of State’s remarks—he is a reasonable man—but my parents told me that I should always judge people by their actions, not by their words. In government, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories have taken away the means for employees to protect themselves from exploitation. They have doubled the qualification period for people going to employment tribunals and introduced a £1,200 fee for going to a tribunal. That is more than twice the median weekly earnings of individuals in my constituency. That, and not the flannel, tells us all we need to know about the attitude of the Government parties. They are not about fairness for the work force or a balanced relationship; they are about the worst kind of employers exploiting employees.
I was astonished that the Secretary of State referred to our automotive sector in relation to zero-hours contracts. He seemed to suggest that zero-hours contracts in that context were analogous the exploitation of workers who do not have trade union representation. The fact is that contracts are negotiated by trade unions in the automotive and aerospace sectors to introduce flexibility, so that there is a balanced relationship between employer and employee. The key point is that those contracts are negotiated and agreed to—the employees who take them on do so voluntarily, and they are normally negotiated through their unions.
Trade unions are vilified and attacked every week by the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box, but, as the Minister knows, they are an integral part of the Automotive Council and the Aerospace Growth Partnership. The automotive and aerospace industries are two of our most successful industries. That is the model we want—of industry and employers working together with employees.
Employees should have rights. Warm words are all right, and it is all right for the Government to say they sympathise with people who have to manage such arrangements, but if they take away their rights of redress, they can do nothing about their situation.
Let us look at the Government’s actions, not their words. I hope their actions improve, and that their inquiries and investigations lead to concrete progress. To date, they have removed rights from people in vulnerable situations. They should not be proud of that, but it tells my constituents where the Government stand.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), if only to rebut so much of what he says. My constituents in Dover and Deal are understandably concerned about zero-hours contracts. I represent a port. Many in the ports and maritime sectors are, and have been for many years, on zero-hours contracts and have informal working arrangements with their employers. Many of my constituents work in social care and frequently raise their concerns about zero-hours contracts. I have told them that I will raise those issues in the House of Commons so that Ministers and the Government are aware of them.
There is a big difference between the Government and the Opposition. Labour Members have sat around since 1997, 2001 or whenever doing precisely nothing whatever about zero-hours contracts. Now they are in opposition, they suddenly raise the issue. Someone has raised it with them, and a few weeks later they have come to the House to say, “It is right that action is taken where things have gone wrong.” It takes a special cheek for the Opposition to come to the House and say, “We didn’t do anything about it for 13 years, but, right now, we expect immediate action.” That is not the right way to do things. They are politicising what is an important and delicate issue for many of our constituents, which is highly unhelpful.
My constituents have raised serious issues. Not every zero-hours contract is an abuse. Many people work for 30 or 40 hours a week on zero-hours contracts. As the hon. Member for Wrexham said, they have problems getting mortgages and tenancies because they do not have that baseline. I share those concerns and hope that the Government will consider carefully what can be done for people in that position. They have legitimate concerns and action ought to be taken.
Some people are preyed upon by their employers—they are given no hours, or given informal hours, and cannot plan their budgeting from week to week. That is unfair and it is right that the Government are looking at exclusivity. Frankly, those people are self-employed and should be allowed to seek work elsewhere. That would be a fair and just employer-employee relationship. The Government were right to look at that in the review in the summer. It would be right to focus on it in the consultation and to take action on so-called exclusivity clauses.
It is important that we understand our constituents’ concerns. When they come to our surgeries, they tell us that they are worried that if they raise the matter with their employer, they might not have a job by the end of the day. I have had many such cases, which I view with considerable concern. It is right that we work to rebalance the situation. The flipside, as all hon. Members know, is that, for many people, zero-hours contracts have the flexibility that works for their lives. How people live their lives and secure the flexibility they need in their employment is an important consideration.
The Government need to focus on achieving the important flexibility that many people need, but also on ensuring that people are not preyed on and exploited. I am a Conservative MP representing a constituency where there is a lot of deprivation and where many people are not well paid. An important part of the Conservative party is that it believes in protecting people. Yes, enterprise and profit are important, but there is a difference between profit and profiteering. We need to ensure that people who have unequal bargaining power can ensure they have the protection of the law they require to get a fair settlement. That is what the Government need to focus on, which they are doing. I welcome the action that the Secretary of State and the Conservative members of the departmental team are taking.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
I visited a constituent who had initially presented with a problem about paying her rent. She was in arrears and was worried about what was happening. However, the reason for her problem—the kind of work she did—quickly emerged. She was a care worker on a zero-hours contract, but did not get flexibility. She had to wait for a text message—this is a new form of having to go down to the docks and standing in a queue—to see if she was going to have work. In that week, she had been given two evenings of work at very short notice—this creates substantial problems for people’s ability to plan.
We have to address the underlying issues. Why is this happening in care, which is such an important area of work? There is a knock-on effect on the quality of care. If people do not know until the last minute whether they are going to be working, the recipient of care has no idea who will be visiting them. That is important to the quality of care and to the security of those receiving care. Those who suffer from Alzheimer’s find it particularly disturbing and distressing for carers to be changed all the time. The issue is broader than the employment conditions of my constituents; it is about quality of care.
Why is this happening? It did not use to happen. It did not happen in my city when most home care was carried out by those directly employed by the council. A lot of home care was put out to tender in my city under the council run by the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party. It decided to save money and boasted to the local newspapers about how it had saved the council tax payer £2 million, but at what cost and whose cost? Companies put in cheap bids to show how we could all save money and they now have to make up that money in how they employ their employees.
This is not an accident, nor is it abuse by bad employers; it is a structural issue. I am concentrating on care, but I am sure there are other areas where this is happening. If we want this to change, we have to be much more honest about the cost of care and how we are going to pay for it. It is not enough to provide care on a shoestring. I emphasise that I am talking about Scotland. People sometimes think we have cracked the care problem because we have free personal care, but councils such as mine have only been able to manage that process—they were given no extra money to help them do it—by contracting out. The contractors have set up these kinds of employment arrangements to make it work. It is not good for the people who need care, it is not good for employees and it is not good for the rest of us.
The situation is getting worse. It is easy to say that there were always some of these kinds of contracts, but a large department store in my city was employing one of my constituents on a part-time basis for many years. It was part time and that suited her. What did not suit her, however, was being told, “Sorry, we cannot offer you this kind of contract anymore; we can only offer you a zero-hours contract where you may have to work in the evening, at weekends or on Sundays.” That was not going to help her with her child care. When she argued the point and said, “I can’t do this,” the response was, “Well, go and find another job. There are plenty of people who can.”
This is a changing employment pattern that has been getting worse, and I do not think it is altogether accidental. It fits the narrative of the Government’s welfare reform programme. During the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill, there was much waxing lyrical from the Government Benches about the joys of mini-jobs—small jobs that people would be able to do because of the structure of the new benefit. That fits very well with zero-hours contracts, because the state will be subsidising employers by making it easier for them to give people mini-jobs with zero-hours contracts and they will hopefully be able to survive because their income will be topped up.
In the debate there has been an illusion about the choices that people are able to make. Self-employed contractors have the freedom to choose to work when they want to, usually on a pretty good hourly rate. There is a huge difference between choosing to work in that way and it being the only choice an employee has. Having control over working hours and a working pattern is very different from being forced to work. There is no choice if it is the only work on offer and it is the employer, not the individual, who decides when to work—that is a major difference. It can be very nice for individuals to be flexible if they have a choice about their working arrangements. That is not what so many of my constituents now face.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The statistics put forward by Government Members on the use of zero-hours contracts are amazing. It would appear that zero-hours contracts are absolutely fine, with just a few abuses that need to be ironed out—absolute nonsense. Zero-hours contracts are an outrageous abuse for tens of thousands, even up to 1 million people. One or two people think that they are okay and that it suits them. This is the difference between the two sides of the House. Opposition Members believe there is a lot of abuse; coalition Members believe the opposite. They believe that zero-hours contracts are fine, as long as they iron out one or two abuses—absolute rubbish. That is not the case. I must live on a different planet.
We have heard this afternoon about fantastic employment figures, so many private sector jobs being created and the demise of the public sector, which is apparently great news. That has not happened where I live. What we have seen in my area is a reduction in unemployment, but with more people on zero-hours and part-time contracts and a huge increase in people who cannot make ends meet. Looking at employment figures on their own is therefore unacceptable.
Flexible working is employers’ utopia: back to the bad old days of queuing up at the factory gates, the shipyard or the pit and asking to be employed for the day. As has been explained, even that does not happen anymore. Instead, people receive a text or a phone call to find out whether they will have employment. That is a little different from what the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) said about being a barrister waiting to see where his next £10,000 an hour will come from. That is the difference between the Government and the Opposition: the barrister can make £10,000 a day or an hour, but the people we are representing are not even making the minimum wage.
I wanted to refer to a number of things, but obviously I have not got time, so I will briefly consider how people actually manage on these zero-hours contracts. I am talking about people living in the real world, struggling, perhaps not earning the minimum wage, getting up in the morning wanting the best for their families—don’t we all want the best for our families, to put food on the table and to give our kids the up-to-date clothing, like everyone else in the school yard? Let us put ourselves in the position of somebody on a zero-hours contract. Perhaps both parents are on such contracts. How on earth can they plan a month ahead, two months ahead, a year ahead? Forget that if they were in full employment with a proper contract, they would have employment protection—forget that just for a moment and look at the social side; they are running out of money on a weekly or monthly basis because they do not have the hours; they are getting into debt, borrowing money from friends or Wonga or taking out a payday loan, because that is the only way they can make ends meet.
That is what is happening with people on zero-hours contracts. They are looking for alternative sources of income, for extra employment, but many firms that employ people on zero-hours contracts state that the person must be available 24/7, so they cannot get alternative employment; they are stuck with it, even if it means an hour a week. If someone cannot make ends meet, wants to work, is not unemployed, being on a zero-hours contract, and is trying to do the best they can for their family, surely that is a cause of much anxiety. Imagine being in that situation. It causes health problems and then more problems along the line. Some on zero-hours contracts have no access to other forms of finance, not having contingency funds like other, more wealthy people further up the social ladder, so they find it very difficult. And because they have no guarantee of employment, they find it difficult to access legalised credit. This causes all sorts of social mayhem.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes his case with passion, but does he not agree that in sections of society zero-hours contracts are making an important contribution to the lives of people who value the flexibility they provide? I am keenly interested in this subject. From recent radio interviews and vox pop interviews, it seems to me that young people, in particular, really benefit from them. I understand that there are genuine concerns about instances of abuse, but for many people they provide a flexible way for them to pursue their career aspirations.
Ian Lavery
Of course, I understand that, but in reality, there are now more than 1 million people—probably a lot more—on zero-hours contracts, and the vast majority of them are being abused. It is not the other way around, as the Government seem to be suggesting. I have not met a single person—I kid you not—who wants a contract for no hours. People who want a contract want to work. That is the reality of it. Like any MP, I have met many people, listened to their complaints and had the discussion in my surgeries, and I have not met anybody who wants a contract for zero hours. Why would anyone want such a contract? It is implausible. I cannot understand it.
Obviously, zero-hours contracts suit some people on the basis that they will get employment for a week a month, but that is the few; the vast majority of people in the workplace on zero-hours contracts suffer greatly socially. These are people at the very bottom of the ladder and extremely desperate for employment. At times in my constituency, 28 people have been applying for each job. Those people would be delighted to have a zero-hours contract, if they thought they would get some employment, but zero-hours contracts take them off the unemployment register and basically massage the employment figures. There is an argument for outlawing, outright, zero-hours contracts. Government Members have said that there are some abuses, but I say we should get rid of the mass abuse and deal with the problem entirely.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
It is always a great delight to follow my good and hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who I tend to follow in these debates—he always gets taken last, although I am sure that can be dealt with in another place.
This afternoon’s debate has added yet another dimension to the cost of living crisis that is engulfing the UK. It is not just the weekly shop, the energy bill or travel costs, but the hidden contributor of job insecurity. It is worth reminding ourselves that the UK had the third most flexible employment regime in the OECD even before this Government came to power and that there is a direct correlation between job insecurity, consumer confidence and economic growth. In fact, the Lib Dem Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), the former employment relations Minister, said that any changes to the employment regime that undermined consumer confidence and created job insecurity would be “crazy”. He later got the employment relations ministerial brief and proceeded to do exactly what he said he would not do.
Many Members have discussed the plethora of other changes that have been made to the employment regime. It is worth reflecting on those changes, because they feed into the insecurity at work, which many hon. Members have mentioned, that is a symptom of zero-hours contracts. We have had—this is not an exclusive list, but gives an indication of why people feel more insecure at work—the qualification period increased to two years, collective redundancy cut to 45 days, fees for employment tribunals, the consequences of which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), compensated no-fault dismissal by the back door and settlement agreements. We have also had shares for rights, compensation and employment tribunals slashed, lay people taken off employment tribunals and employment appeal tribunals, TUPE regulations diluted—that is perhaps partly why the problem of zero-hours contracts has increased—the Agricultural Wages Board abolished, national minimum wage enforcement slashed, the very existence of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority questioned, and health and safety taken back to what it was before the Boer war. That is a cocktail of job insecurity, which is highlighted by the fact that we are having this debate on zero-hours contracts.
A lot of Members have talked about whether we should have done more in government. Many hon. Members have made that criticism, but it is a false criticism, because they are missing the explosion of zero-hours contracts in recent years and the underemployment that we are seeing across everyone’s constituency.
Zero-hours contracts are not a new phenomenon—we have mentioned that already. They work for some employees—let us put that on the record; of course they do—but let us be clear, and say time and again, that the exploitative nature of such contracts has to be dealt with. That is what we need to do in the House today—and, indeed, in anything the Government bring forward. It is also not hard to see why zero-hours contracts are attractive to employers. They allow for maximum flexibility. However, in many cases, we are seeing the transfer of business risk—this is an important point—in a difficult economy from the employer to the employee. We should not hide behind the word “flexibility” so that it can mean exploitation.
Let me highlight a couple of case studies. One employee of a cinema firm—I will not mention the firm involved—said:
“I was offered part-time work with a zero-hours contract. It was all down to the whims of the managers whether or not you got work that week, which is just impossible to live with.”
He continued:
“They were very manipulative. And they employed so many people that we ended up getting about three hours a week. It seems as though zero-hours contracts are being used more and more to get as many staff as possible without any intention of using them…or giving us the hours we need to live and earn”
the income we need to survive.
Let us look at why the Government are so interested in zero-hours contracts and flexibility. Could it be because they have a flexible Cabinet? They have a part-time Chancellor. Indeed, I might even contest that the Business Secretary himself is on a zero-hours contract with the Liberal Democrats so that he can work full time for the Tories to deliver all these attacks on workers’ rights. Whether he likes it or not, that seems to be the case he is putting through. I wonder whether this issue also epitomises the kind of economy that this Government are looking to achieve—a low-wage, low-skilled, low-productivity work force that has insecure employment, to provide maximum flexibility and start a hire-and-fire culture. The Minister might come to the Dispatch Box and dispel that rumour, but it was only 24 hours ago that he suggested that small business should be exempt from any employment law whatever. If that is not creating a hire-and-fire culture, I do not know what is.
Let us reflect on the Government’s response to this issue. Although I appreciate the tone of the Secretary of State’s earlier comments—many have mentioned that—the record is: three BIS officials working part time on this issue, “speaking informally” to stakeholders, with a consultation promised some time in November. The Business Secretary said he hoped it would start some time in November, and I hope that he will bring forward strong proposals.
Many Members have spoken about issues in their constituencies and about what zero-hours contracts mean to their constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs Riordan) made a powerful contribution. She made the critical point that most employers in Halifax look after their staff. I think that the vast majority of employers leave home every day to go to work with the intention of looking after their staff so that they can have a productive work force. I was struck by my hon. Friend’s story of the young person who was desperate for a job and paid to travel to work, only to be told that his name was not on the list. He had to travel home again at his own expense.
I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) is no longer in his place. He made a deplorable contribution, comparing people on zero-hours contracts with his zero-hours contract as a barrister. I hope that the Minister will agree that that is really not a true comparison with the problem we are looking at. If the hon. Gentleman wanted to complain about being on a zero-hours contract as a barrister—[Interruption.] Here he comes! Perhaps he was picking up his next £10,000-a-day contract while he was out of the Chamber.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) has always been a strong proponent of the arguments that we are putting forward today. He rightly concluded that zero-hours contracts needed to be used, but he also argued powerfully that, if major private sector employers such as Tesco, Morrisons and Sainsbury’s do not need to use them, others such as Wetherspoon’s and Burger King should not need to either. This is all about fairness in the workplace.
Ian Murray
I will not give way, because the hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber for the start of the winding-up speeches. Anyway, before he arrived, I might have said something particularly complimentary about him.
Guy Opperman
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he not accept that, when someone is working for free, when they are obligated to take on work and have no choice in the matter and when they are contracted to carry out that employment, that is exactly the same as a zero-hours contract? That was the situation that I was in, and I regret to say that his allegation was wrong.
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman might be confusing self-employment with zero-hours contracts. It is particularly unfair for a Government Member to stand up and compare people on zero-hours contracts in the retail and home care sectors with those who work as barristers. That is not particularly helpful. It just shows how out of touch the Government are. I am sure that people watching this debate at home will draw their own conclusions from that, as many people in the Chamber have done.
I want to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who, along with a number colleagues, has produced a fantastic pamphlet on this issue. I would encourage the Minister—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Hexham—to read it and to look at the case studies and the conclusions about what is happening in the labour market. She gave us a lesson today when she said that no one should tell their boss that they had done nothing, and they should instead say that they had not done enough. I am sure that that is a lesson we will all be taking to the Leader of the Opposition the next time we speak to him.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) has spoken in the Chamber about employment rights on a number of occasions since I have been in this post. His description of Burnley conjured up a utopian dream, and I might even move there myself. He seemed to suggest that zero-hours contracts were working wonderfully there, and that they offered the solution to all evils. His contribution on the way in which the contracts are affecting the people of Burnley was slightly strange, given that they are seen in many other constituencies as having precisely the opposite effect.
The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) suggested that zero-hours contracts gave managers an excuse to be lazy about proper planning, and he was absolutely right. When I ran my own business, I spent an extraordinary amount of time creating rotas to ensure that every member of staff had the hours that they were contracted to do. That was a major part of running my own business, and if I was able to do it, I do not see why other organisations should not be able to do it too. Zero-hours contracts are bad for business. I spent a lot of time ensuring that people were paid properly, and were doing their contracted hours so that they could pay their rent or their mortgage, but premises not far from me that had 15 people on zero-hours contracts were taking on only eight or nine of them to work on any particular day. That lack of a level playing field makes the economy uncompetitive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) led a marvellous debate in Westminster Hall just before the summer recess. Everybody talked in it about the devastation that these contracts can inflict on our constituencies, particularly in respect of mortgage and rental agreements. Instead of slashing employee rights and making it easier for employers to fire rather than hire, as this Government have done, we should be looking at putting together a framework to make people more secure at work, which would indeed help the economy.
I ran out of having anything to note about the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). He is not in his place, so I shall not mention it any more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) is a passionate advocate for her own constituency, and she reminded us all of the disgrace whereby the Red Cross has had to feed people through food banks—for the first time in this country in 70 years. If that is not an indictment of the current Government, showing how bad they are, I do not know what is. She posed the interesting question of why anyone would want to be in a zero-hours contract, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck said exactly the same thing. If someone has an employment contract, why would they want it to say zero hours? My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan also raised the issue of job progression—a subject we do not talk about enough. People on zero-hours contracts cannot get the skills, training and job progression up to the next level that they need.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham told us about his constituents’ fear of losing their job if they raised issues about these contracts. When people in the workplace are deciding whether to bring up such issues with their employers, their fear of doing so is widespread. My hon. Friend talked, too, about the demolition of people’s rights and the critical role of the partnership between trade unions and employers in this country. He reflected on the Secretary of State’s examples from the car industry, which show where that partnership has worked exceptionally well. The recent success of the car industry is a testament to the workers, the trade unions, the Government and, indeed, the employers all working together to achieve it.
The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) suggested no action, but said that the recent exploitation of these contracts is the real issue. We agree. There is no dispute between us on that—it is the exploitation rather than zero-hours contracts themselves that must be dealt with.
My close neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), mentioned what is happening in the care sector in Edinburgh. I think we are all going to have to deal with this issue in future if people are to get the quality of care that they deserve.
Ian Murray
I do not have time. I need to conclude to allow the Minister to reply—[Interruption.] The Minister is allowing me to give way, so I will.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Unless it has escaped my attention, he has not mentioned the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), who was authentic on this matter, having attempted to highlight it over a long period. He chided the Opposition for a lack of action when they were in government. Does the shadow Minister accept those criticisms?
Ian Murray
I do not think my hon. Friend was criticising us for lack of action. His contribution was a powerful one about what should be happening across the whole of the labour market. We will work closely together on the solutions that need to be introduced. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition has already proposed some solutions.
I forgot to mention that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East referred to text messaging as the new form of queuing up to find out whether there was work at the docks. We need to bear that in mind. I have seen examples of people finding out on mobile phones that there is “no work for you today”—a message sometimes sent only half an hour before the work was due to start. That cannot be viewed as acceptable.
Commentators have spoken about exploitative uses of zero-hours contracts and the fact that they are a lazy option for businesses, but the Resolution Foundation also found that people on zero-hours contracts earned on average £6 an hour less, so the problem is not only lacking hours of work, but what happens when the hours are offered. Case law about the mutuality of obligation needs to be investigated further. When zero-hours contracts are exploited, there is no mutuality of obligation when people go for work and when they have been given work. We need that issue to be dealt with clearly.
Let us return to what the Leader of the Opposition announced last month, which covers some of the issues raised about banning exploitative use rather than zero-hours contracts themselves. My right hon. Friend rightly spoke about banning employers from insisting that those on zero-hours contracts are available, even when there is no guarantee of any work; stopping these contracts that require workers to work exclusively for one firm, which the Secretary of State mentioned; ending the misuse of zero-hours contracts where employees are in practice working regular hours over a sustained period; and putting in place a code of practice that will allow people to use these contracts properly.
The cost of living crisis engulfing this country is made worse by insecurity in the job market. That crisis can be tackled only by ensuring that people are secure in their employment and are paid a proper wage for a proper day’s work. I hope that Members will support our motion.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
May I thank the many Members who have spoken in this debate, which has been good natured? There have been a number of passionate speeches. Those who have contributed fall into two groups. There are clearly those who want to squeeze out flexible-hour contracts altogether: the hon. Members for Halifax (Mrs Riordan), for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). There are others who have taken a more nuanced approach. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) who said that we needed to be neither for nor against flexible-hours contracts, but that we needed to deal with the exploitation. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) welcomed the consultation that we are planning, but asked, quite fairly, whether it would encompass the wider issues of shorter hours and agency working. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) for the work that she has done on this matter, and she said that she was willing to engage with the Government’s consultation. She has accepted that the sample that she has produced so far is relatively limited, but we are very happy to look at her work, and I welcome her offer to engage with the Government on it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) made some strong points on the issue of exclusivity. I can absolutely give him the undertaking that that will be central to our consultation. He also made the point convincingly that we should not unduly restrict choice where that choice is being freely entered into.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) spoke of the importance of retaining flexibility in the modern business environment and adduced powerful support for flexible-hour contracts from a range of business and personnel organisations. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) was the only Member who spoke in the debate to point to the latest employment and unemployment figures, and I am rather surprised that no Opposition Member today was able to recognise the continuing increase in the number of people working, whether in the north-east or the south-east. It is a shame that more Members did not give due credit for the increase in employment.
Lisa Nandy
I do not recognise anything of what the Minister has said so far. If he had listened to the debate, perhaps he would be in a better position to respond to some of the very important points made by my hon. Friends and by a few Members on the other side of the House.
Michael Fallon
I have been here throughout the debate and have listened to every speech since about a quarter to one this afternoon. I certainly listened to the hon. Lady’s speech, which was a very good one. I am simply pointing out the difference between those hon. Members who want to get rid of flexible-hours contracts altogether, and others who can see their value and want to preserve the choice so that those who are happy to choose them are able to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) drew attention to the issue of eligibility for mortgages and rental tenancies for those who are on such contracts. It is important that we look at that aspect. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) raised the issue of the application of flexible-hours contracts in the care industry, and spoke about the number of such services that have been contracted out. However, a great number of councils up and down the country, and not just subcontracted firms, are using flexible-hour contracts: Doncaster, Southwark and Liverpool, for example. The issue is not simply one for privatised contracted labour.
Alison McGovern
The Minister said that he was disappointed that no one had mentioned the unemployment figures. In fact, in an earlier intervention I drew attention to the relationship between zero-hours contracts and the under employment that they represent, and what is happening to the claimant count. Does the Minister feel that we need to investigate the issue, and does he feel that that under employment is serious and should be viewed alongside the falling claimant count?
Michael Fallon
I shall be happy to consider the hon. Lady’s point about under employment if she will recognise the considerable progress that the Government have made in increasing the total number of people in work since 2010.
Concerns have been expressed about the way in which these contracts work, which is why the Government have listened and decided to act. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we will shortly launch a consultation and seek views on the issues that are causing concern—issues such as transparency in contracts and the availability of information, advice and guidance to ensure that individuals are aware of their rights and companies are aware of their obligations to provide, for instance, holiday pay, sick pay, redundancy pay and travelling time payments. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, we will also seek views on the issue of exclusivity in the employment contract.
However, while it is right to consider all those issues, we also need to ensure that the flexibility afforded by contracts of this kind to businesses and individuals is still available. A flexible and dynamic labour market is essential to facilitate growth in our economy, and to give businesses that want to expand the opportunity to do so.
As there is no single definition of a variable-hours contract, we must proceed with caution when considering the action that we might take to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. We must consider all the employment arrangements that could fall within the definition, such as work through agencies, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. We must also ensure that we do not act in haste.
We cannot accept the motion, because it prejudges the consultation in calling for a ban, and calls for evidence that we have already begun to assemble. I should add, however, that some of my hon. Friends suggested that the last Labour Government had done nothing about this matter during their 13 years in office. That is not wholly true. On the contrary, the last Labour Government looked at the issue—and then did nothing. They published a White Paper entitled “Fairness at Work”, which discussed variable-hours contracts, and concluded:
“The Government wishes to retain the flexibility these contracts offer business”.
A couple of years after the White Paper, the then Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), said:
“The Government consider that zero hours contracts can contribute to the flexibility necessary for a modern labour market”.—[Official Report, 2 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 344W.]
Unlike the last Labour Government, we will act. We will hold a full consultation. We will consider important issues such as restrictive exclusivity and the alleged lack of transparency.
Today we have heard Opposition Members express indignation about a flexibility that they themselves endorsed in government, and we have heard them speak of an alleged abuse about which they did nothing in government. No one wants people to be exploited; no one wants people to be tied to contracts that are unnecessarily restrictive, and in which there is no genuine transparency. This Government are acting, whereas the last Government failed to do so.
Question put.
Speaker’s Statement
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we proceed to the next Opposition day debate, I am now in a position to announce the result of the election of a Deputy Speaker, following the ballot held today.
Five hundred and fifty-one votes were cast, with no spoilt ballot papers. The counting went to six stages. Five hundred and thirteen valid votes were cast in that round, excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached was therefore 257 votes. The person elected First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means with 273 votes is Mrs Eleanor Laing. The other candidate in that round was Mr Brian Binley, who received 240 votes.
Eleanor Laing will take up her post immediately. I congratulate the hon. Lady warmly and I may say on behalf of my colleagues and myself that we all greatly look forward to working with her. In the process I should like, on behalf, I am sure, of the whole House, to thank all the candidates for participating in this election and for a contest which showed the House at its best.
Mr Speaker
In a moment—I am saving the hon. Lady up.
The results under the single transferable vote system will be made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and published on both the intranet and the internet for public viewing. Let us hear first from the hon. Lady.
Mrs Laing
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I welcome the announcement you have just made? I thank the Clerks and Officers of the House for the way they conducted today’s election, and for doing it so swiftly. I would like, on behalf of all the candidates who took part, to thank each of the other candidates for the demure and pleasant way the election was conducted. I thank the House for placing its confidence in me to let me become part of your team. Thank you.
Mr Speaker
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s typically gracious words. What she said by way of tribute to the staff of the House, who are always exemplary in professionalism, discretion and efficiency, will have been noted, in particular.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to echo the comments of the Deputy Leader of the House. The hon. Member for Epping Forest has a strong record in political and constitutional reform and will make a very good Deputy Speaker.
High Streets
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
18:59 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 224 / Noes: 294 - Question accordingly negatived.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises that high streets and town and city centres are vital to local economies; acknowledges that many small businesses and retailers are struggling under the pressure of business rates rises; notes that since 2010 shop vacancy rates have remained at over 14 per cent but that there has been a 20 per cent increase in numbers of payday loan shops and a three per cent increase in numbers of betting shops in the last year; is concerned that recent changes to permitted development rights and use classes are likely to lead to an over-concentration of betting shops and payday loan companies in many areas, against the wishes of local people and businesses; and calls on the Government to give local communities a greater say over the shape of their own high streets and town and city centres, including control over use classes, to help encourage the more widespread use of neighbourhood planning and greater cooperation between local communities and businesses and to cut and then freeze business rates from 2015 to help small businesses on UK high streets and town and city centres.
When introducing the Portas pilots a few years ago, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), with his customary understatement and modesty, said that
“these pilots can be the vanguard of a high street revolution, and others can look to their example to kick start a renaissance of our town centres.”
However, recent data show us that this high street revolution has yet to materialise. I think it is wrong to place the blame at the door of Mary Portas, because there was much in her original report that was helpful. I want to place the blame for such poor progress in reviving our high streets firmly where it belongs: with the Government.
The Government’s failed policies for the high street undoubtedly start with the sluggishness of our economic recovery, but I want to focus specifically on what is wrong with their approach to regenerating our high streets and town centres. The past five years have seen a significant squeeze on household and personal incomes, resulting in muted spending and an increase in retail failures. The high street has not only been hit by falling living standards but has had to contend with the rise in internet shopping. Yes, shopping habits are changing, but the high streets and town centres are still very important to the well-being of our communities, yet the Government’s policies are not rising to the challenge of revitalising and regenerating them.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
The hon. Lady starts her speech with a blame game. Would she attribute any blame to Labour’s Licensing Act 2003, which caused a culture of binge-drinking on the streets? Does she see that as in any way revitalising and adding a positive contribution to our high streets?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
The hon. Gentleman ought to look to see what his Government’s policies are doing in terms of the rising number of payday loan companies and betting shops on our high streets.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
The hon. Lady mentions the over-proliferation of betting shops. Surely the Labour Government’s Licensing Act made that worse with the changes they made to the number of machines that could be put in each shop. Because of her Government’s policy, the national chains are now putting several branches on the same high street.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
In fact, the reason for the increased number of payday loan companies is, first, what has been happening to the economy, and secondly, the change in use class orders, to which I will turn in a few moments.
Local shops and retailers are really feeling the squeeze on the high street, and these are still tough times for many areas.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady join me in congratulating Crawley borough council and West Sussex county council, which are, as we speak, significantly regenerating Crawley high street?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
Of course we would welcome any regeneration that is happening on our high streets.
Business rates are rising by an average of nearly £2,000 during this Parliament, and more than one in 10 small businesses say that they spend the same or more on business rates as they do on rent. However, we must ask this question: is it all doom and gloom?
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Our historic high street in Stockton-on-Tees has suffered, like others, but our council has acted by developing what it calls the enterprise arcade, which gives fledgling businesses the opportunity to develop and then move into shop units. Yet we are seeing more betting shops and payday loan companies taking up space in our high street. Does my hon. Friend agree that those fledgling businesses should be given priority over betting shops and others so that they can provide the shops our high street needs?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I absolutely agree. Indeed, we are arguing that local authorities should be given more powers over what happens in their high streets so that they are able to shape their direction in certain areas.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
Is the hon. Lady aware that the number of betting shops has reduced slightly in the past 12 months, and that 9,000 betting shops on the high streets is 7,000 fewer than there were in the 1970s? Will she not accept that over the long term the number of betting shops has fallen?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the fact that regionally the number varies massively. There has certainly been a huge increase in the number of betting shops in several areas in the past 12 months.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very compelling argument for giving local councils the power to determine how their high streets develop. One measure that we could introduce is umbrella provisions to enable local councils to stop the clustering of payday lenders or betting shops on the high street.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
Indeed. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I will expand on it later.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
To return to the question of whether there has been an increase in the number of betting shops, I am concerned about the high number of gambling adverts during TV programmes. I watched the football last night and there were three of those adverts during one commercial break alone. Does my hon. Friend agree that such encouragement of gambling must be linked to the impact on the high street?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
That is undoubtedly one reason why the number of gambling operations on our high street is increasing, but I do not think it is the only reason.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I hope the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I make some progress. I will let him intervene later.
We know from information recently produced by the Local Data Company that there has been an improvement in occupancy rates. That is a good thing, but before Government Members get too excited I must point out that the vacancy rate has fallen from 14.2% to 14.1%, so one in seven shops are still standing empty, which is hardly a cause for celebration. That average figure also hides some large regional disparities. For example, Blackburn has a huge vacancy rate of 26.9%, with one in four shops lying empty.
The report also shows that in some areas vacancy rates remain stubbornly high. Since August 2010, the national average for empty shops has been above 14%, with a significant number being long-term sick with little or no prospect of being reoccupied as shops. Areas of improvement undoubtedly exist, but overall the recovery on our high streets leaves much to be desired.
The Government have responded to this major problem in their usual way: they have taken a piecemeal approach, fragmented the response and, when all else has failed, blamed the planning system. We now have a plethora of initiatives intent on improving the high street: Portas pilots, town team partners, the future high streets forum, a high street innovation fund, the high street renewal award and a fund for business improvement districts.
Mark Pawsey
On vacancy rates and betting shops, given the choice would the hon. Lady rather see a unit occupied by a betting shop or left vacant as a hole in the high street?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
The hon. Gentleman needs to consider the fact that too many shops of a particular type crowd out other shops that might be more desirable.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that a distinct contrast can be drawn between Kings road in Chelsea and County road in Liverpool, Walton, which has experienced a proliferation of betting shops, payday loan companies, fast-food takeaways and pawnbrokers? The Government cannot wash their hands of this—the rise has been exponential and that has partly been down to their policies.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must highlight where the Government’s policies on the high street have failed.
There is a long list of initiatives, but the fragmented approach masks the lack of an overall strategic approach that would bring together local authorities, key stakeholders and communities to plan for and deliver real change in their town centres.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Before the hon. Lady moves on to her socialist selection of which stores it is right for people to purchase from, will she admit that the Government’s employment allowance, which will be introduced in 2015 and will reduce the cost of hiring people to work in shops, is a very welcome step in getting started the sorts of shops that people want to purchase from?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
It is very important to have a localist approach that encourages local people to get involved in shaping their high street. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman supported such an approach before all the changes that have been made over the past couple of years.
We want key stakeholders and communities to be brought together to plan and deliver change in their town centres. It is a pity that the Minister was not at the Local Data Company summit this morning, because he would have heard people saying that that was exactly what they wanted.
In his recent report, Bill Grimsey gave the Government some much-needed helpful advice. I will briefly highlight a few of his recommendations. He said that the Government should:
“Set an objective to repopulate high streets and town centres as community hubs encompassing: more housing, education, arts, entertainment, business/office space, health and leisure—and some shops”,
and
“Establish a Town Centre Commission for each town with a defined skill base and structure to build a 20-year vision for each town”.
He went on to say that they should establish five pilots to trial that immediately and called on the Government to
“Prepare for a ‘wired town’ vision or ‘networked high streets’”,
to review business rates and to require the owners of empty properties to seek a change of use class to bring properties back into occupation.
Mr Marcus Jones
The hon. Lady is setting great store by the Grimsey report. She has spoken about making it easier to change use classes and to convert commercial property into residential property. However, her motion argues against that. How does she square that circle?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
If the hon. Gentleman had read the motion more carefully, he would have seen that we are arguing that local authorities, in consultation with their communities, should be able to shape use classes in their area. We do not think that use classes should be got rid of altogether, which is what his Government are seeking to do.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I must express concern about a motion that calls on the Government to
“give communities a greater say over the shape of their”
communities when, unless I have misunderstood something, this Parliament recently passed the Localism Act 2011, which was initiated by this Government, as a result of which business improvement districts are being created and neighbourhood plans formulated all over my constituency. The hon. Lady clearly was not here for those debates and has not noticed what is happening in communities across England.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
It is the right hon. Gentleman who has not noticed what is happening, particularly with regard to use class orders. The power for local communities to shape their high streets is being taken away.
A steer from Government is required to enable local authorities, stakeholders and communities to get together and pool their resources to shape their high streets. One huge stumbling block to the Grimsey approach remains. While many of us have been arguing for greater powers to assist local communities in shaping their areas, the Government have been busy giving away the powers that do exist to provide for that. In May, the Government legislated to allow changes to use classes so that virtually any class of commercial premises on the high street can become any kind of shop, fast food restaurant or shop in the euphemistically named “financial and professional services sector”, which alongside banks and estate agents includes payday lenders or legal loan sharks and betting shops.
I hope the Minister can tell us what was going through the Government’s mind when they decided that what struggling high streets needed was for it to be made easier for more bookies and payday loan companies to be sprawled across them. I would like to hear the rationale for that decision, because my previous attempts to elicit a response from the Government have failed. Nationally, there are 20% more payday loan shops and 3% more betting shops than there were a year ago.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend, but does she agree it was extraordinary that the coalition Government opposed my amendment to the Localism Bill, which would have made betting shops a sui generis class under our planning laws, and brought an end to the travesty that is taking place across our high streets?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, and it is a shame the Government did not accept his amendment. We must keep pressing them to change direction, particularly from where they are attempting to go at the moment, which is complete deregulation.
There are 20% more payday loan shops and 3% more betting shops than a year ago, and I do not think there is huge clamour out there in our communities for any more. Indeed, people want the opposite; they want fewer of those shops because they are taking the place of independent retailers, clothes shops and health food shops.
Andrew Gwynne
Is the real point that the growth in payday lenders, bookmakers and takeaways is reducing the vitality and vibrancy of the high street, meaning that fewer shoppers want to go and shop in the retail outlets that remain?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend is right. We know that once there is a proliferation of payday loan companies and the like on our high streets, other retailers are put off coming to the area.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend said there is no clamour out there in the country for more betting shops, fast food takeaways and payday loan companies, but there is a clamour for communities and planning authorities to have more control over these changes. Does she agree that the recent changes make a complete mockery of the rhetoric coming from the Government about giving more power to communities? It is simply not true.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
Indeed. I agree with my hon. Friend, and what we are currently seeing from the Government is very anti-localist; it is the opposite of what they say they are doing.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I will make some progress. There are now more than twice as many betting shops on British high streets as all the cinemas, bingo halls, museums, bowling alleys, arcades, galleries and snooker halls combined. I am sure the owners of payday loan companies were jumping for joy when they learned that this year they could accelerate the growth of their businesses without even having to ask for a change of use for the buildings they intend to occupy. The policy is so disastrous that I am not sure who the Government think it will help. It will certainly not help independent start-ups, which are still hampered—as we know—by the lack of available credit.
As if the changes announced in May were not bad enough, the Government have just completed consultation on another round of relaxations to permitted development and change of use classes that would see banks become flats, post offices become residences, and any small shop turned into a house without the local authority or community having a say in whether those changes are appropriate or of sufficient quality.
London local councils recently produced a report that stated:
“The removal of boroughs’ ability to require planning permission for these types of use change is likely to have a detrimental rather than positive impact on local economic growth. And whilst there is a recognition that some previously commercial areas in and around high streets are no longer viable for business, the ability for these to become residential should be left to the discretion of the local planning authority and not national policy.”
We entirely agree. We are not against the principle of changes from office to residential; we are for the principle of local communities deciding what is best for their area, not Ministers in Whitehall.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I have been contacted by the owners of the Exchange, a music venue in Bristol—it is in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams). They took out new premises in a commercial area of Bristol, but have found out that there are plans to convert neighbouring properties into residential properties. They will therefore get noise complaints. They are concerned that, having invested in the new venture, they could be put out of business. Is that an example of what my hon. Friend describes?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I thank my hon. Friend for giving us that example, which clearly demonstrates what is wrong with the Government’s approach. I hope the Minister has heard it.
I should tell the Minister that the Opposition are not against change to use classes, but the Government are entirely misguided in seeking to introduce a national permitted development right that will bypass local decision making and give communities no say in what ends up on their high streets.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
On the Channel 4 “Dispatches” programme in August last year, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), said that the Gambling Act 2005 was a “mistake”, that the consequences
“are ruining the high street and people’s lives”
and that “we were wrong”. Do you agree?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
The hon. Gentleman should pay more attention to what is happening to changes in use class resulting in more gambling outlets on his high street.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Obviously, I did not agree either.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The Government’s approach is entirely the wrong one and profoundly anti-localist. It is therefore strange that they seek to badge the changes as indicating that they are absolutely committed to enabling individuals and community groups to have a greater say over every aspect of their area, including their high streets. I can only conclude that that is some sort of Orwellian misspeak.
What would Labour do? First, it would allow local authorities to put some types of businesses into a separate use class or use classes to prevent over-saturation of a particular use type in a given area—betting shops, for example. We know that some in the Government agree. At the Liberal Democrat conference this year, the Comptroller of Her Majesty’s Household, the then Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, moved a motion saying that local councillors should be
“empowered to decide whether or not to give approval to additional gambling venues in their community”,
and he called on Liberal Democrats in the Government to push for betting shops to be put in a new separate planning use class
“allowing local authority planning committees to control them”.
The motion was passed, so no wonder he was reshuffled. The Government have done exactly the opposite.
Local councils also agree with the Opposition. A recent report from all 32 London boroughs said that town centres and high streets were at risk of not meeting the needs of local residents because planning regulations restrict the powers of local councils to encourage balanced local economies, including a lack of control on the spread of shops such as pawnbrokers and bookmakers. The councils recommended that such shops should be removed from use class A2 to a sui generis class of their own. The House should note that local authorities did not ask for further deregulation of that use class, which the Government propose to give them.
Secondly, Labour would give local authorities powers to determine permitted development locally in keeping with local needs and aspirations. Thirdly, Labour would strengthen neighbourhood planning and consider retail diversity schemes to allow communities to shape their high street. Fourthly, as announced at conference by the Labour leader, a Labour Government would cut business rates for small businesses if elected in 2015 and freeze them the year after, helping 1.5 million small businesses, many of which are on our high streets.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my view that in areas of market failure, particularly across the north of England, the situation is acute, and that, in the face of swingeing cuts to council grants to the point where they are in some cases unsustainable, we must do all we can to grow indigenous businesses to keep communities afloat?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
Absolutely. The small business sector is essential to the health of our communities, including our high streets.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady favour exercising specific discretion for business rates for retail property, as opposed to small businesses in general?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. The debate has been going for nearly 30 minutes and I am concerned about the number of speakers.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I will move on as quickly as I can, Mr Deputy Speaker.
In response to the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), the announcement was to cut business rates if elected in 2015 and freeze them for the year after that. In the context of that announcement, the Government’s plans to fiddle with red tape and postpone the business rate re-evaluation just do not cut it. We will start discussions with local authorities to see which of the Grimsey proposals can be taken forward to begin to deliver real change on the high street.
Finally, we want to put local communities at the centre of decision making with regard to what happens in their high street, so they can determine a vision for it and deliver to local needs and aspirations.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I need to carry on, as we are running out of time.
Above all, we must remain hopeful that our high streets can be vibrant community hubs, and this is entirely possible if local communities are given the right freedoms. Local people are best placed to decide the kind of high street they want for them and their families to live, socialise and shop in. Writing in The Observer last week, Lauren Laverne reminded us that our high streets provide places of real escape, and as long as they do they remain more than a metonym and are places definitely worth saving. I doubt if the Minister reads her weekly column, but he should. He should listen to her and he should listen to us, too.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
High streets are far more than shop windows to the retail industry. They have moved far beyond just being a retail hub. They are the heartbeat of our towns and cities and have always been the linchpin of our communities. With that in mind, I was disappointed if not surprised to hear the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) reduce the issue to Labour wanting more regulation, more borrowing and higher taxes while, in one fell swoop, managing to destroy local government finance post-2015.
Mr Jamie Reed
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that high streets are about civic identity and elements of civic society. Does he think that the closure of NHS walk-in centres, police stations, courts and more in our high streets is helping or hindering them?
Brandon Lewis
Our high streets benefit from wider community access, whether that includes fire stations, the police, children’s centres, the NHS, retail, leisure or hospitality. The hon. Member for City of Durham says she wants the town centre to be the heart of the community and a real community hub. I applaud that. I am just not quite sure how, in the same speech, she managed to argue against that by proposing to ban conversion to residential, which brings more people to our high streets. The hon. Gentleman is right: people care deeply about their high streets because they are the centres of their community. We want to see vibrant, viable high streets where people live, shop, use services, and spend their leisure time, and that includes a safe night-time economy.
Jason McCartney
Will the Minister join me in saying how disappointing it was that the shadow Minister had nothing to say about car parking charges in the centres of our small towns? Labour-run Kirklees council still imposes inflexible car parking charges in Holmfirth, which is a small market town. No wonder shoppers go to Morrisons two miles down the road, where they can park for free. Will he encourage Labour-run Kirklees to be more flexible and have more supportive car parking charges?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a very good point; councils should look closely at their car parking charges, not least because, as they will know if they have any real business sense—I would hope that even a Labour council would seriously consider its future financing opportunities—successful high streets will drive business rates retention. However, for that they need footfall and for footfall all the evidence shows we need easy, cheap car parking.
I will take no lectures from Labour on our high streets.
Alex Cunningham
Stockton boasts the widest high street in England, and a major project to rejuvenate it is under way, thanks to a Labour local authority. Many organisations are involved, but the Post Office has opted to walk away from our high street, downgrading the service and burying it at the back of another shop. Does the Minister agree that the Post Office should be a partner in our high streets, instead of walking away?
Brandon Lewis
I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to be more persuasive about what is right for his community. In a range of communities, the Post Office is investing in high streets, including in mine in Great Yarmouth.
I will remind the House of Labour’s record on the high streets. It introduced 24-hour drinking laws. Its campaign in the 2001 election actually said:
“Couldn’t give a XXXX for last orders? Vote Labour on Thursday for extra time”.
It then gave our town centres a Jekyll and Hyde personality—quiet by day, often nasty and brutish by night—whereas this coalition Government have given more powers to councils to rein in the excesses of the late-night, vertical drinking establishments, while supporting well run, popular and safe community pubs. Labour pushed through the Gambling Act 2005—I am pleased to see the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who took it through the House, here today—leading to a rise in uncontrolled gaming, including addictive fixed odds betting terminals.
Bill Esterson
Government Members jumped up and down defending bookmakers earlier, but does the Minister agree that encouraging more bookies, which is what the legislative changes do, will put people off going to the high street and that those who visit the bookies only spend their money in the bookies and do not go to the other retailers?
Brandon Lewis
I do not think the evidence entirely backs that up, but I will let the hon. Gentleman discuss that with his right hon. Friend, who brought in the Act that created a lot of the problems. Online gambling, which the hon. Gentleman spoke about earlier, is part of what takes people away from the high street. I was disappointed to hear Opposition Members lambast some good, strong small businesses employing people and bringing money into our economy, including some of the fast food outlets, which are a phenomenally important part of the high street.
The deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), has since admitted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) said:
“I think we were wrong, we have made a mistake... it’s ruining people’s lives.”
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
I would not subscribe to the socialist vision for our high streets of allowing politicians and bureaucrats to decide what is suitable for them, but constituents of mine have expressed their concerns about the plethora of bookies. I wonder whether we should be unpicking some of the damage done by the previous Government’s Gambling Act and introducing a concept of saturation, which could be taken into account when the Gambling Commission makes licensing decisions.
Brandon Lewis
Councils have the power of article 4, but there is a wider issue about ensuring that our town centres are vibrant places that businesses want to be in, so that they are filled with the kind of retail, hospitality and leisure industries that consumers and residents want.
In response to the sedentary intervention just now from the right hon. Member for Tottenham, we are reviewing betting machines and have given our full support to councils, such as Labour-run Barking, to use their existing envelope of planning powers to tackle the community impact of betting shops.
Brandon Lewis
The simple answer is no. Those authorities are wrong: it simply does not. They need to go back and think much harder about changing their offer and doing what they believe is right for their communities. If that means using article 4, it is there for them to use.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Given the impact of the internet on shopping habits, does the Minister agree that councils have to work with their local town centres to maximise their use, which would include office use and leisure use, as well as shopping use?
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. I agree and will come to that in a few moments.
Labour made it more difficult to park in town centres—my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) has mentioned that point—with Whitehall guidance issued by John Prescott telling councils to cut the number of parking spaces, increase parking charges and hit drivers with fines. In 2008, the local government Minister, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), complained that councils were not using parking charges to their “full potential”. By the end of Labour’s time in office, 9 million parking fines a year were issued in England. What was the public’s response? Quite sensibly, they are taking their time to shop online or drive to out-of-town stores where they are not penalised for using their cars. That was Labour’s response to changing lifestyles and the internet—to make it as difficult as possible for people to shop in and visit our town centres.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
Does the Minister not accept that the elephant in the room is not the Secretary of State and his views on car parking, but business rates rapidly increasing and damaging small businesses?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Can we try to be a little more courteous to Members in all parts of the House?
Brandon Lewis
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will come to business rates in a moment, but when I talk to retailers, there are two key issues, one of which is how we get more footfall into town centres, and there is no getting away from the fact that parking has a key part to play in that.
As the hon. Member for City of Durham rightly said, the internet is not just a creative technology; it is changing retail dramatically. The fall of some retailers—household names that we all knew well, such as Blockbuster and the old HMV—was down to weaknesses in their business models and an inability to keep up with the pace of change. They struggled to adapt to modern behaviour and could not compete with the rise of the new online retailers, which now make up almost 15% of the market—a figure that experts say will rise exponentially. High streets have changed and must continue to do so. The best retailers and the best high streets and town centres are already looking at how they can and should adapt to become places where people live, shop, use services and spend their leisure time, but there are no quick and easy solutions. As hon. Members will know, that will take time.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
The Minister is making some excellent points. We need more diverse, innovative high streets. Does he agree that it might be a good idea to encourage colleges to open employment shops on high streets for young people?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a good point. In fact, on Monday I was in Bedford seeing how the town has integrated the educational establishments into the town centre. That is a good example of how to bring the whole community together.
Richard Fuller
As the proud Member for Bedford, may I thank the Minister for visiting the town on Monday with Mary Portas? She said three important things: that Bedford is a beautiful town, which it is, that we have a glorious river, which we do, and that the best way for towns to work is for the community to work together on its future, which we are doing. Does the Minister agree with those three points?
Brandon Lewis
It was clear on Monday how proud of Bedford the team rightly are. They have done some great work, and it was a wonderful place to visit and to see some of it.
Given the time, I want to make a bit of progress. Some recent research suggests that the vacancy rates on high streets are beginning to plateau, after about 20 years of decline. If that is true, we should celebrate that—and celebrate the great British high street—but we must also look to do more. The coalition Government are committed to helping communities to adapt. We believe that plans and ideas for town centres must come from local areas themselves. It is for councils, businesses and communities to decide what their high streets and town centres will look like. Government cannot and should not look to bail out or prop up ailing high street businesses with taxpayers’ money, nor should we just introduce new taxes—as has been suggested by the Opposition—to create a level playing field of misery. Higher taxes destroy jobs and undermine enterprise. Government must support local people, building skills and spreading best practice.
Mark Pawsey
Does the Minister agree that one way in which a community can effectively defend its town centre is to take a more positive attitude towards new housing development, which provides additional consumers for the shops in the centre of town?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a superb point about how we can improve footfall in our town centres by being flexible enough to allow people to live nearer to them and in and around them.
The Government are looking at building skills and spreading best practice, as well as doing everything we can at national level to support high street growth. That is why we invited Mary Portas, who has championed the British high street, to review the future of the nation’s high streets. She has done a phenomenal job of raising the profile of that issue around the country over the past few years. We took action following her review, providing communities with the means to establish Portas pilots and town teams across the country to test different approaches. We have put in place 27 Portas pilots and more that 350 town team partners, with funding and a defined support package for each of them.
Over the past year, the Government have worked closely with the Association of Town and City Management and with Business in the Community to support the Portas pilots and the town teams. The ATCM is making use of a £1 million fund to provide practical assistance to improve leadership, town team capabilities and partnership working, and to share learning and spread best practice. Business in the Community has set up a high street champions programme to give dedicated support to the Portas pilots on business engagement and mentoring. Businesses with a commitment to town centres provide support and encouragement to Portas pilots to help them to achieve their objectives.
The high street champions are working with their town teams to deliver positive change in their towns, and a lot has been achieved by the pilots and town teams. For example, Market Rasen has built a market from scratch, which earlier this year won a prestigious award for being Britain’s best small speciality market. Dartford has introduced Sunday trading with free parking and subsidised advertising. Stockton has launched a discounted business rates scheme for businesses that take over a vacant shop in the town centre. That is something that councils now have the power to do, thanks to this Government. Ipswich has a brave, large-scale master plan to reorient its high street so that it runs from east to west instead of from north to south. It is making the most of its assets to transform its existing town centre and its waterfront. A variety of mixed and leisure uses have been approved, and that has attracted further investment and created new employment opportunities. Those are just a handful of examples; there are many more great pieces of work being done around the country.
Mr Jamie Reed
I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is being generous with his time and it is appreciated. Will he tell me what specific support the Government are giving or intending to give to communities in areas of market failure that are being particularly affected by the public spending cuts that we have seen since 2010?
Brandon Lewis
As I have just said, councils and communities must look at what they can do. For example, councils could use powers to alter business rates, which the previous Government did not allow them to have. They could also do more in relation to parking. I will outline some more specific points in a moment.
Earlier this year, we established the future high streets forum, which brings together leaders from retail, property, academia, hospitality and local government. They include sector experts from organisations such as Boots, Costa Coffee, John Lewis and the Post Office. The forum is taking forward important work, looking at local leadership, at the barriers to and enablers of success, and at what the future high street will look like.
Simon Hughes
The Government have taken loads of really good initiatives, and the Minister is right to put them before the House today. It is also clear that some of Labour’s criticisms about gaming issues are completely misconceived, given that it was the Labour Government’s legislation that caused the problem. I supported the motion on reviewing use orders that was passed at our conference, and I hope that the Government will look seriously at the question of use orders in relation to betting establishments—
Simon Hughes
It is not what the motion is all about; it is one of the points in the motion. I am asking the Government to look into the question.
Brandon Lewis
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He will appreciate that, at the moment, the Government are not looking to create more regulation on the high street.
Andrew Griffiths
The Minister has mentioned the hospitality and leisure sectors on a number of occasions. He will know, through his magnificent work as the pubs Minister, the importance of the community pub. Does he agree that the night-time economy and the leisure sector play a massive role in revitalising our high streets and in providing jobs and opportunities for young people?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is important that we look at what a community needs and wants. Our high streets are changing into places where people go for a day out or a night out. While they are there, they might do some shopping, have something to eat, or go to a bar, a club or the local community pub. It is important to embrace that and not to try to have what can be inferred from earlier: some sort of socialist or Marxist control from the centre of what the high street can or cannot have, or of what we should facilitate in our high streets. The consumer and the customer will drive what the businesses want to provide. That is how to get a high street that serves its customers.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, although pubs are very important to our town centres and communities, they do not need to stay open until 4 o’clock in the morning to serve that purpose?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend has made that point on a range of occasions. It is an issue on which the authorities will have to decide in each individual case when they look at the licensing.
The sector specialists are putting their own time and expertise into this project; they are the ones best placed, with the best experience and knowledge of the market, to support and advise us and others on the programme of work. We are helping local people to adapt their high streets, making available new tools and powers. Through the planning system, we are removing barriers and we have set out a “town centre first” policy in the national planning policy framework. We want to see more people living in and near their town centres to make them more vibrant, but also to increase footfall. That could include bringing in housing or other business uses alongside the traditional retail offer.
In May, we introduced measures that allow property owners to take advantage of new rights for temporary changes of use. Those measures have been well received by developers. A recent survey of just 15% of councils by Planning magazine showed that there have been 262 prior approval applications for change of use from offices to residential in the first two to three months. That includes a number of applications to create over 100 new dwellings. The Labour party opposes those reforms, yet also opposes brownfield regeneration—providing badly needed new homes at no cost to the taxpayer. If the Labour party does not want more homes in our towns and cities, where should people go for them? These practical changes are already helping to boost the economy, but there is more we can do.
The sense of decline in some areas can be aggravated by the sight of closed or run-down shops. A public consultation has just closed on further relaxations of change of use. We want to unlock the potential of underused and unused retail premises while providing much needed homes at the same time. More people living closer to or in town centres will increase footfall and boost local shops and businesses. We also want to allow retail premises to change to banks and building societies, delivering more branches on the high street and encouraging more choice and more competition for consumers. By contrast, Labour’s planning policies mean more red tape, higher costs for business, and more boarded-up, empty shops.
As well as cutting excessive regulation, this Government are easing the tax burden on small shops. From April 2014, every business and charity will be entitled to an allowance against their national insurance contributions bill each year. That will reduce the costs of employment, supporting small businesses as they grow. We have doubled small business rate relief until 2014, and made it easier to claim. Since 2010—and it is important to put this in context—the level of relief given has trebled from £333 million to £900 million. We have cut corporation tax, whereas Labour wants to hike it for successful companies.
Let us compare the record of this Government with that of the last Government.
Labour opposed making it easier to claim small business rate relief; we changed the law to make it easier to claim, and doubled the rate relief for four years. Labour hiked up business rates on empty properties, with no offsetting reduction elsewhere; we are introducing a new rate relief for empty new build to help to kick-start development. Labour imposed retrospective business rate hikes on England’s ports; we scrapped Labour’s unfair port tax. I recognise, however, that there is still more to do on business rates, which we will balance with the need to pay off Labour’s vast deficit. At a time when businesses are looking to grow and help the economy recover, tax stability is vital.
Mr Lammy
I want to drag the Minister off ports and back to the high street. The Government are doing a review of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, and the Minister will be aware of the destruction caused to many of our high streets across the country. In those circumstances, it is right for people to receive compensation in relation to a crime that was no fault of their own. Will he report back to us on where that review has got to? It would be devastating for high streets if we got rid of that compensation.
Brandon Lewis
That is also why it is important that we ensure, in every part of the country, and especially where the riots caused damage, that we get high streets working, bringing back vitality and business. It is also why we postponed the revaluation until 2017, helping to avoid sharp changes and unexpected hikes in rates bills over the next five years. The biggest beneficiaries from a 2015 revaluation would not have been small shops, including in the north of England, but prime office space in London. City banks would have seen plummeting bills, while everyone else would have faced soaring bills to pay for it. We have cut taxes for small firms and small shops, and we are encouraging innovation. Pop-up shops are a great way for start-up businesses to enter the high street. We have provided support through practical advice on how to set up pop-up shops. My Department even has its own pop-up shop, which I commend to hon. Members wondering what Christmas presents to buy this year.
We have also backed the “Love your local market” campaign. This year’s campaign in May was almost twice the size of the first. More than 700 places ran 3,500 markets in England, and many people took the opportunity to try trading for the first time. Dates have already been announced for 2014, so “Love your local market” is well on its way to becoming an annual event. Markets have an important part to play in a vibrant town centre. We will do our part by continuing to put in place the framework that will allow local government, businesses and communities to develop their own vision and solutions, driven by their circumstances and needs.
We are keen to see the creation of more business improvement districts, given their significant potential to revitalise town centres. We have also consulted on plans for property owners to have a greater role in revitalising their high streets though their involvement in business improvement districts. This week I was delighted to announce that British BIDs will be operating the £500,000 business improvement districts loan fund. The fund is now open for business and will be offering loans up to £50,000 to prospective districts that want help with set-up costs.
We cannot avoid one important fact. For many people going to a town centre, there is a need to park. Parking is vital to modern high streets. Councils must recognise the influence of their parking policies on the viability of high streets, and adjust those policies accordingly. We are taking steps to tackle the draconian parking charges and enforcement that we inherited. We have removed previous requirements in planning guidance to set parking fees that are designed specifically to discourage car use. Our guidance now encourages authorities to set competitive charges, and to ensure that parking in town centres is convenient, safe, secure and affordable. Our new national online planning guidance, issued for public testing and comment in August, encourages councils to provide more town centre parking spaces and to end anti-shopper practices.
However, there is still more to do. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Communities and Local Government and for Transport jointly announced last month that the Government will publish details of further reforms.
Mr Jamie Reed
Will the Minister offer a Marxist solution with regard to what happens in those communities where town centre parking is principally owned by private sector interests?
Brandon Lewis
I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman would be so against the private sector, which is what develops businesses and creates jobs. After 13 years, under the previous Government, of decline and failure to deal with the issues, this Government have put together a package of measures to take matters forward. We are now seeing exciting things happening in town centres across the country, with forward-thinking councils—generally, good Conservative councils—developing their town centres for their residents, to give them a product they want to use.
As I said, my right hon. Friends are looking at further reforms, including stopping CCTV spy cars being used for on-street parking enforcement. We also intend to consult on updating parking enforcement guidance to support local shops, and on issues such as tackling wrongly issued fines, reviewing unnecessary yellow lines and increasing the grace period for parking offences. We will empower local residents and councillors, and stand up for hard-pressed shops.
Despite 13 years of Labour Government efforts to control everything from the centre, we should all recognise that there is only so much that Government can do. Councils should work to encourage and support high streets by using the powers they already have, particularly on business rates and parking. Local government, businesses and communities need to work together to create their local version of the future high street that is right for their community, harnessing the energy and enthusiasm of local people who best understand the unique needs and opportunities of their community, rather than having a one-size-fits-all approach.
The Opposition motion goes in the wrong direction for our high streets and our country. The coalition Government are standing up for local shops and local shoppers, with lower charges, lower taxes and less red tape. We are giving a helping hand to allow our town centres to thrive and prosper in a modern age. I urge the House to reject the motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I forgot to mention that I am imposing a seven-minute speaking limit.
Dame Joan Ruddock
That was a deeply depressing speech from the Minister. He has done absolutely nothing to deal with the issues affecting my high street. I should mention that in 2005, Deptford high street was voted the best high street in London. We really do have a problem with the Minister and his Government.
Two years ago, I presented a 10-minute rule Bill to amend the use classes order. I did so because of a petition signed by 1,000 people who lived close to the high street, and who were amazed that the council could do nothing to stop the proliferation of betting shops. There were seven in the high street itself, and five in adjoining streets. We noticed an increase in drug dealing, drunkenness, abusive behaviour, begging and intimidation. Unlike the financial institutions that they had replaced—the banks and the building societies—the new occupiers stayed open for longer hours and throughout the weekend, including Sundays. The character of our high street has been seriously damaged by the behaviour of people using those facilities.
Alex Cunningham
Does my right hon. Friend think that the Government actually understand the havoc that betting shops and local loan shops are wreaking on many people’s lives? We do not need any more of them. Is it not time that we were tougher on them, and started to promote proper shops instead?
Dame Joan Ruddock
Absolutely. I think that the Minister made it obvious that he does not understand what is going on.
At the time, all our objections related to betting shops. The bookmakers themselves denied the association between betting shop clusters and antisocial behaviour, yet there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. A leaked memo from William Hill instructs staff
“not to contact the police when…customers…damage machines…to reduce the number of reports to the police”.
So we really know that there is a problem in our high streets. It is clear to me that the planning laws need to be strengthened in the interests of local people, and not done away with in the way that the Government propose.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I have heard that recently, in East Ham high street, someone smashed up a machine and there was no report to the police for exactly the reason that my right hon. Friend has mentioned: the betting shop chain wants to minimise the number of reports to the police of antisocial behaviour.
Dame Joan Ruddock
The people who own such premises will not take responsibility, and in some senses they are unable to do so. That is the problem. Where there are betting shop clusters, there is associated antisocial behaviour, and none of us has the powers to tackle it. As my right hon. Friend says, even the police are not being informed. It is an absolute scandal.
When the local campaign began, the concern was entirely about betting shops. Why did the financial institutions leave our community? They left because they were not making enough money, because people in Deptford do not have enough money to enable banks and building societies to thrive. So what do we have now? We have institutions that are taking the very money that those people did not have in the first place. As I have said, it is an absolute scandal.
Let me put the situation in context. Lewisham is the 31st borough in England in the indices of multiple deprivation. That is very serious. Two of the wards that cover the high street are among the 10% most deprived in England. Is this, I ask the Minister, a community that needs betting shops and payday lenders? Is this not in fact people preying on the most vulnerable in our society and causing them to lead lives that are even more wretched than some of them were in the beginning? We find this utterly unacceptable, and the Minister has given us no hope today that he is going to do anything about it. [Interruption.] Yes, he is making it worse.
Let me spell it out. In Deptford High street, Nos. 14, 37, 38 to 40, 44, 48 to 50, 52, 60, 70, 72, 93 to 95, 175 and 206 are all either a betting shop, a payday loan shop or a pawn shop. Does the Minister honestly believe this is what local people want? Is this not the Government again refusing to act in the interests of local people, and backing big business against small traders?
Having said all those negative things, we have a very vibrant and robust community, with people who want to see their community thrive, who want to open small businesses, who want to shop in small businesses, and who have organised among themselves an annual Deptford X festival, as we have lots of artists in the area. This is a community that deserves better from this Government. We have a new library, we have a new school, we have a new public square; they are all sitting there on the high street. We have done many of the things the Minister urges local authorities to do. Currently, the Lewisham local authority is spending a grant from the Mayor of London with match funding of £2 million, but I ask the Minister this: what is the point of doing all that and at the same time ruining the high street through this proliferation of very undesirable businesses? I am not against gambling, and I have certainly borrowed money myself—although not at the rates of interest of payday loaners—but there is a limit to how many of these shops we actually need in any one place, and the limit needs to be set.
Government Ministers promised to take us seriously. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and I had several debates in which Ministers stood there and said they would take the issue seriously, that they understood it, and that something would be done. The Conservative website promises to
“put…power in the hands of local people”
and describes the big society as promising
“a massive transfer of power from Whitehall to local communities.”
What hypocrisy is this!
Local people are crying out for a change in policy to end the ruination of our high streets and to return the high streets to places with the diversity and vibrancy that our community and many others have to offer. Nothing less than Labour’s proposals to do something about the use classes order, to create a situation whereby a local council can respond to local needs, is going to solve the problems and meet the wishes of local people.
The Minister needs to explain to us tonight why under this Government local people can have no say in their local community development and their local high street, and not have their wishes for their shopping patterns and the needs of their community met. That is the challenge to this Government, and they need to say something better than what the Minister said in his opening speech tonight.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
I commend the Opposition on bringing forward this motion. This is a timely debate and I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute. I wish to make two points, but first please allow me to say that in the last Parliament, in ancient history, I chaired a commission on the whole business of strategies for successful town centres. My foreword started by saying:
“Our town and city centres lie at the heart of our communities and are as vital to their health as the heart is to the body.”
That explains my commendation to the Opposition for choosing this debate.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a valid point. Does he accept that it was the Conservatives who allowed out-of-town shopping centres, which have been the reason for the town centres in my area collapsing as places of retail opportunity?
Mr Binley
I understand the point about out-of-town shopping centres, and I will come to that, but neither party in government has anything to crow about in this direction. I urge this Government to be more positive. Turning this into a party political battle does not help when we analyse the real causes, but I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question.
I wish to make two simple points, the first of which is about the high rents and leases in town centres, especially in relation to out-of-town developments. Business rates on non-domestic properties on the high street are still massively too high. We have not caught up with the point that the hon. Gentleman was making, which was that the value of retail sites has moved yet we still think our town centres are the thumping heart of retail. If we continue to think that, we will drive retailers out of town centres completely. So we need to be very aware of business rates on non-domestic properties in high streets, which are still too high. They are also based on pre-credit-crunch valuations, so let us get real.
Bill Esterson
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about business rates. Recently, I had to write to the Minister about the Valuation Office Agency and the long delays faced by some businesses. Does he agree that that has been a problem? The hon. Gentleman mentioned the pre-credit-crunch valuations. Does he agree that urgent action needs to be taken to deal with that problem? The Government have stepped in on individual cases, but as a general point it is a real problem.
Mr Binley
I cannot make the point I made about businesses being driven out of town centres because of high rates without accepting the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I am happy to do so.
Small business rate relief is still made a mystery to many local businesses in our town centres. We have not given it the push it needs and deserves, and many of the opportunities remain unclaimed by small businesses. I urge the Government, and us all, to do more to bring small business rate relief to the attention of many small businesses which have struggled through the recession and now see light at the end of the tunnel but need all the help they can get. Similarly, small businesses are less equipped to deal with red tape and with the lease negotiations than large retailers and their resources.
Many leases still include upward-only rent reviews and we have to do something about that. We have talked about it in this place for a very long time but it is crazy that many businesses under great pressure, one of which I am dealing with in Northampton at the moment, have leases with upward-only rent reviews. I appeal to local government and to local property owners to recognise the iniquity of such clauses in leases.
Out-of-town developments have, of course, been a problem for town centres. Between 2008 and 2012—so both Front-Bench teams are implicated—approximately 2.4 million square metres of additional shopping centre retail space were added to the planning department’s work. Both Governments are responsible, and we should not try to knock spots off each other on this issue. Both Governments are responsible for adding out-of-town retail space in massive amounts. We need to recognise the impact that that has on our town centres, as I have said before.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the particular problems arises where the council owns the plot on which people wish to build their new out-of-town centre and will get the money from their doing so?
Mr Binley
I always agree with my hon. Friend and I am grateful for his support in this area of policy.
Having said that out-of-town development has been immensely harmful, not least in the imbalance of valuation of rate, I shall come on to the damage done by local government. Councils have been the major enemy of our town centres for 30 years. That applies to Labour councils, Liberal councils and Conservative councils. Let me explain why. They have allowed the gradual decline through ring roads, isolating town centres and making it difficult for people to get there. I have already made the point about out-of-town developments. Parking charges have been seen as revenue income, although parking areas were built as a service to shoppers. At last our councils are beginning to appreciate that. Building parking areas on the other side of the ring road so that shoppers have to push their trolley across the ring road does not make a great deal of sense from a planning perspective.
Poor planning—piecemeal planning—has denuded our town centres dramatically. One of the problems is that a new planning officer will come along with his own little pet scheme, which he will implement without any reference to the heritage of the town or the style of the building. Planning officers are supposed to be the protectors of our heritage, our good open spaces and our buildings, yet they too have been a disaster for 30 years in many of our town centres. I know people who have gone down to their town centre, managed to get across the ring road, seen the new developments and felt that it was not their town at all. The new development gave no understanding of the heritage of the town.
We need local government to recognise that it has a responsibility to ensure that our town centres are more user-friendly, to ensure that people can get in and out of them easily, to ensure that parking charges are low so that people can come in to shop, and to ensure that we bring people back into our town centres. Too many local government offices have been shoved outside with that new retail development. There is much more that we can do. If anybody wants to read the report, I would be delighted.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on gaining responsibility for the Government’s high street policy. I take the opportunity to declare an interest. Later this year, before Christmas, I am opening a high street shop. My wife and I are establishing Danczuk’s Delicatessen on Rochdale’s high street. You are invited to come and try our wares, Mr Speaker, as are other Members.
Let me start by talking about Rochdale’s high street. It is suffering just as much as many others across the United Kingdom. It has an average number of empty shops, but it lacks diversity. We have too many charity shops, too many “cash a cheque” shops and far too many payday loan companies. Our problems are similar to those in other towns, of course, because the overall problem is the economy. The Government have presided over a faltering and, at best, flatlining economy. That is what is causing the failure on our high streets.
I want to make an important point: the growth in underemployment and the increase in temporary, part-time jobs, zero-hours contracts and low-paid work all feed through to the high street. The nature of that work is the cause of the growth in the number of pawnbrokers and payday loan companies on the high street, and not just in Rochdale, but in towns and cities across the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) referred to the Local Data Company’s research, rightly published today, which shows that although chain stores and multiples are in decline, the number of independent retailers is increasing. That shows—again, this is a reflection of the economy—that the people who have been made redundant over the past couple of years have used their redundancy money to be entrepreneurial and to set up shops. I do not decry that point, because it is an effect of what has been going on in the economy, but it has caused churn and flux on our high streets.
Another important point about the economy is the living standards crisis that the Government have caused. They cannot take £1,500 a year off the average working family and expect that not to have an impact on the high street. The consequence is a major drop in consumer confidence, and it has certainly changed shopping habits. That, too, is having a direct impact.
I admit that it is not all the Government’s fault—internet shopping has had an impact, of course—but I believe that they have a laissez-faire attitude towards our high streets and that is causing many of the problems. We have seen their Portas review. The problem is that it has not had much of an impact. They ignored Mary Portas’s comments on business rates, which I think was a mistake. The Portas pilots and the review have now become mired in problems and scandals about how much she was paid by Channel 4 and whether Channel 4 and the programme producers had any involvement in liaising with the Department about where the pilots should be. What I think the Government have learned from that episode is that reality TV is no way to develop Government policy.
The Government would do better by listening to Bill Grimsey’s alternative high street review. He talks about the need for stronger local leadership, better local analysis of what is going on in local areas and better use of technology on the high street. Most importantly, he calls for a radical overhaul of business rates. To illustrate that point, we learned yesterday that inflation now means that business rates will increase in April by 3.2%. According to my analysis, that will add an extra £200 million to the bills of hard-pressed retailers—not all business; just retailers. The truth is that we pay the highest property taxes in the European Union. By 2015 the Treasury will have received more receipts from business rates than from council tax.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
In the light of what my hon. Friend is saying, does he agree that Labour’s pledge to cut and then freeze business rates would help 1.5 million small businesses and give local shops and retailers a real boost?
Simon Danczuk
My hon. Friend is correct. That is an extremely important point. That cut will help significantly. I have seen the damage this is doing in my constituency. For examples, my local fish and chip shop recently closed and the premises are being advertised with a rent of £6,000 per annum, but the business rates are £18,722 per annum.
Mark Pawsey
Given what the hon. Gentleman says, is he disappointed that the motion makes no mention of reforming the business rates system?
Simon Danczuk
Business rates are clearly mentioned in the motion, and Labour Front Benchers have made it clear that there will be a review of business rates under a Labour Government.
Postponing the revaluation of business rates does nothing to help small businesses. Because of this postponement, retailers in Rochdale are subsidising retailers on Regent street in London. That is unacceptable. The Government often say that rate relief can be a subsidy, but it does not even apply to the vast majority of retailers right across this country. According to the Office for National Statistics, in the period between this Government coming to power and 2015, businesses will pay an extra £6.5 billion in business rates on top of what they were already paying.
The Government and the Minister need to listen to what is being said. Let me give some examples. The hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) has spoken about this and, I understand, has written to the Chancellor asking him to speed up the revaluation of business rates. This week the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo) has written in his local newspaper that he is going to speak to the Communities and Local Government Secretary about the problem with business rates. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) has said that business rates are causing real problems and need urgent reform. The hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) has said that business rates should be linked to the consumer prices index rather than the retail prices index. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) has said:
“Friends in the Treasury should consider freezing business rates…and give a fighting chance to small businesses.”
The fact will not be missed that all those hon. Members are Conservatives. It is not only Opposition Members who think that business rates should be radically reformed, revised and changed to help small businesses; Government Members think so too.
Let me conclude by echoing the good point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). When the Labour leader recently announced that a future Labour Government would first reduce business rates and then freeze them, Bill Grimsey, a well-known local retailer, said that Labour was the first party to demonstrate that it gets it. When will the Government get it and cut business rates?
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I want to start in consensual mode by congratulating the tablers of the motion and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on putting business rates firmly on the agenda.
I have had many discussions about the high street with traders and experts such as landlords and agents. I serve on the Communities and Local Government Committee, as does the hon. Gentleman. We have interviewed Mary Portas, civil servants, and Ministers of all shapes and sizes. We have talked about the threat of the internet, the perennial problem of parking, out-of-town shopping, pop-up shops, council policy and the like, but again and again we get back to business rates, which make it hard for businesses to start in the high street and hard for them to survive when the going gets tough.
The Federation of Small Businesses has raised this issue, as have the retail sector bodies. They are concerned not only about the actual rate but, as the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) said, about the problems of revaluation and appeals against current valuations, which take an inordinate amount of time. When I raised revaluation during Business, Innovation and Skills questions not long ago, I think in the previous Session, the Minister, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), said, more or less—I paraphrase—“Be careful what you wish for: they may go up.” I cannot help thinking that he lives in a parallel universe or does not visit the high street all that often.
Fortunately, that is only part of the Government’s policy; other aspects have been outlined. I very much support the move to localise business rates. I like the continuation of support for the previous Government’s policy of business improvement districts. We are getting one in Southport and I hope it will be very successful. It certainly promises much and is well organised at the moment. However, they do not provide a reduction in business rates, and that is what is now required. I understand that in the latest spending round the Business Secretary considered moving on, or reducing, high street rateable values.
Mr Donohoe
The rates for a small restaurant in the shopping mall in my area are £30,000, but the mall owner has put the rent at £30,000 as well, so the overall cost—not just the rates—is impacting on the business, which has to make £60,000 a year before it can start to make a profit.
John Pugh
The problem, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, is very specific. If we give a discount or make any kind of reduction to high street retail rates, will that include the whole retail sector and the out-of town sector? If we give it to the high street, will we also want to give it to Tesco Express? The Government have to face up to those legitimate problems.
As the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) said, very little money is being made on the high street at present, and the amount of money that was made in the past will never be made again. The big chains recognise that and are altering their retail model. They have reduced their high street presence and will not come back in the same numbers. Ultimately, we cannot ignore that issue, but we cannot address it locally.
In some way or another, we must look to the Government to come up with a solution. That will involve the Department for Communities and Local Government, which, judging from its comments so far, is relatively sympathetic; the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which is broadly sympathetic, unless it is lobbied hard by the big traders; and, specifically, the Treasury, which can be fairly unbending on this subject. The Minister needs to set up a cross-departmental meeting that involves the retail sectors, joins up the initiatives—not the silly ones, such as those centred on parking on double yellow lines—and takes action on rates. If the Minister does that, I think he will become the hero of the high street. The high street can get more savvy with the web, diversify more, hold more events and extend or vary its hours, but with the albatross of business rates around its neck it simply cannot thrive.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) and to participate in this debate. I regret the partisan tone used by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) with regard to this important matter and in response to the constructive approach taken by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) towards the real problems faced by communities up and down the country. Back Benchers have taken a more conciliatory approach.
Town centres and our high streets matter: they give us our sense of place, they tell us who we are and they tell us a bit about the history of our communities. People care passionately for them for those reasons. My constituency has lots of little shopping areas and four main shopping town centres. Crownpoint in Denton is the largest shopping centre, followed by Houldsworth square in Reddish, King street in Dukinfield and Haughton Green village. They all face different challenges and have done for the past 25 years or more.
On planning changes, which have been touched on by the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), the trend for out-of-town shopping had a catastrophic effect on two of the town centres, namely Denton and King street. It started in the 1980s with the planning free-for-all that led to a large rise in the number of out-of-town shopping centres. The construction of an out-of-town Sainsbury’s in Denton led to a dramatic decrease in town centre trade at Crownpoint, and the construction of a Morrisons in Dukinfield and an Asda in Ashton-under-Lyne—on either side of King street—led to a dramatic decline in trade on the traditional shopping street in Dukinfield.
Richard Fuller
Presumably those places were built and have succeeded because that is how people want to shop. It is now very difficult to unbuild them. What is the hon. Gentleman’s answer? Does he want to change the decisions that people make about how and where they shop?
Andrew Gwynne
Absolutely not. I was going to make the point that these are long-term trends. We cannot put the genie back in the bottle. However, we cannot get away from the fact that the way in which we shop has changed and one reason for that is the rise in the number of out-of-town shopping centres.
Mr Binley
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we could have made our town centres much more user-friendly and retail-friendly than they are? I recognise that out-of-town centres are demand driven, but we could have made the retail offer better in our town centres and we have failed to do so.
Andrew Gwynne
We absolutely could.
The attempt to put the genie back in the bottle led the previous Government to introduce the sequential test, which meant that town centre retail development was prioritised and only if developments could not be accommodated in the town centre could developers look at edge-of-centre or out-of-centre sites. That was an important change.
The first political campaign that I got involved in as a newly elected councillor in 1996 was against the decision to close Denton post office, which was located on the market square. We lost that battle and Denton post office moved into the Co-op store on the other side of the town centre. Overnight, that market lost 25% of its footfall and it never recovered. Fewer traders came, fewer shoppers came, still fewer traders came and by 2008, the council had to close Denton market.
I am really stating the obvious in saying that shopping habits have changed over the years. My grandparents did a daily food shop. Very few people today have that routine. My parents would do a weekly shop and might have gone to the shops on a daily basis for odds and ends. Today, we buy in bulk. This debate is not just about the rise in internet shopping; the way in which we live our lives has changed fundamentally.
Although I agree with the hon. Member for Northampton South about the impact of planning decisions and about rents and rates, I disagree with him on the role of local government. There is some very good practice out there. I will spend a few minutes talking about two examples in my constituency. Labour-controlled Tameside metropolitan borough council has established town teams in its five main town centres of Ashton-under-Lyne, Denton, Droylsden, Hyde and Stalybridge. Those are not Portas pilots, but were established on the initiative of the council. They are all different in their make-up and have different priorities for their town centres.
I suppose that I should declare an interest as a proud member of the Denton town team. We have developed a vision for Denton that is unique to Denton. We have organised some town team events. We had a party in Victoria park over the summer to celebrate the centenary of that fine piece of civic open space, we are holding an Oktoberfest this month and we have started to organise the Christmas lights and events for the town centre.
More importantly, the town team has led an initiative to create a new pop-up shop in Denton town centre. We had a “Dragons’ Den”-style competition to design and build a new modular shop. Bill Jennings, the chair of the Denton town team, has worked with the council and the local college on that competition. The winning entry has been built and the planning permission has been granted for a piece of wasteland opposite what used to be Denton’s market square. The new pop-up shop will be a confectioners where one can buy traditional sweets out of a jar, such as a quarter—I still use old money—of midget gems. Those are the initiatives being led by Denton town team.
The issue is not only about occupancy rates, however, and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham is right about the over-concentration of uses, as that changes the vibrancy and vitality of our shopping streets. In Denton, the problem is less one of payday lenders and bookmakers than of takeaways. Takeaways are great, and in the evening the main street is thriving and vibrant. During the day, however, the shutters are down, which gives an impression that Denton in the day time is closed for business. We must consider how to deal with that.
In my final minute I want to talk about the Stockport part of my constituency. Stockport is a Portas pilot town, but the part I represent—Reddish—is concerned that it might be overlooked because of the concentration on Stockport town centre. In partnership with businesses in Reddish, town councillors have established the Reddish business forum. That is a different approach from the one taken by the Tameside part of my constituency, but it is having a big impact. Businesses are driving changes to the high street around Houldsworth square in Reddish so that they do not get left behind. They have organised a fantastic arts festival—ReddFest—which has been running for three years, and they have held markets and community events on Houldsworth square. It is working; that is best practice—local government working with business for local communities. Those local communities have the answers and we must trust them to deliver. That is why I commend the contribution made by those on the Labour Front Bench. This is about empowering our local communities to do the right thing for our town centres.
Mr Speaker
Order. To try to accommodate all remaining colleagues who are interested in speaking in the debate, I must reduce the time limit for each Back-Bench speech to five minutes, with immediate effect.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I welcome today’s debate because we can all agree that high streets and town and city centres are vital to local economies, and I put it to the House that this Government are committed to seeing them improve. The issues faced by our town centres did not start in 2010. There were concerns in the high street well before then, and I do not recall any initiatives to support town centres from the Labour party when it was in government.
I will focus my remarks on the threat to town centres from out-of-town retail and internet shopping, both of which did not start only three years ago. Given the threat from out-of-town retail, it is right to have a “town centre first” policy, and last year when considering the national planning policy framework, the Communities and Local Government Committee was insistent that such a policy should be included. It is important to ensure that if development can take place in a town centre, it should do so over development on other sites. I am often asked why I am so supportive of a “town centre first” policy, but anyone who has visited the United States, where there are few planning controls, will see holed-out town and city centres, with doughnutted different shopping developments round the outside.
My constituency of Rugby is faced with an interesting dilemma, namely the proposed redevelopment of an existing out-of-town centre, with a firm commitment for a department store to be located out of town. In Rugby we have aspired to a department store for more than 30 or 40 years—I well remember a vacant site in the town centre awaiting such a development, but it did not come. We now have the opportunity to take that development out of town, or not at all, and I regret that we will be doing the right thing in taking it out of town. I will speak later about the importance of accepting new housing and how that can support retail. The proposal from my local authority to accept new housing means that we will have sufficient customers both for the enhancement of existing out-of-town retail, and to support our existing town centre.
Reference has been made to internet shopping. That is increasingly becoming the norm and town centres must adapt. Broadly, I believe that if 12% or 15% of retail purchases are conducted over the internet, town centres must reduce the size of the shopping available by a similar amount. The alternative is to grow a population. If we grow our population, we can defend the size of our existing town centre. A progressive Conservative council in Rugby is building 1,300 new homes at the gateway site. Further developments will result in 6,200 new homes. Communities cannot legitimately speak of their disappointment with high street decline if they are unwilling to accept the need for additional new housing in their areas.
On high street development, I welcome the Mary Portas review. The Communities and Local Government Committee looked closely at her report. I was pleased that she drew attention to the fact that what happens in town centres is about much more than businesses, and that we need to look at our town centres from a wider perspective, considering open spaces, libraries, coffee shops and the night-time economy. Although she has received criticism for failing to follow through on her proposals, she should be praised for highlighting those things and for engaging in discussions on the future of our town centres.
The motion refers to localism and criticises the Government, but which party pioneered the localism agenda and introduced the Localism Act 2011? This Government have given power to more people.
Mr Marcus Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that neighbourhood planning has made a massive difference to localism, and that it can be applied to our town centres and high streets?
Mark Pawsey
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have a frontrunner in neighbourhood planning in my constituency, which is looking into the provision of local retail.
Localism could have happened at any time in the 13 years under Labour, but it did not. It is rich of Labour Members to lecture the Government on the local agenda when they centralised power with the national planning policy framework. As my hon. Friend has said, neighbourhood plans give local communities a greater say in what happens in their high streets.
The motion mentions betting shops. One question Labour Members need to answer is whether they would prefer a vacant unit or a betting shop that brings people and life into the town centre.
There is no denying that the future of the high street and our town centres is an urgent matter. It is entirely right that we should discuss it today. It is important that local authorities have a progressive attitude and take positive steps to bring forward development that sustains life within town centres.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
My constituency has a string of individual settlements with local high streets or estate precinct shopping provision. The high streets in Middlesbrough and East Cleveland face two challenges—one long-standing challenge and another relatively recent one.
The long-standing challenge is out-of-town shopping, which began in my area under the previous Conservative Government, when the Teesside Development Corporation built Teesside shopping park. We acknowledge that that was a good thing for the local area and that it provided lots of employment, but in the short to medium term, there was no plan for high streets in Middlesbrough, East Cleveland and Stockton to deal with the effects of out-of-town shopping, an American phenomenon.
The second challenge is the growth of web-based retailing, with goods delivery to the door. Neither threat can be engineered out of existence. They are a fact of life enshrined in past planning decisions and the advance of new technology. Therefore, if our local high streets in Guisborough, Loftus, Skelton and Brotton are to survive as proper retail outlets, and not just as monolithic parades of hot food takeaways, betting shops and charity outlets, imaginative thinking is required. We need both to be flexible with our built high street environment and to have the support mechanisms to ensure that high streets are allowed to remain competitive.
One concern is the erosion, as a result of cuts to local council funding and changes to the regeneration framework imposed in the name of blind ideology, of the support that local authorities and regeneration agencies could provide. One example of that erosion can be seen in the main shopping area in my constituency, Guisborough, where support from the local authority, Redcar and Cleveland borough council, in the shape of help from borough-wide high street managers, is no more. An ambitious programme underpinned by the then regional development agency, the market towns initiative, has disappeared along with the RDA.
We are also hampered by a lack of support from the finance and insurance industries regarding the conversion of upper floors of older retail premises, where traditionally a 1900s shopkeeper and his family lived. New housing is hampered by soaring insurance premiums, as insurers declare that such occupation provides a security risk to the shop below, even though the new families could provide a form of watchman service if there were attempts at intrusion.
The worst threat comes from the approach of the Department for Communities and Local Government, which sees any form of development and occupancy, however much it would harm the ambience, style, attractiveness and vitality of the high street and the traditional retailers, as necessary to provide fig leaf support for the proposition that the Government’s economic policies are bearing fruit—even if that fruit is a poisoned apple for neighbouring businesses. Successive changes to use class orders and permitted development rights are eroding the powers needed by local authorities and local communities to shape their high streets and town centres to reflect local needs, demands and aspirations. The changes to once unquestioned and accepted planning rules are making it possible for payday lenders, betting shops and fast food takeaways to open without getting the kind of planning permission which, complete with provisions, enabled a balanced stance to change and development in a retail setting.
Imposing a laissez-faire approach that deregulates change of use so that no such permissions are required merely leads to bad neighbour problems for everyone and encourages fly-by-night forms of unsustainable development that cash in on passing social trends, with no thought to encouraging organic change for the better in the host setting. One such example is the spread of pawnbrokers and cheque-cashing outlets as a result of widespread poverty and the need to realise assets simply to get some cash to feed a family. Such changes are often cumulative—one outlet selling cheap booze or hot food takeaways is often followed by a competitor. The same is true of the finance industry, which has followed a pattern of migration from a specific A2 business enclave to a former Al shop front entry high street presence, thus suffocating the chance of niche retailers opening in their stead.
Use class orders have been vital to protecting public health. It is the application of such orders by local councils, including those in my constituency, that has barred hot food takeaways from opening near school gates. Without such controls, that could again become a problem and have a long-term detrimental impact on children’s health. As I know from my constituency postbag, such matters are high on the agenda of concern for my constituents. It is far better to keep some forms of control regarding the use and make-up of our high streets, while at the same time tackling the real problems facing small retailers: constant increases in business rates, lack of any real tangible support from bankers and insurers, and constant rent increases that are often determined by remote financial institutions such as big pension funds, which seek to maximise income at the expense of quality of life.
Labour’s pledge to cut and then freeze business rates will help 1.5 million small businesses, many of which are in retail premises. That will give local shops a real boost, unlike the pursuit of the chimera of a laissez-faire, kick-start approach that exists only within the heads of Government Front Benchers.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
I welcome today’s debate. High streets and town centres are vital to every constituency. Many that were once vibrant face immense challenges from the pressures of structural change, such as the year-on-year double-digit growth in online retail and the continued growth of out-of-town retail. I had hoped that the motion would contain helpful measures, but it seems to be concerned with political ideology set on dictating to individuals what they might want, rather than providing the answers to the problems that our high streets and town centres face.
I commend the Government for removing permitted development rights, which are referred to in the motion, from our town centres. One of the biggest issues we have is an oversupply of retail and office space, particularly in secondary areas—a problem that a lot of people do not like to admit. There is a lack of footfall in these areas and a lack of maximisation of available time. For example, there is often not a very good early evening economy. It is an excellent idea, therefore, to allow landlords to turn commercial property into residential property. We need far more people to live in most town centres to create that footfall and that early-evening economy.
As for limiting certain use classes, there is a real risk of unintended consequences. Across the country, many of our struggling town centres have more of the use classes that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) mentioned, so what she advocates could destabilise town centres. Of the use classes the Opposition have a problem with, one is payday lending. I must admit that I am not too keen on payday lending; it has its place, but the regulation needs to be looked at. The Government are doing that, however, and that is a far better way of dealing with payday lending than saying, “You can’t be in a particular town centre because of planning regulations.” I mentioned the structural change in retailing, but there has been a structural change in bookmaking too; bookmakers have shifted from the periphery and secondary areas to primary areas, because as town centres have become more difficult to fill, landlords have reduced rents, bringing bookmakers on to the high street. We need to consider both industries carefully, because we do not want to end up with more empty shops, fewer jobs and less VAT, national insurance and corporation tax being paid.
Mark Pawsey
Would my hon. Friend rather see a vacant unit or one occupied by a bookmaker?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is for individuals to choose whether to use bookmakers, but there is obviously a market for them and they create jobs on the high street. At the end of the day, would we rather have somewhere empty and possibly boarded up, or a bookmaker? I know which I would choose. I would choose to have the property occupied. The Opposition Front-Bench team grimace, but from how they have been talking about our high streets and town centres, one would think there was 100% occupancy and that these businesses were forcing out other businesses. If the hon. Member for City of Durham came out to high streets and town centres across the country, she would know that high streets are struggling and that there are a lot of empty units. Those businesses are not forcing people out, as she insinuates.
I know from speaking to local businesses that business rates are a challenge. Although many of the secondary areas in my constituency town centre benefit from the small business rate relief—I am glad the Government have extended that until 2014, a policy that Labour opposed, and that some of those small businesses will receive £2,000 towards their national insurance bill, which will be very welcome—there is a challenge for small businesses in primary areas of town centres, where they do not benefit from the rate relief. We need to look at that carefully to see what we can do to help those small businesses. This is a complex area, but I am greatly concerned by Labour’s policy and how it would pay for it. It advocates scrapping the Government’s pro-business, pro-jobs reduction in corporation tax, which would be a retrograde step. It wants to send the message to businesses that we are closed for business and inward investment, and to halt the progress that the Government are making. We have already created 1.4 million new jobs.
I would have liked to raise several other issues today, but in general, the motion offers very little in the way of solutions for high streets and causes me concern about the direction of Labour policy in wanting to control individuals. I will certainly be opposing the motion tonight.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The answer to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) about how to pay for business rates is to grow the economy. If he listens to what retailers and other businesses are saying, he will also know that business rates are at the top of their list of problems, which is why what is said in the motion moved by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), is the right thing to do.
I want to talk about the retailers in the three town centres in my constituency, in Formby, Crosby and Maghull. Like others, we have enthusiastic and energetic local retailers who are committed to their local communities and work incredibly hard. Many of them do an excellent job and run superb businesses, but they are desperate for improvements to be made to our town centres and desperate for the kind of support that we have been discussing today to be given sooner rather than later. They want to take advantage of the opportunities that are available, not just to deal with the challenges they face.
We have talked a lot today about those challenges and some of the difficulties. The three high streets that I represent face similar challenges, albeit with slightly different issues. The town of Maghull has a small supermarket with a parade of shops—people have to cross the road to get to the main part of the town centre—and has the second part of the Portas funding, backed up by funding from the local council. Crosby also has funding from round two of the Portas pilot, which is backed by the local council as well. In Maghull the town council has got involved—it has tried to use pop-up shops—but recognises that this is only a short-term fix.
I have to say to the Minister—or I would have, but he is no longer in the Chamber—that car parking is not the issue in the town centres that I represent. People are going to out-of-town shopping centres for a number of reasons, not least the convenience of being able to buy everything under one roof, so whether we have car parking charges or not is somewhat irrelevant. I also thought it was odd that he said it was okay for privately owned car parks to charge for parking, but not for councils to do the same.
Crosby has a similar issue to Maghull’s with empty units. Other Members have mentioned the number of charity shops, which is a particular issue in Formby, which has something like 14 charity shops. Some of them sell the same, new goods as other traders, but they do not compete on a level playing field, because the cost base for charity shops is much lower, as they pay only 20% of business rates and are staffed by volunteers. I do not wish to criticise charities and their need to raise funds, but that is a real issue.
All three town centres in my constituency share similar problems, but they also have opportunities. Formby and Crosby are half a mile from the beach and have opportunities to attract the many visitors to the area, particularly in the summer. Crosby has the famous “Another Place” statues by Antony Gormley on the beach. People come to visit the statues, but they do not know where to go afterwards.
Andrew Gwynne
Is that not precisely the reason why we should trust local communities to develop their own visions for their own town centres? Each town centre is unique and will have a different answer to how to revitalise the community.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend has linked the two points. We need to trust local communities to come up with answers, because they all have different opportunities. I have mentioned the opportunity to link the beach and the visitor economy to support the high streets in Formby and Crosby, but equally—this has come out a number of times—local people do not want more legal loan sharks, bookies or fast-food takeaways taking over at every available opportunity. They want to see high-quality retailers encouraged into high streets and to support good local traders, not necessarily payday loan companies, bookmakers or fast-food takeaways when there are too many of them.
We have some good businesses, as I have said. Each of the three areas is underpinned by a medium-sized supermarket. However, even having a supermarket in the town centre is no guarantee of support for other traders, because people tend to do all their shopping under the one roof, so whether it is out of town or not, the resulting problem seems to be similar.
I have been asking businesses in my communities what they want. Dealing with business rates was top of the agenda, but the second item was economic growth linked to the cost of living. An energy price freeze and regulation of the energy market—another flagship Labour policy—are exactly what retailers and businesses want to see, because energy represents one of their biggest costs.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend said that business rates were a factor for his businesses. Is it not part of the problem that no business rate revaluation has taken place and that many of those businesses are still considered to be in prime shopping areas, when in fact those areas are anything but that?
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend reminds me of a point that I was going to make. Business rates and rents are very high in the town centres, but we only have to go a few hundred yards down the side streets to see a different picture emerging. People can afford the rents and rates there, and businesses are doing much better because their cost base is so much lower. He is absolutely right to suggest that we cannot afford to wait for that revaluation to take place. People are already on their knees and hanging on by their fingernails, if that is not too many metaphors for one sentence. They certainly need that help right now.
Business rates are certainly the No. 1 issue when I talk to retailers and small businesses, and when I talk to representatives of the Federation of Small Businesses, as I do from time to time. Businesses need help, whether through business rates, through proper banking support involving going back to the old-fashioned bank manager acting as an adviser, through having a mentor to encourage and support them, or through the local council and others in the community helping them to make the most of the opportunities. That is how we will revitalise our town centres. More payday loan companies, bookmakers and fast-food takeaways are not the answer.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
We all represent very different communities, and our town centres will be different as well. Those of us whose constituencies contain multiple towns will know that there can be great differences even within a few miles.
We cannot get away from the two major trends that everyone has talked about—namely, the impact of out-of-town shopping and the impact of internet shopping. Those factors are not going to go away. No one is proposing legislation to move the big sheds into the town centres or to ban the use of the internet as a shopping tool; it would be ridiculous if they did. Those factors make the challenge all the greater, because we have to make shopping in the town centre an experience. In the old days, people regarded the town centre as a destination in its own right. Now, it is an experience that they go for, during which they might undertake some shopping as well. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), is nodding. She will not be doing so in a moment.
I set up the town team in Folkestone in response to the Government’s Portas pilot initiative. That brought together the local authority, local politicians, the local business community, the chambers of commerce, local independent traders and the national chains that operate in the town, and allowed them to start to think about the sort of town centre experience they wanted. We set up that town team the best part of two years ago and, in that time, I have never been part of a conversation that focused, in the way that the hon. Lady’s did, almost exclusively on payday lending shops and bookmakers. I have never sat in a meeting with business people and heard them say, “The problem with this town is that we are being pushed out by betting shops.”
Some hon. Members might feel that they have too many betting shops, takeaways and payday lenders in their constituencies. We heard the speech by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), who set out her case passionately. In her case, the problem has happened already. The proposals that the hon. Member for City of Durham put forward would not help. Is Labour looking for the compulsory closure of the betting shops and payday lenders that are already there? If those shops are so bad, perhaps they should just ban them outright. If they are the curse of the high street, perhaps they should legislate to get rid of them. Labour is not proposing to do that, however. Hon. Members will have a view on whether there are too many of them; I suggest that the legislation we have to look at is not the Localism Act 2011 or anything that has come from the Department for Communities and Local Government. The problems are the consequence of the Gambling Act 2005, which was passed by the Labour Government. That is where the quarrel of the hon. Member for City of Durham quarrel should lie.
The hon. Lady did not mention the chambers of commerce in her speech. In fact, she was dismissive of the work of the town teams and did not focus on them at all. What we hear when we get representatives of the chambers of commerce and businesses round the table are suggestions for initiatives similar to the one described by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) in his interesting speech. In those initiatives, we see people coming together to plan events, to create something special and unique in the town centre that will bring people back into it. It is lots of those sorts of initiatives that will reverse the trends seen in many towns, particularly Folkestone in my constituency, where there is under-trading and people leave the town to do their shopping elsewhere. The challenge we face is to bring more of those people back in.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. Does he agree that business improvement districts, such as the ones in my Truro and Falmouth constituency, provide good local solutions to the need to improve our town centres?
Damian Collins
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which feeds into the debate on business rates, on which I shall touch. Calling for a big cut in business rates is bold, is supported by the business community and amounts to a very big tax cut. Like all tax cuts, it has to be provided for. What we have seen so far from the Government are cuts in taxes for small and large businesses. We have seen targeted relief through enterprise zones and regional growth funds, which help businesses on the high street as well as those in other locations. We have seen more work done, too, on business improvement districts. That support has been targeted in the areas where it can really help.
What we have seen from the Opposition side is a “rob Peter to pay Paul” exercise between the business communities—taking from some businesses and giving it to other businesses in a short-term and small way, which I do not believe will make any difference at all. It is by working together through business improvement districts and through supporting all businesses with tax cuts that we will see the changes that we need. Ultimately, good local plans will be the answer, as the towns come together to say, “This is the sort of experience we want to create.”
Members have been absolutely right to highlight the issue of parking. Guidelines from the last Government undoubtedly encouraged local authorities to reduce the number of cars in towns by encouraging people not to drive into the town centre, by increasing parking charges and by making it difficult for people to come into the towns to park. That has to be reversed. If we want to meet the challenge posed by out-of-town shopping centres or internet shopping, we must make it as easy as possible for people to come into the town centre and choose to do their shopping physically there, while providing them with a memorable, enjoyable and unique experience. All our efforts should be focused on reducing unnecessary charges and burdens. Many of us have fought campaigns in our own constituencies to keep free on-street parking in town centres, to encourage discretionary shopping and to bring people in.
The town teams and the business improvement districts have done particularly good work here, for example by encouraging the roll-out of wi-fi in town centres. We need to make our town centres places where people want to live, work and spend their time. We need to encourage more people to live in town centres through change of use so that people, as I say, live, work and enjoy their leisure time in the town centre. That is part of the new experience that we have to create.
Folkestone has seen a very successful regeneration of the old town area, which had seen high levels of closed shops and under-utilised space for many years, through the construction of a new creative quarter in the old town. Occupancy rates have gone up dramatically. In fact, all the properties that have now been refurbished by the Creative Foundation will be full by the end of October this year. That is a very positive change, which has led to a broad programme of exhibitions and events, and provided reasons for people to come into the town centre. Such an integrated programme shows how to revitalise our town centres; it will make more of a difference than anything else.
In my final few seconds, let me say that many of us are disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) was unsuccessful in his campaign to become Deputy Speaker. I know how hard he has worked to champion small businesses. The loss to the House in his not becoming Deputy Speaker is a gain for us in debate, as we will be able to benefit from his contributions in many more debates to come.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Yesterday, my constituent, Mr Iqbal, a shop owner, was murdered in Rotherham and another person was seriously injured. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House in sending my sympathies and condolences to their families and friends. I would also like to congratulate South Yorkshire police on detaining the suspects so quickly.
This debate is about our high streets, but we need to remember the people who work there. We need to give particular attention to lone workers who are isolated and all too often subjected to abuse and violence. These workers do not enjoy any additional protection in law. I urge hon. Members who are interested in changing that to support my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) and sign her early-day motion 529, and I urge the Minister to consider it.
Bill Esterson
Will my hon. Friend join me in the Freedom from Fear campaign launched today by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers to deal with threats to shop workers and attacks on them of the very tragic kind that she just mentioned?
Sarah Champion
I absolutely support that campaign and thank my hon. Friend for mentioning it.
Now, however, Rotherham high street is swamped with payday loan shops, which are effectively loan sharks on the high street. Many of my colleagues have been campaigning for better legislation on payday loan companies, which charge in some cases 16,500% interest, without even checking the ability of the person to pay the money back. Nationally, there are 20% more payday loan shops than a year ago. One key reason they have been able to become so prevalent so quickly is that they have been able to take over premises formerly designated for banks and building societies. Being on the high street gives legitimacy to such companies, yet the damage they can do is well documented. They appear to be a quick fix for temporary financial problems, but sadly they often become an extremely expensive burden on the people who can ill afford extortionate repayments.
The changes the Government plan could almost be seen as a green light for the expansion of payday lending and similar companies on the high street. They pave the way for such companies to take over other forms of shops, and not just those formerly designated for financial organisations. I feel certain that if local councils were able to determine such matters in conjunction with the community, we would be better able to encourage more responsible lenders, such as credit unions, to gain a foothold in this market. Without the controls we propose, I fear that yet more of our high streets will become dominated by outlets that serve only to worsen a spiral of poverty and decline. At the very least, the Government changes will reduce the power of communities to have a say on the types of shops on their high street.
Rotherham is part of the second round of Portas towns. As Mary Portas herself said,
“when a high street has too much of one thing it tips the balance of the location and inevitably puts off potential retailers and investors”.
We cannot allow that to happen. Local people want the power to shape their town centres. Rather than creating a free-for-all in which that power is actively denied, we should work with local businesses, business improvement districts and others to help to make high streets vibrant and safe places once again, putting them back in the heart of our communities.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
I shall be brief so that my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) can also make a contribution.
I thank the Minister for his visit to Bedford this week. I am sure he would join me in congratulating the Bedford town team, the Bedford business improvement district, and particularly the leader of the Bedford business improvement district, Christina Rowe, who has provided strong leadership in difficult circumstances, on creating a vibrant response to the Government’s incentives and initiatives. I think it was the prospect of the Minister visiting Bedford that got the council belatedly to put through cuts in parking charges in the town centre. I hope that is just the start of the local council doing more to reduce parking charges in Bedford.
I want to address some of the points made by Opposition Members. My first admonition to them would be the old saying, “actions have consequences.” In relation to this debate, the actions of the previous Government have had consequences that we are seeing today. Will Labour Members recognise that the liberalisation of licensing laws, the changes that were put through in the Gambling Act 2005, and their Government’s lack of control of the massive growth in personal debt during their period in office led precisely to some of the concerns that they are talking about today?
I found their recommendations on stores and the selection of stores quite confusing. It was not clear whether they wanted people to choose which stores were in the town centre, or whether they wanted to tell people what stores should be in town centres. Perhaps I can help them by saying that those who want to give people more choice should liberalise and allow people to make their own decisions, but if they want to decide which stores are right for people, that is socialism. The socialist selection of stores that we have heard from Opposition Members is a flawed policy, which gives new meaning to Marks & Spencer. [Interruption.] I will not give way, as I want my hon. Friend the Member for Witham to have the time to make her speech.
I want to make three suggestions to my hon. Friend the Minister. First, on betting shops—this was the first question I asked when I became a Member of Parliament—will he consider getting rid of fixed-odds betting machines, and then act to do so? Such machines create tremendous incentives that make the local retail presence of betting shops far more likely. The change is long overdue.
Secondly, will the Minister think about service quality in town centres, and about ways of helping them to be creative in their provision of excellence? One of the differences between a large store and a small store is the fact that service interaction is much more important to the success of a small store, and I am not sure that we are doing enough to create excellence in service. Perhaps some of the initiatives to which Lord Baker has referred could help in that regard.
Finally, let me suggest that the example of the “gamesmakers”—the volunteers who, during the Olympics, came together to create a delightful experience for people who wanted to attend the games—could be extended to our towns. Perhaps we could create “townsmakers”. As we all know, McDonald’s is a purveyor of excellent service in its restaurants, and it also provided assistance during the London Olympics. I had a very interesting conversation with the franchise holder of McDonald’s in my home town. Perhaps the Minister could have a conversation either with Mr Ishmael Anilmis, the franchise holder of McDonald’s in Bedford—who is in himself an excellent story of progress and entrepreneurship—or with McDonald’s nationally about how the company can take what it has learnt from the “gamesmaker” experience, and use it to improve our town centres and the quality of service that they provide.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) for shortening his own speech in order to allow me to speak.
I have spent 35 years growing on the high street. My parents were shopkeepers, and I am proud to be the daughter of shopkeepers. I have seen a great deal of change on the high street, and I found Labour Members’ contributions to the debate somewhat disappointing. My hon. Friend the Minister rightly said that we should take no lectures from the Labour party when it comes to the future of the high street. I remember that not so long ago, under the last Government, my parents’ shop was closed because of Labour’s post office closure programme. That brought devastation to many communities, including those on the high street.
As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), there has been a great deal of debate in the House about business rate revaluation. He referred to the Bill Grimsey report. Bill Grimsey came to Witham over the summer to work with my town team, to observe the initiatives, and to discuss how we could enhance our high street and town centre. Some very positive contributions had been made, but business rates were still the No. 1 issue that was being raised by my local shopkeepers. That is hardly surprising, because they pose a big challenge.
While the Minister has been very clear about where the Government stand on rate revaluation, I ask him at least to consider at some stage—if not now, hopefully immediately after 2015—taking a fresh look at the issue. I should like him to think about what we can do, and when we can introduce reform. In particular, I urge him to do something that the Government have been doing very successfully thus far, and continue to devolve more power down to local authorities and communities. I ask him to encourage the provision of more support for the survival and growth of local town centres and high streets through some of the initiatives which we have already heard about. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) mentioned not just town teams but business improvement districts. Those are community-led initiatives. We need less state intervention, and more community support and community innovation at the grass roots. That is what will transform our town centres and high streets.
There is no doubt that we have done a great deal so far in terms of discounts on rates. The Government’s sentiments are clear: they feel that town centres need innovation and entrepreneurialism. We are doing good things in cutting red tape and lowering taxes, which did not happen under the last Government. Businesses in my community and in my constituency know that it would never happen under a Labour Government, because it was their socialist policies that did so much damage under the last Administration. Moreover, it was a former Labour authority in my constituency that did a great deal of damage to my local high street. We are changing that now, which is a very positive development.
Another issue that has been touched on is the role of neighbourhood plans, which have been reintroduced to return development powers to local communities. Witham in particular is doing a great deal. The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) shakes her head. She is welcome to come to Witham and see some of the good things that we are doing there. Neighbourhood plans have been transformational in my community, and part of the reason for that is development. There has been growth, which is something that we should praise and encourage. There are more new homes, and the new homes bonus will help with infrastructure development and infrastructure investment.
Finally, I urge the Minister to come to Witham when he is en route for his constituency, and to meet our town team and look at some of the innovative ideas—the edginess—that we have, because this is about the empowerment of local communities. I commend his Department—in particular him and the Secretary of State—for devolving more of those powers to the grass roots and to our communities.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a great pleasure to speak for the Opposition in this debate and to follow the excellent contributions made by many Members, not least the opening contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), who set out a very strong case for our motion.
Our high streets and town centres are struggling. We all know our shopping habits are changing, but there are other critical factors affecting our town centres. Living standards have been falling in 39 out of the 40 months that this Prime Minister has been in office, and that is having a huge effect on high-street spend. Currently, one in seven shops are empty—a threefold increase since 2008—and many others are being turned into yet more payday lenders, betting shops and takeaways. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) highlighted the changing character of his high street and he also outlined the good practice of his local council, and it was good to hear that, as it was to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on the good practice of his local council in protecting its high street. Such great local initiatives were a feature of many of today’s contributions and, I say as a localist, they are good to hear and should be celebrated.
Andy Sawford
May I say what a great pleasure it is to see the hon. Gentleman bounce back so quickly and make a contribution to this debate of such obvious passion and expertise? He only narrowly lost out earlier, but, as has been said, his loss in the Deputy Speaker election is our gain in today’s debate. Rather cheekily, however, I would prefer to invite him to come to Corby and see what a great Labour local authority has done. I understand the comments he has made about out-of-town retail, and many other Members echoed them, but we have protected Corby town centre and we have seen the fruits, as there are now 8 million shoppers coming each year—and I hope that will be 8 million and one when he decides to come and visit us.
We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) about the payday loans companies in their high streets. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton made a very powerful point when he drew a comparison between the experiences of different Members in their local communities, suggesting it is not appropriate to compare the County road in Liverpool with the King’s road in Chelsea.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) tried to amend the Localism Bill to tackle the problem of betting shops, and he made the case for that again today, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), who reminded us that, as so often with this Government, the rhetoric does not match the reality on localism and giving councils the real powers they need to address this problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) gave an example from her area of the detrimental impact the Government’s change of use policy is already having, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) talked about the problem in our high streets. She said the two wards that cover the high street in her constituency are in the top 10% most deprived in the country. She says betting shops, pawn shops and payday loan companies are preying on some of the most vulnerable people, and she made a very strong case that the planning laws need strengthening, not weakening. That was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), who also talked about the importance of the proposal to cut business rates, a point my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
On tackling payday loans, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is crucial to recognise one significant step taken by this Government, which is to allow credit unions to lend money without their members first having to make a deposit? Does he agree that credit unions are the way forward, through attracting the people who are most vulnerable to borrow responsibly?
Andy Sawford
I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman agree that action needs to be taken to address the problem of payday loan companies on our high streets, but I have to say that the response so far from his Front-Bench colleagues has been far too weak. I hope we will have his support in trying to improve the protections available for constituents around the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) spoke passionately about his town centre, telling us how the campaign to save the Denton post office was his political awakening. He spoke with knowledge and pride about the many great initiatives in his town, points that I wish to echo in respect of what is happening in the five towns across my constituency. All the local authorities, including the town and parish councils, which play a particularly important role in our smaller town centres, are trying very hard to protect them.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Andy Sawford
I have very little time, so I am going to continue my speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) is making a very personal contribution to the success of his high street, and I am sure that all hon. Members will want to wish Mrs Danczuk well with the opening of Danczuk’s Delicatessen. He powerfully highlighted the impact of the living standards crisis on our high streets, saying, rightly, that there is a relationship between security of employment and issues such as zero-hours exploitation, and people’s ability to spend on the high street.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) opened her speech by offering condolences to the family of her constituent Mr Iqbal, who was tragically murdered. May I associate all Opposition Members and, indeed, the whole House, with the condolences that she has sent to his family? She makes a powerful point that we ought to have a concern for the safety of people who work in retail.
The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), opened his speech by telling us about the Government’s various initiatives. He told us that over the past two years they have established the Portas pilots, the town team partners, the future high streets forum—there was no end to the initiatives. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said, it is a fragmented and piecemeal approach that has failed to deliver the real change we need in the health and well-being of our high streets and town centres. Well-intentioned though I am sure some of the initiatives are, the truth is that the Government’s approach is a dog’s breakfast and it has had no significant impact. The Government’s own progress report in July highlights that; it is so scant on the details of what has been improved.
The Portas pilots have been very slow to pull down the money allocated to them and by June only 12% of the £2.3 million Portas pilot budget allocated had been spent. Mary Portas has said, and I was there at the Select Committee:
“I’m not seeing that happening and it’s getting very frustrating. The Government’s response to my proposals has been tepid. I feel exhausted by it…I feel thoroughly and utterly deflated.”
Sadly, listening to the Under-Secretary I share that feeling. Rather than address the concerns raised by Mary Portas, the Government have now introduced policies that look set to worsen the situation. Such policies include the changes to the planning rules announced in May and August, which strip communities of a say over their high streets. The important difference that the changes will make is that they will allow payday lenders and betting shops, which have always been able to open up in banks and building societies, to take over other shops as well. The Government are also allowing offices, shops and services such as banks and building societies to be turned into flats and houses without any proper strategy. That is the opposite of what our high streets need and it is the opposite of what people want to see.
Andy Sawford
I have very little time left.
Labour will therefore give councils new powers, so that in areas where there is a problem councillors could put payday lenders and other problem uses into a new umbrella class. We will encourage local authorities to plan for and allow flexibility on the high street in a way that suits the community they represent, such as through permitted development rights. We will take action to promote retail diversity and, vitally, we will cut business rates. If Labour wins power in 2015, we will use the money that this Government would use to cut taxes for 80,000 of our largest businesses to cut business rates for 1.5 million businesses across our country. That proposal has been welcomed by organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses. I believe it has the power to make a huge difference. It will save those businesses £450 a year, which will be much needed; it will be a real lifeline.
May I end by welcoming the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), to his role? I very much hope to see him in the Lobby supporting our motion, because I understand that the Liberal Democrat conference supported it, too. It is Liberal Democrat policy, but I wonder whether it will be another example, like the mansion tax or the Robin Hood financial transaction tax, where we have given the Liberal Democrats the opportunity in this House to vote for their own policy and they have found some weasel words to get out of it and troop through the Lobby with the Tories. The action that we need for our town centres is set out in our motion, and I urge him to see sense and support it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Stephen Williams)
The hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) and I are both newbies in our roles, so I welcome him to his role. I will decline his blandishments, which have been offered to me on many occasions by an Opposition spokesman, seductive as they may be in part. That is often the way with Opposition motions, and I have spoken on many of them over the past three and a half years. Although there are some good things in what the motion says and I agree with some of it, there are obviously areas where we cannot agree.
There have been 13 Back-Bench speeches. It is the second time in the past two years or so that the House has had the opportunity to debate high streets. I spoke in a Back-Bench debate on the high street called by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) in January 2012. On that occasion 50 Back Benchers spoke in the debate so we know that there is huge interest in the issue across the House. However, given that this was an Opposition-day motion, there are rather more Labour Members in the Chamber as we are coming up to the vote than there have been throughout the entire debate. Considering that it was their own motion, it is disappointing that more Labour MPs chose not to take part.
It is a particular pleasure on my first outing at the Dispatch Box to be speaking about high streets. If I may be parochial for a moment, my constituency, Bristol West, has the greatest high street in England running right through the middle of it—the Gloucester road, the longest stretch of independent businesses in the country. At the west of my constituency there is Clifton village, full of independent shops and boutiques, and in the east of my constituency is Stapleton road. Rather as the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) said of her constituency, Stapleton road in my constituency is in one of the 10% most deprived census enumeration districts in England, but it is a thriving high street and I pay tribute to all my constituents there, particularly the new arrivals from Somalia in recent years, who have opened small businesses in that street.
We do not have in that high street the problems of betting shops that the right hon. Lady mentioned. She was the first of many speakers who mentioned that problem, to which the Opposition motion refers. The general point that was made was that nothing can be done about it. To all those who made that point, I say there is something that can be done. There is something in existing planning legislation that they could use; it is called an article 4 directive. I suggest that all the hon. Members who said they feel that their local area is not doing enough to stem the tide, as they see it, of betting shops moving into their high streets should speak to their local councillors and local council officers and ask why an article 4 directive has not been issued. Many of the other considerations relating to betting shops fall under the licensing regime, not the planning system, which is primarily to do with the rationing of space.
Bill Esterson
Will the Minister tell the House whether he thinks a cut in business rates will help his high streets, and if he does, will he vote for our motion tonight?
Stephen Williams
The Government are doing much on business rates. We have delayed the revaluation until 2015. Also, as was announced in the Budget this year, we are giving every business in the country a £2,000 national insurance credit. That will be of huge value to many small businesses throughout the country, some of which will no longer be paying employers’ national insurance at all, and many of them will be retailers. That £2,000 may compensate significantly for the high cost of business rates, which we certainly acknowledge is a problem. Many small businesses say that uniform business rate is a problem for them.
Simon Hughes
I warmly welcome the appointment of my hon. Friend, who will do an excellent job as Minister. I put it to his colleague earlier that, on one aspect of the debate, our party decided this year that we wanted a change in the law to allow a separate use class for gambling establishments. I hope that he will not forget that policy in government, and I hope he will show how good a Minister he is by persuading his colleagues before the end of this Parliament to change the law accordingly.
Stephen Williams
My right hon. Friend is always a delight and always very helpful. I am sure that that will be a hot topic for discussion at ministerial team meetings over the next 12 months.
On the point about business rates, councils already have discretion to give a reduction, and the Government fund that on a 50:50 basis. Many hon. Members talked about the effect of business rates on their communities and about the revaluation. The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley)—I commiserate with him on today’s result—made some points about valuation. Actually, out-of-town businesses are valued on the same basis as town and city centre businesses, and it is on the rental valuation. Although the valuation is based on 2008, in 2010 this Government reduced the percentage applied to the valuation, so the truth is that since 1990 there has been no real-terms rise in business rates.
Stephen Williams
As a city centre MP, I know that there is certainly concern about the disparity between charges for town and city centre parking and for out-of-town parking, which is often free. I think that ought to be kept under review.
Stephen Williams
I have now given way three times, unlike the hon. Member for Corby, so I will continue with my speech.
We heard from several members of the Communities and Local Government Committee—I am sure that I will be appearing before it soon—including the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk). I certainly agree with many of the good points he made. We want diversity on the high street. None of us wants to see clone towns with chain stores and too many charity shops, bars, estate agents and so on. However, he rather shot himself in the foot when he said that the big problem is the flatlining economy. We have heard a lot from Opposition Front Benchers about the flatlining economy, but it turns out not to be true, because there was no double-dip recession and the economy is growing. We know that there is much more to do, but the country is certainly on track and the economy is returning to health.
The hon. Member for Rochdale, among many other Members, also mentioned the Grimsey review, which was intended as an alternative to the Portas review, or to complement it. I attended the launch of Bill Grimsey’s review downstairs in the Churchill Room and think that he made many interesting points. One that particularly chimed with me was the suggestion that the high street should do much more to make technology available, particularly wi-fi. I am now quite militant about asking high street businesses whether wi-fi is available. He makes a very good point.
We also heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Southport (John Pugh) and for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), both of whom are members of the Select Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby mentioned that it was also important to have people living in town centres. During the debate it seemed that many Members thought that people living in town and city centres was something of a problem. As someone who not only is an MP for a city centre, but was the councillor for Bristol city centre 20 years ago, I think that it is marvellous that more people want to live in town and city centres. We are reversing the urban flight to the suburbs that took place over a long period. Town and city centre vitality depends on a cross-section of the population living in those communities, spending money in the shops, working in the shops and perhaps being able to walk to work. I find it quite puzzling that many hon. Members seemed to think that it was a problem that the changes we are making will enable more people to live in town and city centres.
In the minute remaining I will mention some of the initiatives that the Government are undertaking. I think that some hon. Members were quite churlish about the Portas review. Mary Portas is a business woman who gave up her time for the Government. She came up with many sensible recommendations, 27 of which the Government have accepted. I went to her consultation on the Upper Committee Corridor, which was packed with MPs who wanted to support what she was doing—
Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
Business without Debate
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
DEFERRED DIVISIONS
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Probation Service (Privatisation)
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
The petitioners urge the Government, and in particular the Ministry of Justice, to think again about their proposals for the privatisation of the probation service. Megan Elliott, of the National Association of Probation Officers, and her colleagues have collected a petition of 2,138 signatures from the catchment area of the Northumbria Probation Trust. It is not surprising that feeling about this issue is strong in the north-east of England—the Northumbria Probation Trust received an exceptional rating in 2012-13. Indeed, the wider probation service received the British Quality Foundation gold medal for excellence in 2011.
The petitioners firmly oppose the Government’s plan to privatise up to 70% of probation service work. They defend a publicly accountable probation service in the public sector. They oppose the Government’s plan to abolish the 35 separate probation trusts and oppose contracting out through a competitive process that excludes the probation service but includes 70% of their current work. At the heart of the petitioners’ objection is the risk to the public that the Government’s proposals so obviously pose. It offends against common sense to proceed with these untested ideas without, at the very least, piloting them first and learning the lessons of the pilot. I side with the petitioners and believe we should heed their warning.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioners oppose the Government’s plan to abolish the Probation Service in its current form and to privatise up to 70% of work currently undertaken by it. The Petitioners believe that those convicted by a Criminal Court should be supervised by those employed by a publicly accountable Probation Service such as currently exists; further that the Petitioners oppose the Government’s plan to abolish the 35 public sector Probation Trusts replacing them with one Probation Service that only supervises those deemed to be of a high risk of harm to the public. It is envisaged under the current plan, 70% of probation’s work will be subject to a competitive process which excludes the Probation Service. We believe that such a plan is “high risk” in that it could place the public at a greater risk of harm.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to stop the planned changes to the Probation Service.
And the Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
[P001225]
Ansford Railway Bridge
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to do something that, as a former Minister, I have been unable to do for the past three and a half years, which is to raise an issue in the House, on behalf of my constituents, in an area that was not my responsibility as a Minister.
There is a considerable groundswell of opinion in my constituency about the closure of a railway bridge in Ansford, very close to Castle Cary railway station, closing the A371, which runs through my constituency. The reasons for the disquiet are the length of the operation that Network Rail is effecting, the consequences for the local economy, the inconvenience to local people and the fact that those could have been mitigated with a bit more care on the part of the railway company. Having said that, I think we all understand the reasons for the bridge closure. It is an essential maintenance requirement; it is not in anyone’s interest that we have bridges over railways that fall apart and cause trouble. We all realise that occasionally significant works have to be done.
The closure of the A371 was originally mooted as a 24-week closure beginning in September 2012. I intervened, mainly because I felt that the notice given to local businesses and people was entirely inadequate, that no consultation had taken place—to anybody’s knowledge—and that it was simply inappropriate, in effect, to close down the town of Castle Cary over the Christmas period, with all the consequences that that would have had. To give credit to Network Rail, however, after those complaints, it recognised that there was a problem. It attended a meeting held in the area and listened to local people’s concerns, and it went away, determined to postpone the work and undertook to see how the works could be done in the shortest time and with the least effect on the local area. It then came back with a project to start in July this year, which it did, and to end, we hope, in mid-November—a 19-week period.
Let me be clear, however: 19 weeks is a very long time for a major road to be closed. It would cause enough disruption in a metropolitan area, but of course there would be alternatives. In rural Somerset, there are no easy alternatives, and the diversions are considerable. For light cars, it is 17 miles; for heavy goods vehicles, it is 32 miles, which represents a significant extra cost for companies whose main business is either freight or the delivery of products elsewhere in the country. South Somerset district council has estimated the consequences for the eight largest companies in the immediate vicinity of the road closure. Its reasonable estimate is that the additional cost for those companies alone is in excess of £1 million and that it will cost smaller businesses at least another £1 million. All that is without reference to the inconvenience and disruption to individuals. It might mean an extra 12 miles on the way to school or to work in the morning or added inconvenience for those rushing to catch a train at Castle Cary, one of the few viable train stations in my constituency providing a service to London. It is now difficult to get to it from one direction at least, which causes great difficulty.
If we were talking about a council—or, I would like to think, a Department—every effort would be made, as far as possible, to fit things in with local needs. Public accountability suggests that the organisation involved would be desperately trying to reduce the economic and social effects to a minimum, but Network Rail is of course not publicly accountable in that way, other than through the Department for Transport. Indeed, I am afraid to say that there appears to be no evidence that it believes it has any wider responsibility, other than to minimise its costs and do whatever is most convenient to itself. That is why local people are so upset.
I am glad to see the Minister here this evening, but I know that he cannot provide me with an enormous amount of comfort, nor do I expect him to—I know that because at the start of this work I was in correspondence with the then rail Minister. I know, too, that the Secretary of State for Transport has had discussions on this very subject with Mr Richard Fry of Frampton’s—a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) and a representative of a freight company that is one of those most affected—yet all to no avail. In fact, if the Minister has been given the same brief as his predecessors—who is to know whether his civil servants have rewritten it?—he might employ the following sentences: “Network Rail is a private sector company limited by guarantee. The scope and duration of its engineering works are operational matters for the company in which Ministers have no powers to intervene.” If he finds that in his notes, I hope he will omit it and take it as read, because I know that that is the case. However, it in no way alters my contention that proper pressure should be applied on public bodies such as Network Rail.
My reason for securing this debate is to say that that answer and its consequences are simply not good enough, and things could be arranged better. Let me cover some of the things that might have been considered. One of the clear views expressed by my constituents is that, given such an enormously disruptive road closure, then ’twere best it were done as quickly as possible—that the minimum amount of time should be taken. That would involve working rather more than the minimum periods available, in order to get the job done. We discussed with Network Rail the possibility of night working—indeed, conditions could not have been better for evening or night work over the last few months—but that has not been forthcoming. We could have had weekend working, but no work has been done at weekends. We could also have had arrangements to provide for temporary daytime access or, if that were not possible, night-time access when no work was being done, but that was inconvenient and was not done either.
I know that with every major civil construction project people will say, “Nobody ever seems to be working on it.” Sometimes work is done that people are not aware of and sometimes a refractory period is necessary while concrete sets, for example. I understand that, but I assure the Minister that no one in the local area discerns any sense of urgency with this work. There is no sense that people are trying to get it done in the minimum amount of time. Indeed, they are simply dawdling their way through the project, with all the effects that that has.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I agree with my hon. Friend wholeheartedly. I have written to the Minister about this matter, because a huge number of my constituents have been inconvenienced. I have also written to the company concerned, but at no point has it agreed to do anything like consider double working, triple-shift working or anything else that might avail the local community or Frampton’s, which my hon. Friend has already mentioned, and the other transport companies. Does he agree that that is the least that the company could have considered?
Mr Heath
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I know that her constituents are feeling exactly the same pressures as mine are. This is not just a problem of unwillingness to think about the situation. It seems impossible for anyone—the Minister or anyone else—to apply pressure on Network Rail to make it acknowledge its responsibility to the local community. Closing a road has consequences, and it must be done for the minimum amount of time.
Network Rail could also have looked at alternative ways of undertaking the project. Such alternatives were offered, but they were rejected. It was suggested, for example, that temporary alternative bridge work might be put in place, but Network Rail was not prepared to consider that, on the ground of cost. Instead of repairing the bridge, it might have considered replacing it with a prefabricated alternative, which would have avoided the long delays altogether. Again, that was not considered. I understand that the Army offered to build a Bailey bridge as a temporary replacement. It offered to do it for free, as it would have found it a useful exercise; Network Rail would not have had to pay for anything except the pier supports. Again, the offer was rejected.
There are other things that Network Rail could have done to make life easier for local people. I mentioned that people are having difficulty getting to the railway station from Castle Cary, two miles away, simply because the link between the two is closed. However, they could have reached it if car parking had been provided on the right side of the closure, because people could have decamped by footpath from there to the station. That car parking was offered. Indeed, I understand that Michael Eavis, who runs the Glastonbury festival, offered to provide free use of the metal surfacing that he uses in his festival car park, to create hard standing in a field on the right side of the road closure, which would have helped local people. Again, that offer was not entertained by Network Rail. Apparently it is not even interested in getting people to use the railway if it is going to cost money.
Even the things that Network Rail did undertake to do have not been done satisfactorily. It said that it would provide full signage to show that the affected businesses were open, but the signage was still not in place long after the closure had been effected, and the businesses lost money. The signage that was eventually put up misled people. The situation on the ground is quite complicated, and I do not expect the Minister to understand it, as he is not a Somerset man. However, there is a road called the B3153, which goes from Castle Cary across a railway bridge that everyone assumes is closed, even though it is not, to places in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells. The signs simply say that the railway bridge is closed, and everyone assumes that they refer to that railway bridge. Businesses have lost revenue as a result. The advertisements that were supposed to be in all the local newspapers and on local radio never quite transpired in the way that was suggested. Whenever anyone mentions compensation, people get very tight-lipped indeed. There is no suggestion that anyone will be compensated for these problems.
As I have said, the consequence of all this is that the estimated cost to the major employers in the area is about £1 million. In our terms, these are big local employers. They supply dairy products, veterinary supplies and pet foods. The cost to the largest one alone will be £350,000, because of extra fuel burn, the need for dual-crewing in order to meet the working time directive, and extra wages costs. These costs all add up. There will also be extra costs for the council as a result of damage to the highway network because, sadly, heavy goods vehicles are using inappropriate roads.
I do not believe that any of this was necessary. Network Rail could have done a better job for local people. I say that because an example from elsewhere has been brought to my attention. Work was recently done by Network Rail in Lewisham. I have no doubt that it involved important track work, and it cost £9.5 million. That includes £2.5 million to ensure the safety and protection of a wildlife area. I think it is good—no one should get me wrong on this—that money is being spent to protect such an area, but I would have liked that money to be invested not just because of Network Rail’s fear that wildlife protection groups would be on its back; I would have liked it to consider Somerset people as well—people who are losing their jobs and their livelihoods in local businesses as a result of what Network Rail proposed. I think £2.5 million would have paid for all that shopping list of mitigating factors.
This provides an object lesson in how not to take into account the needs of the local economy and the interests of local residents. I ask the Minister to consider this issue. If it were not a road that was closed, but a railway line, do we honestly believe that Network Rail would not have worked absolutely round the clock to get the line opened again—because its revenue would be affected? Do we not believe that Network Rail would have used every possible measure to maintain some traffic along the line, whether it be in one direction or the other, in a way that has not happened in the case of this road? In those circumstances, it would not have been 19 weeks; it would certainly not have been a five-day-a-week, 9-to-5 job.
Network Rail has done itself no favours whatever in community relations. I have to say that this is not the fault of the local community relations managers, who have been doing their level best to be as helpful as they can be within the constraints set by head office. The overall policy of Network Rail here, however, shows absolutely no regard for local interests. That is what concerns me—the attitude displayed by Network Rail. If anyone wants an indication of that, let me say that I wrote to the chief executive on 5 September, asking about the progress made on the scheme, asking when it could be expected to finish and asking when we could expect to see some of the accelerated work that had been promised. I received an acknowledgement on 11 September; I am still waiting for a substantive reply. I think that tells us everything you need to know, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me that Network Rail is not completely oblivious—or will be made not to be completely oblivious—of the interests of the local communities that, as a public company, it is supposed to serve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) on securing tonight’s Adjournment debate. The closure of the A371 is clearly a subject of great importance to him—and to his hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt)—and he spoke eloquently about it. I noted in his opening remarks that he thought Network Rail had been rather slow in its response, so I hope to be a bit faster this evening. I noted, too, that he was not sure whether I could say much from the Dispatch Box tonight to indicate that actions were on the way. I have, however, picked up some things from his speech on which I hope to able to give him some reassurance.
My hon. Friend referred to his main concerns on behalf of his constituents and to those of the leader of South Somerset district council seen in an exchange of correspondence earlier this year with the then rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome knows, that Minister and my officials have already raised concerns with Network Rail, particularly about the possibilities of single-lane operation or putting a temporary bridge in place. I hope to address a couple of those points tonight, and I shall certainly take note of my hon. Friend’s last remark—that he has failed to receive a reply from the chief executive of Network Rail since 5 September. By any standard, that is not acceptable behaviour, and I shall certainly ensure that my officials speak to Network Rail tomorrow morning to get that response for him.
I listened to my hon. Friend set out the issues. As he rightly says, I am not a Somerset man, so my understanding of them is clearly not as great as his. None the less, we all accept that the road is an important one for the local community. The location between Castle Cary station and the B3153 has an impact, as it falls under the responsibility of Somerset county council as the highways authority. Following routine inspections by Network Rail, there was widespread agreement that major repair and strengthening to the bridge was necessary; otherwise, the modern traffic loads that use the route would be unable to do so, and there would be no certainty of the continuing safety on the railway.
It is disappointing, however, that the repair and strengthening work for the overbridge, as my hon. Friend said, started on 8 July and is expected to run until the end of November. That is partly to do with the extra works that Network Rail is putting in place. I am not sure that the full benefit of those extra works has necessarily been explained, perhaps because they will benefit the company in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells. It is normal practice for Network Rail to prepare bridges of local authority roads to the statutory requirement to be able to carry 24 tonnes. That is covered by a national programme of assessment known as Bridgeguard 3. To implement that, there is a national cost sharing agreement with local authorities. There is no obligation on Network Rail to bring the strength of its bridges carrying roads up to the standard to carry modern freight. It is generally accepted that the load-bearing capacity to accommodate modern highway standards is 40 tonnes. Certainly, one reason for the delay and elongated works, which I accept has caused the suffering experienced by my hon. Friend’s constituents, is the increase in the strength of the bridge to 40 tonnes, which will allow greater facilitation of the local economy. That is taking longer than expected.
My hon. Friend also asked why it was not possible to consider doing the construction work in two halves. Had that been possible, it would have been done, but had that happened, the scaffolding required to access the outside of the bridge girders would have had to be mounted on the bridge deck, which would have made it impossible for the railway service underneath to continue. That is why the work could not be undertaken in two halves.
Tessa Munt
Surely if the flipping Army can build something in 24 hours, something could be created. If motorway bridges can be prefabricated, formed off site and rolled into place, and it takes 12 hours, why cannot something have been done in this case?
Stephen Hammond
I am coming to the construction of a temporary bailey bridge. I know my hon. Friend listened carefully to my remarks about strengthening the bridge to the level of 40 tonnes, and that is one reason for the delay. None the less, I am not trying to excuse the fact that the work will take 19 weeks. I understand the impact on local constituents, and my hon. Friends can be assured that this will be one of the issues that I will raise when I next meet Network Rail in my new role, as I expect to do in the near future.
Some issues were raised about why certain things may or may not have been possible. Consideration was given to whether a temporary bailey bridge could be installed while the main bridge was closed. I understand that the cost of the installation of the bailey bridge might have been greater than the cost of the refurbishment project itself. I must confess that what my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome said about the offer to build it at no cost was news to me.
Mr Heath
I hope that I did not mislead the Minister. I understand that the Army was prepared to build the bridge at no cost, but I accept that the building of the piering would have imposed a considerable cost on Network Rail. What I simply do not understand is why, given the disruption that is being caused, Network Rail is not working round the clock to complete the work as quickly as possible.
Stephen Hammond
I shall deal with that point in a moment. However, I am glad that there is agreement between us that the possibility of a bailey bridge was considered, although it was ruled out on the basis that it was not cost-effective.
I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I skip the history of Network Rail, and simply tell him that it is a private company and there is no ministerial responsibility for its operation. Ministers are, however, able to speak to representatives of the company, and, as I have said, I will speak to them about his letter.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for acknowledging the work being done through local consultation, and the fact that Network Rail listened to consultation at a time when some of the proposals were even less acceptable than they are now. He also acknowledged that a considerable amount of work was being done, and done much more quickly than before, in respect of the new road traffic orders.
I know that this will be of little comfort to my hon. Friend and his constituents, but I can tell him that following the pressure exerted on Network Rail by him and others, and by the Department, the repairs—which began on 8 July—have been speeded up, and the timetable has been reduced from 24 weeks to 19. I know that there have been problems relating to communication with residents during the consultation, but as he also acknowledged, some changes have been made as a result of the consultation.
I congratulate my hon. Friend again on securing the debate. He has described very clearly the concern and disruption that the works have caused to his constituents. Everyone accepts that if the works were not carried out, the structure would deteriorate. As for the operational details, I will write to him about them if he will allow me to do so, because I am not sure of the position. There may well be temporary problems because of the position of the rail track.
I think it important to note that, notwithstanding the frustration that has been caused, at the end of those 19 weeks this large maintenance project will have enabled the bridge to meet modern highway standards to an extent that was not possible before. I hope that my successors and those of the hon. Gentleman will not have to discuss the bridge for another 50 years.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
The Right to Silence (DWP)
Skateboarding Southbank
Westminster Hall
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Psychological Therapies
(10 years, 10 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
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
It is a pleasure to open this very important debate under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. First, I want to talk about why this debate is important. Mental illness is one of the biggest health challenges that we face over the next 20 or 30 years. The NHS spends approximately £14 billion on support for people with mental health conditions, which amounts to about 13% of total health spending. However, mental ill health accounts for about 28% of morbidity and 23% of all GP appointments, and recent estimates show that the overall economic cost of mental illness in Britain is about £105 billion a year.
Those are the raw statistics, but behind them is a story of broken lives, isolation and mental suffering. Every week in my constituency, I see people suffering from a range of difficult mental health conditions as a result of personal circumstances, family breakdown and all kinds of different issues. I am sure that other hon. Members here today have had similar experiences in their constituencies. As a compassionate society, we have a duty to address the growing crisis of mental health in Britain, not only by seeking to control its symptoms, but by tackling its underlying causes.
Our approach to mental health has been dominated for too long by what I characterise as a medicalised model. A psychiatric approach has been dominant. I am not arguing that psychiatry does not have a role to play in mental health, but it has been a dominant model for the way in which we approach mental health care in Britain, and the national health service is very focused on drug-based solutions to mental health problems. The number of prescriptions for drugs to try to solve mental health problems has gone up exponentially over the past decade, and as a result, I believe that our approach to mental health in the national health service is very much focused on control, rather than on tackling the profound underlying causes of the growth of mental health problems in Britain.
That is why I want to discuss talking therapies today. It seems to me that talking therapies are a human and compassionate response to mental suffering, as our constituents, our fellow citizens, and we all come to terms with the pressures of modern life, the increase in family breakdown, and the sheer stresses of dealing with information overload and the complexity of living in the modern world. This issue is not confined to any one part of the population; it crosses the whole age range, from children and young people through to older people.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate. An alarming thing that I have discovered recently is that 80,000 young people across the United Kingdom suffer from severe depression, and 8,000 of those are under the age of 10. It is alarming, and it is running out of control. As the hon. Gentleman has said, personal counselling is an avenue that we can go down. An organisation in my area called Yellow Ribbon does exactly that, and it has had some fantastic results.
James Morris
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point; there are major issues with children and young people’s mental health, and I will come on to that later in my speech.
I want to talk today about improving access to psychological therapies. That is a big area on which I have been focused on in my role as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on mental health. The improving access to psychological therapies programme was established under the previous Government in 2006, following work by Lord Layard, who looked at the economic benefits of a widespread programme of access to psychological therapies across the country. IAPT was initially launched with small pilot areas and then was formally launched in 2008. I do not think anyone here would deny that the IAPT service has made progress. We have seen 1 million people entering treatment and 680,000 people completing treatment, and we have seen recovery rates of about 45%, with 65% significantly improved. The IAPT programme has led to 45,000 coming off sick pay and benefits, and we have seen 4,000 new practitioners trained in the national health service.
The programme was started by the previous Government, and in February 2011, the current Government published their “No health without mental health” strategy, which committed them to investing more than £400 million over four years into the IAPT programme. At the same time as the publication of that strategy, the Department of Health also published its “Talking therapies: A four-year plan of action”, which had the objective that by March 2015, 15% of the adult population would have access to evidence-based psychological therapies that are capable of delivering rates of recovery of 50% or more. Therefore, some progress has been made, but I want to raise serious questions today about how we should take the IAPT programme forward, about the scale of our ambition, and about the extent to which real choice is embedded in the system. I believe that those questions need to be addressed urgently.
The Department of Health, in its assessment of IAPT—its very comprehensive report was published in November 2012—was clear about challenges that the IAPT programme faced in the future. In particular, its report talked about the challenge of waiting times, stating that one of the challenges is
“building adequate service provision (including number of services, and size and efficiency of workforce) to ensure access for all who need treatment within 28 days of first contact.”
The report discusses the challenge of:
“Unmet need—addressing issues concerning equitable access to services where access is lower than expected among some population groups.”
It also refers to the challenge of “Patient choice”, which goes to the heart of the questions that I am raising today, and
“increasing information on treatment options and ensuring that treatment plans are agreed by both patient and therapist.”
Another challenge is the:
“Funding distribution process—ensuring that appropriate investments continue to be made in local IAPT services, to continue to expand capacity and assure quality in line with the overall financial expectations set out in the Spending Review.”
The Department of Health is clear, therefore, about the challenges faced by the further roll-out of the IAPT programme. In order to meet the challenges that come out of the Department’s assessment, we need radical thinking. We need to build on the strength of the existing IAPT programme, but we also need to address some of its fundamental weaknesses, which I believe are holding the programme back.
A central issue that we need to have an honest debate about is the fact that the IAPT programme is still dominated by the use of one therapy—cognitive behavioural therapy, or CBT. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines that were drawn up in 2005 made the recommendation that CBT should be the default treatment option for the NHS, because it had the most random-controlled-trial supporting evidence for its effectiveness. In 2010, the guidelines were modified slightly to allow five other therapies into the NICE recommended mix. The reality, however, is that IAPT is still dominated by CBT. Again, I am not arguing that, in many circumstances, for patients with particular forms of anxiety and depression, CBT is not an appropriate form of treatment. However, it is a short-term, highly manualised approach to mental health treatment.
There is an interesting quote from NICE’s recommendations on psychological therapies:
“In using guidelines, it is important to remember that the absence of empirical evidence for the effectiveness of a particular intervention is not the same as evidence for ineffectiveness.”
That is a wonderful little quote from NICE.
One of the consequences of our approach to research into the efficacy of particular forms of mental health treatment, and of NICE’s approach to the formulation of its guidelines, is that long-term therapies such as psychotherapy and psychoanalysis, to name just two, which require long-term commitment from the patient and from the analyst, have effectively been locked out of IAPT. In Britain, we have a mature and highly professionalised cohort of therapists in psychotherapy and psychoanalysis. They have, over the past five years, found themselves unable to provide the sort of capacity that we need in IAPT. One of the consequences of that, and of the dominance of CBT, with a focus on training up therapists to concentrate on CBT, is that we have a monolithic model.
Within IAPT, we have access, but no effective choice for the patient—choice that is focused on the individual needs of the patients and on an assessment of the patient’s particular requirements. We have a professional cohort of highly trained therapists in long-term therapies who are unable to assist the NHS in extending capacity for the provision of psychological therapies and who are unable to become part of the conversation to address the programme challenges identified by the Department of Health’s assessment of the three-year IAPT programme in 2012.
We need to recognise those weaknesses in the existing IAPT programme, because there are still 50% of people who have been through the programme who have not responded well to CBT. Some 85% of people who are currently suffering from severe mental anguish cannot gain access to any appropriate psychological therapy on the NHS. We urgently need a review of the existing NICE guidelines, and I know that Professor David Haslam, the chair of NICE, has recognised the issue and has agreed to initiate a review.
We also need to look again at how we formulate evidence on the efficacy of mental health treatment. For certain long-term therapies, it might not be appropriate for research to be totally focused on randomised control trials, which are also costly to undertake. We therefore need to look at new types of evidence base. We also need to think about developing a new commissioning model for psychological services to create real choice. I will come on to talk about how that might work.
We also need to consider other groups who may benefit from greater choice and access to psychological therapies. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) talked about children and young people. He is right to be concerned about them; it is a major issue that we face in Britain today. Some 850,000 children between the ages of five and 16 are known to have mental health problems. There is a children and young people’s IAPT, which provides a broad range of interventions —parenting therapy, interpersonal psychotherapy and family therapy.
I think we all know and agree that early intervention for children and young people is crucial to prevent problems from becoming more serious. Lots of evidence shows that early intervention at the onset of psychosis in children and young people and suitable psychological therapy treatment can prevent that from blowing up into something much more serious later on. Perhaps we can learn some lessons from the children and young people’s IAPT for adult services, while recognising that the children and young people’s IAPT needs to be developed further.
Also, we must not exclude or not think about the needs of people aged over 65. As we all know, we have an ageing population, meaning that mental health in older people is an increasing problem. The Department’s “Talking Therapies” action plan committed the Department to address the underrepresentation of older people using IAPT. A quarter of people over the age of 65 have symptoms of depression that require intervention, but only one in six will consult their general practitioner. Therefore, IAPT needs to be tailored to meet the needs of older people. Those needs are not just one, single need; the needs of a 65-year-old may be different from those of a 90-year-old.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Earlier, he alluded, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), did, to the problems in the younger age group, and now he is talking about the older age group. Given the significant increase of referrals in the past couple of years, does he agree that one of the overarching principles is that we will need significant additional resources to deal with the problem right across the age groups, from the young to the old?
James Morris
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The fundamental nature of my argument is that the current system, while it has made some progress, is not utilising the capacity that we should be able to develop in order to cope with the increasing problems that we face. IAPT needs to be tailored to older people and to be more flexible to meet their needs.
As I said, IAPT has made some progress, but we need to go further. Improving access is one thing; guaranteeing it is another. The NHS constitution provides a right to treatments recommended by NICE. The handbook to the constitution explains that that relates to any treatment that is
“recommended by a NICE technology appraisal.”
I am sorry to get a bit technical here, but I think the point is an important one. Technologies appraised by NICE include devices, medicines, diagnostic methodology, surgical procedures, health promotion activities and other therapeutic technologies. Regarding technologies, computerised CBT for depression and anxiety is the only NICE-approved psychological therapy, which, on the basis of the constitution, patients should have a right to. Psychological therapies have been excluded from the rights embedded in the NHS constitution, and we need to address that gap.
Also, there is no 28-week or any other waiting time target for psychological therapies. If I have a serious physical illness, for example cancer, I will be seen and treated within a particular time frame, and I will know my pathway of care, if that is the right way of describing it. However, if I have a mental illness, there is neither a guarantee nor a waiting time target.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that that is similar to what happens during the perinatal period? If a woman has a premature baby, thousands of pounds—if not hundreds of thousands—will be spent on neonatal intensive care; whereas if she has a full-term baby, but has a psychotic episode and requires in-patient mental health care, it is a complete postcode lottery as to whether she receives any help at all?
James Morris
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She has done a tremendous amount of work in that area. I totally agree with her point; we need to shift our emphasis towards much more early intervention and ensure that the issue she identifies is addressed.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
The burden of the hon. Gentleman’s address today concerns the therapies necessary to deal with mental health difficulties, but surely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) identified a few moments ago, the problem for the under-10s age group is that more research is needed into how a person under 10 is taken down the dark path of mental illness. We must find out what the problem is, as well as identify some of the treatment.
James Morris
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The chief medical officer is producing recommendations about children and young people’s mental health care, which will specifically look at evidence on why the prevalence of such difficulties is increasing. She is becoming concerned about the growing problem.
A consequence of no guaranteed or set waiting time is that thousands of people are awaiting referral while suffering severe anguish. A constituent of mine who is suffering from a relatively severe mental health problem has received a referral, but is still waiting for treatment. That wait has been going on for a long time and he is in a state of severe anxiety and anguish. That is the direct human consequence of the situation. We need to move towards a waiting time target. I know people are wary of talking about targets, but such targets speak to a parity issue in the health service. If we have waiting time targets for severe physical illness, it is surely right that we move towards waiting time targets for access to appropriate psychological therapies. Appropriate access builds in choice, meets the needs of individual patients and moves us away from the monolithic approach I described earlier.
When responding to the debate, I ask the Minister to consider the following points. We urgently need further research into the efficacy of long-term psychological treatments. We need more holistic research combined with a more flexible NICE regime; as I said, Professor Haslam recently acknowledged that work is needed on the way that NICE approaches recommendations in that area. We need to give serious thought to a new commissioning model assisted by some of the reforms that have been brought into the NHS, such as commissioning groups, and building on the any qualified provider model, which brings choice and capacity into the NHS by allowing the highly professional cohort operating in the private sector to provide therapy on the NHS through IAPT.
Would the Minister seriously consider making or at least working towards a commitment to a 28-week waiting time target for access to psychological therapies? Too many people are in a state of anxiety about when they will get treatment and what that treatment will be. We need urgent action, as other hon. Members have said, to ensure that the IAPT programme is further developed for younger people and children and we need to commit to further research into what is causing the disturbing trend in mental illness among our young people. We also need urgent action to ensure that older people are not locked out of the IAPT programme. The debate is about more than the right policies; it is important because we must address the anguish and suffering of our fellow citizens whose voices desperately need to be heard and whose stories are often the key to their cure.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. In addition to the Opposition spokesperson and the Minister, three hon. Members have intimated that they wish to catch my eye. I am sure that they will keep an eye on the clock.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to come here and support the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris), who has brought this matter to Westminster Hall for consideration. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said here yesterday, whenever we come to Westminster Hall, we congratulate the Member whose debate it is on bringing an important matter to the attention of the House. This is an important matter.
The hon. Gentleman clearly outlined the issues and their importance. My interest and that of my hon. Friends is in how such issues affect our young people. That will be the thrust of my speech. I also want to give a Northern Ireland perspective, which I believe is mirrored across the whole United Kingdom.
Dr McCrea
Does my hon. Friend agree that, for many years, mental ill health has been a taboo subject? Many of those suffering from mental health difficulties were pushed away or hidden from society. The value of such a debate is that it ensures openness in society, to deal with the important issue of mental ill health.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that matter. That is exactly the problem; if I wanted to sum it up in one phrase, that is the phrase I would use. There was a taboo around mental ill health in the past, but hopefully we can discuss it now. I hate the word “mental”, because it almost puts the thought in one’s mind of someone to be kept at bay. We must be able to find another word in the English language that is more sympathetic. I am not sure what it would be, but we should give the matter consideration.
Psychological therapies are defined as an interpersonal process designed to bring about modification of feelings, cognitions, attitudes and behaviour—all issues the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis mentioned—that have proved troublesome to the person seeking help from a trained professional. That is what we want to achieve.
The psychological therapies in the NHS 2013 event marked the halfway point of the coalition Government’s mental health strategy. Psychological therapies generally fall into three categories: behavioural therapies, which focus on cognitions and behaviours; psychoanalytical and psychodynamic therapies, which focus on the unconscious relationship patterns that evolved from childhood, which are important; and humanistic therapies, which focus on self-development in the here and now. We need to focus on those three categories.
I presume that most Members catch up on the news on BBC or Sky before they come here. A story today covered the role of carers and what they do for elderly people, but it also mentioned their role for those with mental health issues and focused in particular on the time that carers have to deliver care to people in those two categories. It underlined where we are in the debate about those who suffer from psychological imbalance and emotional issues.
The improving access to psychological therapies programme was built on evidence, produced in 2004 by the then National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, on treating people with depression and anxiety disorders. It was created to offer patients a realistic and routine first-line treatment, combined, where appropriate, with medication, which traditionally had been the only treatment available.
Things have changed. The Minister, whom I respect greatly, will outline the issues when he responds. The IAPT programme was dedicated to spending more than £700 million on psychological therapies between 2008 and 2014. It was first targeted at people of working age, but in 2010 was opened to adults of all ages. There has been success—it would be wrong to say that there has not.
In the first three years, 900,000 people were treated for depression and anxiety; 450,000 patients are in recovery, with another 200,000 moving towards recovery; 25,000 fewer people with mental health problems are on benefits; and the average waiting time has reduced from 18 months to a few weeks. In terms of what has been done so far, that is good news, but it is fair to say that there is a lot more to do. There has been a significant increase in the number of people with such issues, and all statistics indicate that that number will continue to grow.
People require psychological therapy for many reasons. Members have spoken about the things that lead to the position we are in today and why society and Government must respond. Reasons for therapy can be to do with home life and bereavement. On many occasions in my constituency office, we deal with bereavement and how it affects not only the partner, but the young people in the house. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis referred to that in his introduction. I regularly see it in my office—the frailty of life, the suddenness of death and how that affects people.
Unemployment, when young people who cannot get the jobs they need or the discipline that a job brings, and trouble in the workplace are other reasons for therapy. Another reason is childhood trauma, as we can see from the sexual abuse cases of the past few years. Many people were not aware of such trauma, but it existed. Social deprivation is another one, and all those issues contribute to where we are.
David Simpson
My hon. Friend mentioned young people again. Surely our schools, whether primary or secondary, need to focus on our teachers being trained to identify when a child has difficulties—the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) mentioned early intervention—so that treatment can be introduced at an early stage, which could solve the problem for a lifetime.
Jim Shannon
As my hon. Friend and colleague mentioned, education is one of the areas in which Government can play a role, as can, I would say, Departments responsible for health, social services and welfare. They all need to come together.
Among many other factors, one comes to mind to do with young carers who look after their mum, dad, brothers or sisters. In my constituency, there are about 230 young carers, which is a massive number. They are making a contribution to society, but they are also the main carers for their adults or siblings. Again, that is a real issue.
In Northern Ireland, unemployment, too, causes problems because, among the regions of the United Kingdom, it has the highest percentage of working-age population not in paid employment—the figure is 30% higher than the UK average, which is 19% of individuals receiving a form of out-of-work benefit. The highest rates are recorded in Londonderry with 29%, Strabane with 29% and Belfast with 26%. Some 9% of the working-age population receive disability living allowance, including the 3% who receive DLA for mental health reasons. That proportion has risen by 25% since 1998, and is more than the UK average, while 70% of those registered with a disability are not in paid work.
Incidentally, am I the only elected representative to have had an increase in referrals for those who have served in the forces suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder? I know the answer: no, I am not. In all my years as an elected representative, I cannot recall having so many referrals of soldiers, male and female, for emotional, mental-health trauma suffered as a result of their service.
The Prince’s Trust, which many of us have knowledge of and great faith in, has found that one in four young people at work are down or depressed “always” or “often”—for people of that age to be downhearted or depressed is incredible. Unfortunately, that leads to an increase in the suicide rate among young people. In parts of our Province, suicide is at frightening levels. A few years ago in my constituency, there was a spate of suicides by young people, which was saddening for the people of our area, because we knew most of them—young people who did not feel that there was much for them in the future. We must address that issue.
The figure for young people who are down or depressed always or often, but are unemployed, is 50%. That is a massive figure. Clearly, a large section of people are at risk and, in my opinion, early intervention can and will make a difference. However, to establish it, there must be funding. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) referred to those in education diagnosing cases early, and that is one thing we can do. Our own Health Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, Edwin Poots, has taken steps to address the issue, but a UK-wide strategy would be useful and must be considered. I am keen to hear what the Minister will say.
Improving access to psychological therapies in all areas such as health and employment for individuals, families and carers in Northern Ireland could relieve anxiety, depression and distress. The long-term benefits would be more than worth any initial cost. The funding has to be in order, but it has to be there to discharge effectively what has to be done.
In addition, improving mental and social well-being can help to prevent antisocial behaviour and family breakdown for children and young people—again, in my constituency, we regularly witness the effect on people of family breakdowns. It also might make a positive input into the rehabilitation of offenders and assist in the maintenance of independence, reducing reliance on residential and hospital care. The benefits are numerous and clear.
Due to the years of suffering through the troubles, many people in Northern Ireland have poor physical, emotional, behavioural and/or mental health conditions. Dr Nichola Rooney, chair of the division of clinical psychology in Northern Ireland, said that there is
“historical underinvestment in psychological therapy services for people suffering from mental health difficulties in Northern Ireland”.
I am sure that is replicated UK-wide.
Clearly, we must continue to invest and see the rewards of such therapy, not simply as a method of cutting the costs of help in the future, but because it changes the quality of people’s lives and—a knock-on effect— the lives of the people around them. Everyone benefits.
Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)
I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), whose points were particularly relevant. I shall try not to repeat them too often in my speech—that might mean reducing its length slightly, people will be pleased to hear.
When I was first elected, a new aspect of my life was the size and complexity of the casework that came my way. Much of it I expected and was familiar with, having been a councillor, but the one facet that surprised—no, shocked—me was the obvious failure in our duty to those with mental health issues. The next surprise was to discover that, in fact, the situation has improved over the past few years, and for that I pay tribute to the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), and his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow).
Today, we have the news that Dr Martin Baggaley, commenting on the results of a BBC freedom of information request, said that we are in “a real crisis” regarding the provision of mental health beds in England. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk, the Minister, is reported by the BBC to agree that that is unacceptable.
At least, however, the BBC was able to obtain figures for the number of beds that have been lost. What would the response have been had the local trusts said, “Sorry, we don’t keep such figures. We have no idea of the number of beds available”? In another possible scenario, one of us asks the Secretary of State for Health, “What is the waiting time for the treatment of breast cancer or leukaemia?”, but the answer is, “I don’t know and I can’t find out.” Would not the whole House erupt in outraged uproar? Would not the press ask how proper provision for those patients can be provided in such circumstances?
Without adequate data and reporting, the needs of millions of ill people cannot be addressed—people with mental health issues. Without decent information, resources cannot be allocated correctly, results properly analysed or effective treatment provided. Yet for much of mental health provision, there is insufficient knowledge of whom we are treating, how we are treating them and how long they are waiting for treatment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis mentioned, we do not have minimum waiting times for much psychological therapy.
Few data are collated for the national policy framework. The data that we have focus on IAPT services and the rates for early mortality. My hon. Friend mentioned how early treatment of mental health problems can stop far worse developments, but without proper data we cannot understand that.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about early intervention in mental health conditions. Does he agree that early intervention does not just stop an individual from cascading to the point at which their life becomes dysfunctional, but has a tremendous economic impact in preventing time off work and the difficulties that that causes for employers?
Mike Thornton
I agree. There is no doubt that early intervention for all forms of illness usually produces good results, and saves large amounts of money both in relation to rates of people off work and the costs of treating them in the NHS. That can be seen for cancer and heart failure, as well as mental health issues, so I entirely agree with the hon. Lady.
In my constituency, I have been particularly impressed by Solent Mind’s talking therapy programme. That IAPT programme has been effective and easy to access, and figures show that it has provided access to a huge majority within 28 days of a referral. I am not sure whether that is replicated across the country; I have been told that probably it is not.
Such IAPT services are invaluable, but there are disturbing reports that funds are provided for them with money taken away from other mental health provision. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis mentioned some examples, so I will not repeat them, but it is a bit like increasing funds for bowel cancer care by taking cash from ovarian cancer treatment. I wonder if this morning’s BBC report reflects what is happening in beds being lost to provide money for other therapies and services.
Public Health England and NHS England have announced the development of a mental health intelligence network, which has the potential to link all existing data and map data gaps. However, given the consistent failure to give mental health provision the same status as that for so-called physical health, there is a real risk that the network will not have the resources needed to provide the data and analysis that are so urgently required.
If we are to provide adequately for the one in four of us who suffers from some form of mental illness and for their families who suffer with them, I urge the Minister to ensure that all local commissioning groups and trusts treat information regarding all forms of mental illness with the same parity of esteem as that relating to physical illnesses. I again urge Members to remember that if someone is ill, they are ill. There would be no such lack of data if the absurd, anachronistic and artificial distinction between physical and mental illness did not exist.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Like my colleagues, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) on bringing this important debate before the House. We know from this morning’s radio bulletins that the discussion is topical and timely, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to it.
My focus will be on the need to broaden the scope of what is offered under IAPT, particularly in relation to couple relationships. I strongly believe that it is hugely in the interests of the NHS and the Department of Health to realise the significance of strong couple relationships to good health, which is essential to protecting the NHS budget. That point is really important—[Interruption].
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. Officials should not talk to a Member of Parliament while the debate is continuing.
Andrew Selous
As colleagues have already stated, data on the type of therapies available under IAPT show that couple therapy is available in less than a quarter of cases. The data came from the “National Audit of Psychological Therapies for Anxiety and Depression, National Report 2011”, so they are official. The figure for couple therapy is only 24.6%, while interpersonal therapy is available in under half, or 48.3%, of the settings in which provision is made. For psychodynamic and psychoanalytic therapy, the figure is under 40%, at 39.8%, whereas cognitive behavioural therapy is available in 94.9%—just under 95%—of cases.
Those figures demonstrate the significance of CBT, which for some people with mental health issues is absolutely the right treatment, but it is important to realise that CBT is clearly not the appropriate treatment for all those with mental health conditions. We should also remember that all those therapies are approved and recommended by NICE, and the evidence shows that all such treatments are effective for the right patients.
I am particularly concerned that the benefits of a relational approach to the treatment of depression are not being realised and that, in many cases, individual CBT counselling is given where it is not appropriate. I want to tell a true story of one young couple’s experience of interacting with the IAPT programme. Figures and sums of money give the broad picture—they are our stock in trade as Members of Parliament—but they are a bit high-level and do not capture the essence of mental health provision on the front line.
Let me tell the story of Polly and Mark—to protect their anonymity, those are not their real names—who experienced considerable challenges in having two children, with several miscarriages and a stillbirth. Polly became very low and left her successful career. The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) has already pointed out the cost to the economy when people have mental health issues. Polly’s husband, Mark, had a very difficult childhood, and he was badly affected by his parents’ violent and stormy relationship.
When Polly and Mark’s youngest child was two, Polly confessed that she had had an affair seven years earlier, which left her feeling guilt and shame long after it ended. On learning that, Mark was utterly devastated by the revelation and fell into a deep depression, with unmanageable rages during which he threatened to kill the other man. Polly developed severe headaches, so she went to her GP and was sent for tests. On finding nothing wrong, the GP recommended that Polly have individual counselling focusing on the stillbirth four years previously. After being unable to work and having three weeks of sleepless nights, Mark also visited his GP. Mark was referred to a psychiatrist, who diagnosed him as suffering from acute depression and prescribed him antidepressants.
The couple were acutely conscious that their relationship was about to break down. Not having been offered any form of couple therapy by IAPT, they approached a voluntary sector service, and for six months, they went to weekly couple therapy. At the same time, they were offered cognitive behavioural therapy through IAPT. They believed that the problem was their relationship, but health professionals clearly thought that the depression needed treatment. In couple therapy, Polly was able to share her anxieties about her parents’ divorce and about how she did not want her children to suffer as she had. As the couple therapy progressed, Mark and Polly became more open with each other and began to understand how their relationship problems were a product of both recent and past difficulties.
An important point is that that couple therapy—it was not provided through IAPT; Mark and Polly had to go to the voluntary sector for it, because IAPT had offered them CBT that they did not need—was voluntary help that lasted for six months. My concern is that IAPT provision, whether of CBT or other measures, is often given for only a short period, which is not always appropriate or likely to be successful in such cases.
That true story illustrates powerfully why we need to look again at the IAPT programme, excellent though much of it is, and to take a relational approach to many of the issues where appropriate. I hope that it has been helpful to Members to put that real-life case study on the record.
Academic studies show why what I have said is important and matters. Evidence reveals links between relationship quality, depression and re-employability. For example, a meta-analysis conducted by McKee in 2005 concluded that lack of social support by partners in a relationship has negative impacts on the physical and psychological health of the unemployed person and is especially associated with more frequent development of psychosomatic symptoms, stress and depression.
The all-party parliamentary group on strengthening couple relationships, which I chair, and the newly formed Relationships Alliance published only last week a report that said that relationships were the missing link in public health. That report showed that relationship quality is often a key determinant of health and well-being, and that it has strong links with the ability to deal well with cardiovascular disease, obesity, alcohol misuse and mental health issues. All those issues link up, and strengthening the health of couple relationships is often right at the heart of them.
If we look at what has happened since the IAPT programme began—I understand that it receives funding of about £400 million a year—we can see that the investment has been very much towards cognitive behavioural therapy, with interpersonal psychotherapy, counselling for depression, brief dynamic therapy and couple therapy the poor relations in the area.
In a written parliamentary question, answered on 8 January 2013 and printed in volume 556, column 258, of the Official Report, we learn that of 1,225 sessions in 2012-13 only 99 were for couple therapy, whereas 459 were for CBT low-intensity therapy and 322 for CBT high-intensity therapy. If we look at the period from 2008-09 all the way through to the projections for 2013-14, we will see that of nearly 8,000 different sessions—7,958 to be precise—only 297 were for couple therapy. The story that I have just given of Polly and Mark shows that such sessions are needed up and down are country and can indeed make a significant difference.
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech on the importance of having a relational base to services. In my own constituency of Feltham and Heston, I visited a service that was started a year ago by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. It works with children who have parents with drug and alcohol problems. I am struck by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he able to talk a bit more about, or perhaps give a comment on, how having such a focus in a service can help children who are the victim of the illness of their parents?
Andrew Selous
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. May I extend to her a very warm invitation to come to the next meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on 6 November when we will consider such issues further? She is absolutely right that these issues are intergenerational. If she was following the example of Mark and Polly, she would have learned that it was their own parents’ stormy relationships that had affected them. Of course their children were suffering deeply from the problems that they were having in their own relationship or marriage. Such issues are deeply related, and she is completely right to say that the children suffer hugely when there are relationship problems between the parents. It is vital that we get this matter right for the children, and I would welcome her support on a cross-party basis on these important issues; they are just too important to be bipartisan about. I would love to have cross-party agreement on the importance of relational issues in public health, because I feel so passionately about the matter.
Another concern is the geographic differences in the ability to get couple therapy through IAPT at the moment. Ruth Sutherland, the chief executive officer of Relate, told me only yesterday that the programme is very geographically bound. Provision is better in the north of England—I note that there are not many colleagues from the north of England in the Chamber today—than in the south, so there is an inequality of access geographically, as well as there being fewer of these sessions available across the UK as a whole.
Let me make one further point to the Minister about why one part of IAPT provision is an incredibly serious matter for the whole NHS. As a clinician, he will know about the huge importance of long-term conditions, which are faced by so many of our constituents. He will be well aware of the significant demands that they will make on the NHS in years to come. I am talking about strokes and dementia and all sorts of other long-term ailments that many of our constituents will live with for a very long time.
I heard a moving story a couple of weeks ago from a gentleman who was visiting his elderly parents in Manchester. He said that between them as a couple they could function. Between the two of them, they had one pair of eyes, ears and legs that worked. They were both sick in different ways. They could cope and look after each other, but what would have happened if they had split in younger years? They might have been like Polly and Mark and had difficulties and not been able to receive the type of help that I have outlined. Let us say that they did sadly split up, like so many couples do today. They would be in two different flats in different parts of Manchester needing far more help from their GP and far more adult care, and that would fall on the clinicians for whom the Minister is responsible and on adult social services. Yes, it would have an impact on their families, and we would all be paying more through our taxes and there would greater burdens on business as well from having to look after that couple in two different settings. The importance of strong couple relationships in older age, in later life, is critical not least to deal with the increase in long-term conditions, which are becoming more and more prevalent and which many of our constituents will be coping with for many years to come. That is my final pitch to the Minister.
We are talking specifically about mental health and IAPT. I understand that a lot of good work is being done under IAPT and that it is an excellent programme, but I ask the Minister, when he goes back to his Department and talks to his colleagues and the Secretary of State, to take back with him the absolute centrality of strong relational health up and down are country as far as public health, the burdens on the NHS and his Department are concerned.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Sir Edward, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning.
This has been a thoughtful and important debate on a subject that is not talked about nearly enough. Every day in Britain, people of all ages and backgrounds, and from all communities, have their lives blighted by the spectre of mental illness. Theirs are some of the great untold stories of our society. As many hon. Members have already said, the issue of mental health has been swept under the carpet for too long. One in six people are afflicted by mental illness, but all too often they are scared into silence. That is why this discussion is so important.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) on securing this debate and on the campaigning that he has done on this issue. In addition, I thank him for giving me the opportunity to talk about mental health in my first debate as Labour’s newly appointed shadow Minister with responsibility for public health.
This debate is even more timely because of the news that we have heard on the BBC this morning, to which a number of hon. Members have already referred. Dr Baggaley, the director of medicine at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, has said that our mental health services are in “crisis”, following the news—after the BBC made freedom of information requests—that in a little more than two years we have seen the loss of 1,700 mental health beds. I note that the Minister of State, Department of Health, who is the Minister with responsibility for care, said this morning that the situation is “unacceptable” and that the provision must improve. I hope that the Minister who is here in Westminster Hall today will refer to that when he responds to the debate.
We have heard a number of valuable contributions this morning. In responding to the excellent points that have been made, I will cover three broad themes: first, I will reiterate the importance of early intervention; secondly, I will talk about the improving access to psychological therapies programme, including some specific issues about how IAPT needs to work better; and thirdly, I will talk about what we need to do beyond IAPT.
Let me begin with early intervention. As hon. Members have already said, the long-term consequences are clear if we do not tackle mental illness early; indeed, we can already see those consequences right across our society today. We can see them in the workplace, where mental illness is the largest single cause of long-term sick leave; we can see them in our criminal justice system, where 70% of those in our prisons have a mental illness; and we can see them in our economy, where mental ill health costs Britain’s businesses £26 billion every year, or £71 million every day. Also, in our health service, according to the London School of Economics the physical health care necessitated by mental illness costs the NHS an extra £10 billion each year. All those points show why the case for action could not be any clearer.
I am sure that, like myself, many hon. Members will have had experience of constituents coming to them for assistance; indeed, several hon. Members have referred to those experiences in their contributions to the debate. Constituents come to us in deep distress and dire circumstances. However, many of those situations could have been avoided if those people had received specialist treatment for mental illnesses at a much earlier stage. I echo the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis, who said that it is absolutely crucial that we look at this issue of early intervention.
That was why in 2007 the last Labour Government launched the IAPT programme, which helped to make respected and evidence-based therapies available to more people than ever before. As we heard in the hon. Gentleman’s opening speech, thousands of people have been helped on that programme so far. Since then, the current Government have continued the programme and extended it to cover more people, which is a welcome step. However, as this debate has made clear, IAPT is still a developing scheme, with areas that are in need of much improvement. So, my second theme is to focus on those areas that require attention, and I would be grateful if the Minister could address them in his closing remarks.
There are three areas in particular that require attention. The first is funding. Spending on IAPT has increased from zero in 2008-09, when the programme was first launched, to £214 million in 2011-12. The Department of Health has also allocated £54 million to improve access to therapies for children and young people, which is a good step. However, it must be noted that Ministers always pledged that IAPT funding would be additional funding and would not replace existing psychotherapy services. Despite those assurances, non-IAPT therapy services have been cut by more than 5%. Funding has fallen from £185 million in 2009-09 to £172 million in 2011-12. What makes that even more worrying is that overall mental health spending has been cut in real terms for the second year in a row.
That real-terms cut has particular resonance when it comes to the second area that requires attention, which is waiting times; again, waiting times have already been mentioned by hon. Members during this debate. NICE’s aim is that patients receive access to evidence-based therapies within 28 days of referral. It is regrettable that this debate falls the day before the latest programme statistics are published. According to the latest figures, however, which are for 2012-13, more people are having to wait longer to start receiving treatment for anxiety or depression.
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend makes very important points about waiting times and how they have continued, and also about the cuts to services. Given that the number of university students seeking counselling has risen by a third in the last four years, does she agree that it is important to recognise the impact that the drop in funding could be having on vulnerable students, sometimes forcing them to leave university, which can affect the rest of their life? With the number of students in that situation increasing and without data for average waiting times, we must recognise the importance of early intervention and very fast response.
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and she raises an important issue. There are lots of different groups of people who do not have access to these sorts of services or who have to wait a disproportionate amount of time to access them. We have already heard hon. Members talking about older people who might not be able to access the IAPT programme, and my hon. Friend refers to university students, who do not necessarily fall into the category of children and young people, but who, as young adults, are struggling with leaving home and with financial pressures.
I have not seen any direct research about what effect the current cost of living crisis is having on our population—I hope that there will be some research into that issue—but my experience from my case load as a constituency MP indicates that we have a problem in our society regarding the pressures of life. More people are having to access these services and therefore the services should be available, which makes the issues of waiting times even more relevant.
More than 115,000 people had to wait more than 28 days from referral until their first treatment or therapy session, which was a 19% increase from the previous year. The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) made the point that this issue is not only about the statistics but the people behind the statistics, who have to go through the trauma of waiting for treatment and suffering the uncertainty of not knowing when it will come.
On Monday, someone contacted me to say that they had been waiting for a year and a half for cognitive behavioural therapy in the Wirral, on Merseyside, and just this morning on BBC “Breakfast”: there was a woman who was interviewed who had had to wait 17 months for talking therapies treatment. Eventually, she had to be sectioned as her condition deteriorated while she waited for treatment. These cases are not unusual— there are too many cases like them—and it pains me to learn of them. According to a report produced by the We Need to Talk coalition of mental health charities and royal colleges, one in five people have been waiting for more than a year to receive treatment. However, the same report found that people who receive treatment within three months are almost five times more likely to be helped back into work by therapy than others who have to wait for one or two years. As another person wrote to me this week, even a six-week wait can seem a whole lot longer if someone is clinically depressed. Just as we focus on waiting times for cancer treatment and other examples of physical care, we must do the same for mental health therapies.
I will repeat the commitment, which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made a year ago, that the next Labour Government will rewrite the NHS constitution; that we will strengthen the rights that it grants to patients; that we will create a genuine parity between mental and physical health care; and that we will set down a new right of access to the therapies that we have been talking about this morning. That will mean that mental health patients will be entitled not only to drugs and other medical treatments but to psychological therapies, and they will have the same guarantees on waiting times, professional advice and patient experience.
However, in addition to how long it takes to receive treatment, we need to examine the range of therapies that are available in the first place, which brings me to my third broad theme; again, it is a theme that has been already been referred to by other hon. Members, but it is important to reinforce it and to ask the Minister to respond to it. Different people are affected by different mental health conditions for all sorts of different reasons. That is why we need diverse mental health provision, with a range of therapies, to cater for people with different needs, preferences and personalities. As the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis said, only five types of therapy are currently available via IAPT. Moreover, 90% of IAPT funding has gone towards cognitive behaviour therapies, with limited support for other modes of therapy. The United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy has described this as an
“overwhelmingly manualised and brief approach to therapy that sits at odds with the professional practice of the majority of leading psychotherapists and counsellors.”
We need to look at going beyond basic therapies that help people go about their day-to-day lives more adequately. There needs to be appropriate room for more intense and longer term psychological treatments, so that the underlying causes do not go unaddressed.
The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire mentioned the need for couples therapies. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis also talked about older peoples’ problems with accessing treatment.
There is a patient choice issue, too. According to a survey of 500 service users by Mind, only 8% of people had a full choice about which therapy they received and just 13% had a choice about where they received therapy. The 8% who had full choice of therapies—a very small number—were, on average, three times happier with their treatment and five times more likely to say that therapy had helped them back into work. As the programme develops, we need to do all we can to ensure that it caters to people’s individual needs.
What needs to be done beyond IAPT? As welcome as IAPT is, we have to remember that the programme currently only aspires to be available to 15% of the population. The programme’s three-year report, published last November, shows that it is currently delivering 45% recovery rates and aims to reach 50% by March 2015. The big question this raises is, what about the other 50% to 55%—the 50% who continue to suffer from conditions, having gone through the IAPT process, but are not eligible for more intensive psychotherapy services under the stepped care model? That question, and this debate, requires an answer that goes far beyond the IAPT programme. It requires ending the artificial dividing lines in our NHS and pursuing a whole person, fully integrated approach to mental, physical, social and care issues, as Labour has indicated, and it demands a complete revaluation of how we, as a country, think about and approach mental health. That is what Labour’s mental health taskforce is looking at, under the expert leadership of Stephen O’Brien, the chair of Barts Health NHS Trust.
General mental health support should not start in hospital or the treatment room. It needs to start in our workplaces, our schools and our communities, even across our kitchen tables and in the conversations we have with one another. There is no reason why we should not be able to talk about mental health and psychological therapies in the same way we do about access to sexual health services, vaccinations or cancer treatment, but we have a long way to go.
I look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope that he will respond to my questions and issues raised by other hon. Members. Returning to my opening comments on today’s news about the crisis in mental health provision and the reduction in the number of beds, the point of our debate is access to services that would prevent people from going into those beds in the first place. However, we hear today that bed capacity is at 100%. I hope that the Minister will mention those issues as well, because they are interlinked.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) for securing this debate, for his tremendous work on the all-party group in highlighting the importance of mental health and the need to continue to raise mental health issues, and for his supporting the Government in seeking parity between physical and mental health, to which we have been committed since the coalition came to power in 2010. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) on her promotion to her new role and commend her largely bipartisan approach to the debate and on recognising that some of these issues are bigger than party politics.
Before I deal with some important issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis, I want to touch on the contributions of other hon. Members and talk about the context in which we are operating. We recognise, as a Government—I think that all hon. Members in this debate have recognised—that for far too long we focused on crisis management in health care generally, particularly in mental health, rather than on upstream interventions, which is where IAPT plays such an important role to keep people well in their own homes and communities, instead of picking up the pieces when they become so unwell at the other end. There is a good economic argument for that, but it also provides much better care for the patients and the people we all care about as Members of Parliament, and whom I care about as a doctor.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised some important issues about veterans’ health. He knows that I have personally committed to improving the provision of physical and mental health care for our armed forces veterans. There are now 10 dedicated teams in England, focusing on supporting our veterans who have post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health problems, post-discharge. A lot of work is going on—much more collaborative work—between the NHS and the armed forces, to ensure that general practitioners and health care professionals in England are much more aware of armed forces personnel coming back into their care, after serving in the armed forces, that a more holistic approach is taken, that people do not present too late in crisis and that GPs can be much more proactive in offering reassurance and support to veterans who may be running into the early signs of difficulties. My counterpart in Northern Ireland has been working hard on that and he should be commended for it.
My hon. Friends the Members for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton) made important contributions about the holistic approach to health care in general, about how mental health needs to be considered holistically and about the benefits to wider society of upstream interventions. Getting health care right can also provide additional benefits for the economy; for example, by supporting families to stay together and bring up their children. All these things are beneficial and at the heart of my work on early interventions projects. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson), who is no longer in this Chamber, and I are working closely on that.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
I apologise for being late. I was at another meeting. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) on securing the debate. Has the Minister already secured a meeting with Welsh Government Ministers, or will he do so in future, to discuss the approach towards veterans that he outlined? That issue is close to my heart, because I am aware of emergency rescue situations in which things have gone too far, when services, including mental health services, have been stretched way beyond their means in dealing with them. There would be benefits from sharing best practice across all the regions and nations.
Dr Poulter
The hon. Gentleman is right. We UK Health Ministers work collaboratively on many issues. However, on veterans, we have to recognise that, although we have UK-wide armed forces, health is a devolved responsibility. We need to share different initiatives better between the devolved Administrations. Some remote areas of Wales, in particular, could learn from best practice in the NHS about how we are using, to good effect, specialist mental health teams for veterans. I should be happy to share that and meet my counterpart in Wales to talk that through in greater detail.
I will focus in particular on the important contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis. He addressed a number of issues that are central to the provision of good mental health care, and he threw down some challenges on how we could make things better. In particular, he praised the scale of the Government’s ambition to have genuine parity between physical and mental health, which has to be right; it is at the centre of everything that we are looking towards in the good commissioning of services locally.
I reassure the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree that, with the addition of IAPT, there has been a substantial increase in the NHS’s total investment in psychological therapies. As she will be aware, however, it is down to local commissioners to prioritise their resources to meet local need, based on the local population that they serve. In the past, the challenge has been that good commissioning has too often been seen purely through the framework of physical health. Through the NHS Commissioning Board’s mandate, we are now ensuring that there is parity between mental and physical health. That journey is already well under way to ensure that good commissioning is no longer just about commissioning for acute services, such as stroke and heart attack, but about looking at the whole patient and considering the importance of upstream interventions, which are central to IAPT’s role in looking after patients.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis also talked about the need to consider CBT and its evidence base. As he knows, it is not the role of Ministers to question the integrity of NICE, but NICE keeps its criteria under review, and there is a very strong evidence base to support CBT. The evidence base for IAPT is continually being developed and adapted, and a number of pilots are already in place to consider the potential to extend the scope of therapies, including to older people. I hope that that is reassuring. NICE will be listening to this debate, and it continues to evaluate the evidence. With mental health, there has always been controversy on how evidence is collated, because mental health is different from physical health, and NICE will keep that under review when it adapts and introduces future guidelines.
The debate has been called because all hon. Members in the room believe that, for too long, there has been too much focus on crisis management and acute response when patients with mental health conditions become very unwell. We would all like to see much more focus on upstream intervention, which is what IAPT is all about. We need to move the focus away from SSRIs—selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors—and drug-based therapy towards upstream, proactive intervention for what is sometimes a very vulnerable patient group.
The benefits of early intervention have been outlined by many hon. Members. There are clear health benefits, but there are also economic benefits, benefits to the family and benefits from getting people back to work, education and training, and from supporting people to have more productive and happier lives. That is why we will continue to ensure parity of esteem in commissioning for physical and mental health, and it is why we will continue to support upstream interventions in the early years—I will address early-years IAPT later. We will also ensure that we continually drive good commissioning to encompass mental health as well as physical health. That holistic approach to health care, by prioritising mental health, is good for people’s health care, good for families and good for the economy. That is why we will ensure that it remains a priority.
As hon. Members will be aware, the mandate set by the Government for NHS England last year establishes a holistic approach as a priority for the whole NHS for the first time. Improving access to psychological therapies is fundamental to the success of improving mental health. The mandate makes it clear that everyone who needs them should have timely access to evidence-based services. That is particularly important for mental health. By the end of March 2015, IAPT services will be available to at least 15% of those who could benefit—an estimated 900,000 people a year. We are also increasing the availability of services to cover children and young people with long-term physical health problems and those with severe mental illness to ensure that everyone can access therapies. There is an emphasis on those who are out of work, the black and minority ethnic populations and older people and their carers.
IAPT is being made available throughout the country. The programme was started by the previous Government in 2008, and we now have an IAPT service in every clinical commissioning group. There are more than 4,000 trained practitioners, and more than 1 million people are entering and completing treatment. Recovery rates have consistently been in excess of 45%, and they are much greater in many areas. The programme already has a clear track record of evidence-based success, and it is helping to reach some of the most disadvantaged and marginalised people in our society, which we would all say is a good thing.
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the evidence. Although this is a little premature, he might be aware that the Department for Education has just commissioned evidence on the efficacy and cost-benefits of couple counselling. I have sometimes heard it said that there is no evidence for anything other than CBT, so will he say a little about the range of provision available under IAPT, specifically in relation to couple counselling?
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will address children’s IAPT in a moment, because the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) made an important point on that.
My hon. Friend is right that, through not only IAPT but other programmes that consider health care more holistically—particularly the family nurse programme, which is aimed at vulnerable teenage mums—upstream intervention supporting those vulnerable groups helps to keep couples together and helps reduce rates of domestic violence. The programmes also support a stronger bond between mum and baby, so the child does better at school and mum and dad are supported to get back into education, training and work. So it is a win-win situation for the economy, and it helps vulnerable younger parents to have a better start in their own lives and provides a better start in life for their children. That is not exclusive to family nurses; we are also considering how the approach may be developed with IAPT, so that we can have a more joined-up approach both to children’s health generally and to families.
Earlier this year, I launched a system-wide pledge across education, local authorities, the voluntary sector and the NHS to do everything we can to give each and every child the best start in life. Part of the pledge is to do exactly what my hon. Friend outlines, which is to focus on getting early and upstream interventions right to support children in having the best start in life. We are also seeing the benefits of supporting families and reducing rates of domestic violence. I hope that is reassuring, and we will continue to develop and press those policies.
Briefly, our children’s IAPT programme is no less ambitious in its aim to transform services. In 2011, we announced funding for children and young people’s IAPT of £8 million a year for four years, and in 2012, we agreed significant additional investment of up to £22 million over the next three years, which is a total of £54 million up to 2015. That additional funding will be used to extend the range of evidence-based therapies to include systematic family therapies and interpersonal psychotherapy, to extend the range, reach and number of collaborators within the project and to develop interactive e-learning programmes to extend the skills and knowledge of professionals such as teachers, social workers and counsellors. Again, there is a multi-agency approach to improving the support and care available to children, because this is not just about the NHS, but about local authorities and education working together to get it right for young people. Behind those facts and figures are the people whose lives and services have been transformed by IAPT.
To conclude, it might be worth outlining a recent conversation that I had with a GP. When talking about IAPTs in West Sussex, he said, “I hear from GP colleagues that this is the single most positive change to their medical practice in the last 20 years, and I echo this. Our local service reaches out to the community, and it is always looking at ways to improve. It is continually developing new evidence-based interventions for people with anxiety and depression, delivered one-on-one and in groups in a flexible way that means patients have real choice. They have filled a huge gap in need and are a force for good.” That is absolutely right, and it is why we will continue to develop parity between mental and physical health and continue to expand the IAPT programme.
A14 (Tolling Proposals)
(10 years, 10 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
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to have secured this debate. I welcome the Minister to his new role. If he is as adept in this role as he was when performing his former duties, we will have a terrific roads Minister. He has had a baptism of fire, having already done two 90-minute debates yesterday, but I am sure he is coping admirably.
The A14 is a strategic route for UK plc. It is heavily congested in certain areas, and upgrading it is a national priority. The Government and councils are planning to invest £1.5 billion in upgrading the A14 and also the A1. However, the Government have singled out through-users of the A14 for tolling even though no other major road improvement scheme planned for the next 10 years is to be tolled. There is a risk that that will effectively amount to a tax on businesses in East Anglia—bad news for one of UK plc’s leading growth areas.
The A14 is a key route for traffic between the UK’s largest container port, Felixstowe, and the midlands. Its importance is recognised in its status as a trans-European transport network, or TEN-T. It also serves commuters to the city of Cambridge, home to the world-famous science park, which is a fast-growing economic hub. In the infrastructure statement in June, the Government recognised the importance of the A14 and announced that the start date for the work would be brought forward two years, to 2016—a decision that I and many others greatly welcome.
The infrastructure statement included 24 other road upgrades, which the Government will fund in their entirety. I am proud that the coalition Government are investing so heavily in infrastructure, especially since the previous Government, frankly, did not do enough of that. However, none of those 24 other routes will be co-financed by tolling. Roads supporting other economic hubs and routes with significant increases in capacity will enjoy fully funded upgrades, including the M25 improvements at Tilbury, the A1 in Yorkshire and, indeed, the proposed A1 from Newcastle to Scotland. It was suggested that the £1 billion M4 relief road in Wales would be subject to tolls, but that was ruled out very quickly—almost within 24 hours. Singling out the A14 for tolling appears arbitrary and somewhat unfair.
I represent the constituency of Suffolk Coastal, which includes the port of Felixstowe. However, this is not simply an issue of the potential threat to that port, which competes against many others along the south and east coasts. Tolling the A14 will have a wider impact on many businesses in Suffolk, Norfolk, north Essex and Cambridgeshire. It is therefore no wonder that business organisations and local enterprise partnerships in those areas have come out against the toll.
Two toll-free alternative routes are being offered for all traffic, although each will add considerable distance and time to journeys. The existing trunked A14 is to be de-trunked and key infrastructure is to be removed, so capacity is being removed. That is in stark contrast to the only other tolled trunk road in the country, the M6 toll, which offered a genuine new road.
The proposals also do not reflect the fact that at the point of proposed enhancement, between Cambridge and Huntingdon, HGVs from the port of Felixstowe currently make up just 3% of traffic and are dwarfed in number by local commuters. I am afraid that the perception in Suffolk is that East Anglian businesses will end up paying for easing congestion for Cambridge commuters.
Considerable effort has been made to shift more freight on to rail. The Government are helping with that, and I welcome their investment in the Ipswich chord and the work to be done at Ely junction, which will really help efforts to increase the amount of freight moving from road to rail. European funding available to TEN-T projects has also been secured for those projects. However, I am not aware that any EU funding has yet been secured for the proposed A14 enhancement. I would like to hear from the Minister what plans there are to secure such funding.
I shall go through some of the key stages of the proposal. When we looked at the consultation, we were disappointed that the Highways Agency refused to hold a consultation meeting in Suffolk. All the meetings were held in Cambridgeshire, even though there is reference after reference in the consultation document about, in effect, forcing HGVs on to the trunked road by making sure that that was the easiest route to use and making other routes quite difficult to use so that businesses would end up using the tolled roads. The Highways Agency made a bad mistake there, which I hope it does not repeat.
The solution in the consultation removes the existing A14, including demolishing the A14 bridge, therefore reducing road capacity. I would like the Minister to explain why the parliamentary answer given to me by his predecessor, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), talks about increasing capacity when it feels as if capacity is being reduced.
I mentioned the issues for Suffolk Coastal and the port of Felixstowe. One issue for local haulage businesses relates to DP World, just up the road at Tilbury. Improvements are being planned to junction 30 of the M25, which is close to that port. It is planned that those improvements will be paid for entirely by the taxpayer. Although I am convinced that the magnificent port of Felixstowe will continue to invest and to compete with DP World, imposing tolling charges on one of its key routes adds additional costs for customers and hauliers. There is a real risk, which does not seem to have been taken into account, that container lorries will simply divert to the Al and the M25 at the expense of Felixstowe. That is certainly bad news for the port of Felixstowe and supporting businesses, but it is also bad news for UK plc.
It has been suggested that a tolling element is required to help to pay for all these infrastructure changes, but there has been no indication of how long the tolls will be imposed for. Will it simply be for the financing of the project? I received a written answer suggesting that the anticipated revenue is £30 million per year, but there has been no indication of how long tolling will last.
Tolling has been suggested for only one part of the road, the new A14 carriageway, which is the bypass around Huntingdon. The project has been designed specifically to force through traffic on to the tolled road. However, no charges are planned for the brand-new local roads that will be built or for the enhanced A1.
It seems contradictory to single out that one stretch of the A14, as the existing A14 is rerouted and de-trunked, when the A1, which will also be significantly improved, will not be tolled. The Highways Agency suggests that de-trunking the A14 addresses the Department for Transport’s ambition to place the right vehicles on the right roads, which suggests that the DFT is, in effect, forcing traffic on to the toll road.
The two non-tolled alternatives for HGVs in the consultation will push a lot of traffic on to the A428 and the A1M. Quite a number of hauliers are already starting to use the alternatives, as we know. There is a risk that the toll will have the unintended consequence that we see considerably more traffic using that route. We will end up in a situation in which people in St Neots are going nuts about how much traffic is going through their town. The situation could be even worse for St Ives, a pleasant little market town, as the other proposed alternative is to go through St Ives and then around the edge of Huntingdon. I hope the Department and the Minister are aware of those possible unintended consequences.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. She is making a compelling case.
I was born in Suffolk. I have lived there my whole life and I have worked there for much of it. In that time, I have witnessed a dramatic growth in the logistics industry, based on the port of Felixstowe and mostly located along the A14 corridor. Does my hon. Friend agree that proposals such as this could have a significant negative impact on the logistics industry in Suffolk and on the Suffolk economy as a whole? Does she also agree that the Department for Transport needs to look again at this proposal and to consult properly with Suffolk businesses and Suffolk people, and that, if there is to be a toll road, there should also be a realistic alternative, although, ideally, the A14 should not be tolled at all?
Dr Coffey
I support my hon. Friend’s sentiments. The wider impact does not seem to have been assessed. In fact, there appears to be an assumption in the Government, which I think is wrong, that demand for using the A14 is completely inelastic to the toll. In fact, as the Department will know, there are basically two types of hauliers: first, those that definitely need to arrive on time; and secondly, those for whom cash flow is key. Adding to the cost of coming in and out of Suffolk and other parts of East Anglia creates a risk to our economy. This is an issue not just for Felixstowe, but for other parts of Ipswich, for Bury St Edmunds and for Haverhill, as well as for Lowestoft, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on a superb speech. She is saying everything that I would say.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. Will the hon. Gentleman address the Chair and not turn his back?
Mr Ruffley
My hon. Friend asks why there was not greater consultation with Suffolk. Does she agree that now, because, as she mentioned, other A roads in our region and other regions are not being tolled, there is a risk that there will be an A road apartheid in Suffolk—discrimination against business users, and other travellers into the county? Could that be deleterious to logistics companies in Bury St Edmunds, Stowmarket and Needham Market, in my constituency, and, equally importantly, in the golden triangle of Norwich, Ipswich and Cambridge? That is one of the engine rooms of growth for the whole nation.
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is right. I hope that the Minister realises that we are united across the county in our concern about the economic impact on the county and region, particularly in the light of our growth industries. My hon. Friend put that well.
To go into a little more detail, there were various options with the original consultation and it seems that we have taken up option 3, which includes the Huntingdon southern bypass scheme and removal of the A14 bridge, and whose estimated cost is £687 million, with a benefit-cost ratio of 2.15 and 2.26 million vehicle hours saved; and option 5, which also includes the bypass and would retain the trunked A14 through Huntingdon, with the addition of local roads.
The estimated cost of option 5 is £1.2 billion, nearly double that of option 3, with a BCR of 3.49 and 2.98 million vehicle hours saved. In both cases the eastbound saving is 19 minutes and the westbound saving is 14. The document gave, as a reason for introducing local access roads, allowing tolling to be put in more easily; so it seems that the scheme has been designed to make tolling easier, although introducing those local roads would increase complexity and cost at the Girton junction. The combination of the two options is coming out at £1.5 billion, but that sum is also due to enhancements to the A1, which were never part of the original proposals.
There are several issues to consider. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) wants to speak, so I shall draw my remarks to a close. The A14 needs to be improved. I thank the Government for investing so heavily in that key route for our region and for UK plc. However, users feel that they already pay their share; they do not want to be singled out to pay a toll while other parts of the road network continue to be fully financed.
I am proud to support the “No Toll Tax on Suffolk” campaign of the Suffolk chamber of commerce; it has gathered much momentum. I also welcome the backing of Suffolk county council, Suffolk Coastal district council, New Anglia local enterprise partnership and other business organisations. I am sure that the Minister will write to me if he cannot answer all the questions, but I ask him to listen to the concerns being put to him, because the issue is rousing Suffolk as we speak.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
The convention of the House is that if a Member wants to contribute after the initial speech, they must have the agreement of the person who secured the debate and the Minister. I remind the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) that we must leave adequate time for the Minister to sum up.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
Of course, Mr Leigh. Thank you; I intend to speak for only a minute or two. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) for giving me a little time, and the Minister for allowing me to speak. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate.
Today there was another fall in the joblessness figures in Ipswich, which is a sign of a vibrant and important economy. Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire have a larger economy than Scotland’s. They are a vibrant part of the country, which has not fallen into recession and which is powering private sector-led innovative economic growth. That is a good thing, and the Government, for once, are investing in that success.
We are always bereft of infrastructure in the east of England. The A11 work that was promised many times by the previous Government is now delivered. The previous Government spoke at length about the A14. We are grateful for the Government’s consideration, and understand the financial pressure on the Treasury. We are also grateful for the fact that much has already been done to make the tolling proposals more reasonable than we feared.
Let us, however, be straight about the reason for what is happening: it is because Cambridge is such a remarkable success. We do not begrudge Cambridge that; it is part of the economic success story of the region. However, we in Ipswich, where many hauliers are based, are effectively being asked to pay a congestion charge for Cambridge, and that is wrong. It is wrong for economic success, which is more fragile in east Suffolk, to be impeded by Cambridge’s wild and ever growing success. We ask the Minister to reconsider alternative schemes that would put the cost on to the main users and the main reasons for the congestion, which do not include the hauliers of Ipswich, Felixstowe and east Suffolk.
Southampton will receive an electric spine under the Government’s bold infrastructure plans. The new Thamesport will receive road upgrades and an electrified link. However, Felixstowe, the largest container port in the country, does not, unlike Immingham, have an electric link by rail. In addition to our not having such a link, our principal route into the country will be tolled. That will be a double disadvantage for the country’s largest container port—the fourth largest in the world. It will have a significant impact on my constituents, many of whom are employed in the shipping industry. It may turn our joblessness figures in the other direction.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
It is a joy to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) for giving me an early opportunity to examine the issue and make some comments.
The effectiveness of the United Kingdom’s strategic road network is vital to long-term economic growth, providing the means to move people and freight between our centres of industry and population. In June, the Government announced plans to increase the capital provision for critical transport infrastructure through an unprecedented programme of road investments worth more than £30 billion. Last year we announced proposals to upgrade one of the most congested sections of trunk road in England: the A14 between Huntingdon and Cambridge—a section that I know well. That 25-mile length of road carries up to 85,000 vehicles a day, which is significantly more than it was ever designed to accommodate, and is the reason why it has become such a frequent source of delay and frustration for motorists. Heavy goods vehicles make up an unusually high proportion of the traffic on the road, contributing to difficult and stressful driving conditions for other motorists and reducing average speeds still further. However, for commercial road users, congestion presents a cost to business efficiency, making journey times slow and unpredictable and increasing fuel consumption as vehicles are often forced to queue. I used to drive a road tanker and understand that problem all too well.
The A14 between Huntingdon and Cambridge is part of a strategic road corridor, which links the midlands to the east coast ports. In addition, it accommodates long-distance movements between the north of England and the south-east via the M11 motorway, as well as a growing volume of local and commuter traffic in what has become one of Britain’s most successful economic hot spots. That mix of local and long-distance traffic is expected to get significantly worse as the economy continues to recover, and one of the aims of the A14 scheme is therefore to separate those making local trips from those passing through the region.
I shall comment now on a couple of questions, so that I do not run out of time. My hon. Friend asked whether EU funding had been secured, and the answer is that it is too early in the development of the project to be able to say yes or no. As to traffic being forced on to other roads, it is interesting to note that the alternative route via the A428 and the A1 is 30 miles, as against 18 miles on the A14. That would be an additional 14 miles, and anyone driving a truck doing eight or nine miles to the gallon would—never mind the lost time—easily be able to work out that with the level of tolls we propose it would be a no-brainer to stay on the toll road and not increase pressure on other local infrastructure. Added to that, a shortage of residential property in Cambridge is fuelling house price inflation in the region, but new housing developments cannot proceed without better infrastructure. The A14 scheme provides the key to unlock a number of major housing developments along the trunk road corridor and is critical to the plans of the local authorities in the area.
The case for improving the A14 in the area is overwhelming. Other rail freight and public transport-based solutions have already been considered, and improvements, including the Cambridge guided busway, have already been made to help to take some of the load off the A14. Significant growth in traffic volumes on this section of the A14 is forecast, however, and without improvement the problem will only worsen. The Government therefore announced a funding commitment of £1.5 billion in June this year to support improvements to the A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon, together with a challenging development programme that will see the proposed improvement scheme complete and open to traffic by the end of the decade.
The construction and maintenance of the United Kingdom’s trunk roads and motorway network is mostly funded by central Government. The introduction of tolls to fund or part-fund major capital investments in the road network is, however, a well established principle. Many of our estuarial bridge and tunnel crossings, including the Mersey tunnels, the River Severn crossings and the Dartford crossing, are tolled, but the M6 toll, which opened in December 2003 to bypass a heavily trafficked section of the M6 through Birmingham, is currently the only principal road in Britain to be tolled. Proposals to toll part of the A14 Cambridge-to-Huntingdon improvement were announced as part of the Government’s commitment in June.
The Government have previously stated that, although they have no intention to toll existing capacity on Britain’s trunk road and motorway network, where investment in new infrastructure constitutes a significant transformation of the existing route the option to introduce tolls on new sections of road is seen as a means of making the capital investment more affordable. Such a situation exists on the A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon. The proposed scheme, at £1.5 billion, constitutes more than a 10th of the Highways Agency’s entire capital budget to the end of the decade and the transport and economic benefits of the improvement to the east of England, in particular the Cambridge sub-region, are significant.
The Government will still bear the brunt of the capital costs associated with the scheme, but it is fair that the road users who will benefit most should make a contribution to the construction costs. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal discussed the impact of the charge on the people and businesses in East Anglia, the current levels of congestion and delay on this section of road already result in a significant cost to those living and working in the region. The local authorities and the local enterprise partnership in the Cambridgeshire area are highly supportive of the scheme and have also been asked to make a contribution to its development. As a result, some £100 million has been pledged by those bodies to offset some of the costs to Government of the scheme.
Tolling therefore makes the A14 scheme more affordable. An important principle underpinning the tolling strategy for the A14 is that tolls, while making a meaningful contribution towards the cost of the scheme, should not deter motorists from using the new road, particularly when making long-distance trips through the region. Tariffs will therefore be kept as low as possible, with light vehicles being expected to pay around £1 or £1.50 at current-day prices and heavy vehicles paying around double that cost. It is anticipated that tolls will be charged seven days a week, but that overnight trips will be free. That may encourage some commercial operators to use the road at night when it is expected to be less busy.
A second principle that remains fundamental to the development of this scheme has been to channel the right traffic on to the right roads, separating long-distance through-traffic from local traffic. The proposed scheme makes provision for local and commuter traffic to use a new side-road network between Cambridge and Huntingdon, which is toll-free and which eliminates much of the conflict between local and strategic users.
Most toll roads in Britain and throughout Europe require road users to stop at toll plazas to pay, but if we are to eliminate congestion on this section of road, the introduction of physical barriers is not the solution. The Highways Agency is therefore proposing a free-flow tolling system, in which vehicles are identified using cameras or tag devices and payments are made electronically or by smartphone without delaying road users. I should point out that we do not expect drivers to use their smartphones while driving. The system works in a similar way to the London congestion charge, using technology that is now well proven and collection systems that have proved to be effective in practice.
The tolling proposals for the A14 Cambridge-to-Huntingdon scheme were set out in a public consultation exercise that ended last weekend, together with the Highways Agency’s proposed scheme alignment. More than 5,000 people attended a series of exhibitions staged in towns and villages along the route and nearly 1,000 people provided their views by completing the Highways Agency’s online questionnaire. Discussions took place between the Highways Agency and the various local authorities in the surrounding area and the consultation received a high level of publicity in the press and broadcast media in Cambridge, Huntingdon and throughout the east of England. That was the first in a series of consultation exercises that will take place before a development consent order application is submitted by the Highways Agency in the autumn of 2014. Although it is a little early to comment on the results of the recently closed first consultation, it is clear that aspects of the tolling proposals have been high on the agenda—not least because of the activities of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal.
Mr Goodwill
I asked my officials about that. The consultation was focused on the area where the road is to be built because of the effect on local communities. If anyone has had involvement in the High Speed 2 project, they will know that it is the communities near such projects that are likely to have the strongest views. Those further afield who will benefit from the scheme may well feed in their views but were not given the opportunity to contribute through road shows. I intend, however, to have regular meetings with representatives of the freight and logistics industry, as I am sure they will have views to voice.
Finding the right highway solution, which is both affordable and fair, remains a priority for the Government. The results of the consultation exercise, when they are published later in the year, should provide an important indication of public opinion and will help the Highways Agency as it develops the scheme proposals. It remains clear, however, that to do nothing to improve this overcrowded section of our trunk road network is really not an option and that traffic congestion in the Cambridge and Huntingdon area will worsen without improvement and will constrain economic growth in the wider east of England in decades to come.
Blacklisting
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
The next speaker is Glenda Jackson. Before you begin, Glenda, I need to advise Members that there is a court case in progress at the moment—the GMB trade union is claiming that 70 of its members have been denied work as a result of being named on a list of construction workers drawn up by an organisation.
The matter is sub judice, and Members should be aware of the rules of the House on such issues: I will not permit any direct reference to that particular case. The Member in charge of the debate has written separately, with the advice of the Principal Clerk of the Table Office. I hesitate to cause difficulty for the debate, but I will not allow direct reference to that particular case.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Alan; it is a pleasure to work under your chairmanship. I am one of the few Members to have absolutely no legal training whatever, so the possibility of my uttering anything that could be deemed to be sub judice is fairly remote. I do wish, however, that I had selected a rather less bland title for this afternoon’s debate, because we are looking not so much at the practice of blacklisting, but at the illegality and abhorrence of blacklisting.
In common with many of my colleagues over the years, I have had constituents at advice surgeries alleging that they have lost their jobs, or had their career prospects blighted, because of blacklisting. At one time, it was extremely difficult to prove such allegations. In light of your introductory remarks, Sir Alan, I hasten to add that my constituents were not laying the allegations at the door of the construction industry. In my memory, blacklisting could go throughout the employment world, but it was extremely difficult to prove any allegations. Silly me, I thought that when the regulations under the Employment Relations Act 1999 making blacklisting illegal came into effect in 2010, such visits from constituents would end.
One must, nevertheless, pay tribute to all those who, inside and outside the House, worked to bring about what we thought would be safeguards under the 1999 Act. I also pay tribute to those who—again, inside and outside the House—have consistently, and certainly for more than a year, raised the issue of allegations of blacklisting through debates, early-day motions and questions to Ministers. Most recently, some of those against whom the allegations have been most cogently presented have indicated some kind of acceptance—I would not go so far as to say “apology”—that something untoward had been going on.
In my previous work, many of my colleagues—most markedly in the United States of America, and rather less in the United Kingdom—suffered egregiously from someone we could call the godfather of blacklisting, the nefarious Senator McCarthy. His reasons for condemning people as scaremongers and a danger to the body politic and the life of all democratic societies were overtly political.
Blacklisting, however, can be compared to an infectious disease—it spreads much further than the initial target. Only this morning, I heard from someone who had blown the whistle. She was a care worker, and she blew the whistle on her place of employment, because she found the treatment of those in her care totally unacceptable. Her whistleblowing brought some results, and I believe that that particular care home closed down—this was a few years ago and is not a contemporary case; it is a scandal that we all know about. She said, categorically, that she became unemployable. That is the running theme of all blacklisting allegations—that those who have been blacklisted are deemed by someone in authority to be, in essence, troublemakers; it is a little like David and Goliath. They would be dangerous to employ, because they might cause any commercial project some kind of egregious, usually financial, damage. Nine times out of 10, however, such people are actually attempting to ensure greater safety in their work areas.
Looking back at my previous work experience, I see that the creative people named by Senator McCarthy were not the only ones affected; their creative lives were cut off at the knees, but, in addition, the benefits of their creative work were no longer available to the wider community. That is why blacklisting is like a particularly infectious disease, which can spread far wider than only among those who know themselves to have been blacklisted in those industries or professions in which we know that blacklisting has existed, or possibly still exists. That is why I pay tribute to everyone inside and outside the House who has brought the issue forward.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Last year, with the help of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, I tabled an early-day motion on this important issue. Does she agree not only that the practice is a disgrace and a stain on the country, but that the people who were blacklisted are the very ones who should have been praised for what they were doing to assist fellow workers? The companies that indulged in such dark practices should be held accountable and made to pay for ruining the lives of many thousands of construction workers.
Glenda Jackson
I strongly concur. The stain of being blacklisted and accused of being in some way not committed, whether to the job, the company or the venture, can even spread to members of an individual’s family. I have heard stories of small children being called names by their contemporaries, because their mother or father had been deemed to be working against the industry or profession.
I endorse what my hon. Friend said, but we should now be pushing, most markedly, for the Government to institute a full inquiry into such practices, as previously requested. We thought that we were safe and that blacklisting was illegal—it is there in an Act of Parliament—but now, given reports in this country’s major newspapers and hon. Members’ questions and early-day motions, the problem clearly needs to be re-examined.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
On that important point of having an inquiry, one of the most terrible and serious things about blacklisting is that people do not know whether they are on a blacklist. Without an inquiry, which has been called for by unions such as UCATT and the GMB, some people will never know that they are on a blacklist. That is why I support my hon. Friend’s call. I would love it if she could develop that point a little more.
Glenda Jackson
My hon. Friend has developed the point very well indeed—she needs no help from me. As she so rightly says, and going back to my analogy with an infectious disease, people might not even know that they are suffering from such a disease. Only when we have a thoroughgoing inquiry, with all the evidence, and when the symptoms are brought into what we are told is the only effective disinfectant, sunlight—the light of day—can we begin to establish whether the work that has taken place in the past, on ensuring health and safety at work, for example, has gone astray.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend on how she is opening the debate. I want to put on the record the fact that I am a member of both the GMB and UCATT. I do so not because I am required to declare that as an interest, but because I am damn proud of it.
On looking forward, will my hon. Friend join me in commending the vocal way in which the Welsh Government Minister, Jane Hutt, has made it clear that there will be no place in public procurement for companies who use blacklisting? She is devising policy and guidance for such companies to ensure that that is crystal clear and explicit.
Glenda Jackson
Being partly Welsh, I always find it easy to commend the Welsh on practically anything. That example should be taken on board by other authorities to ensure that the best of all possible disinfectants—sunlight—is brought to bear on this egregious illegality. Let us not forget what we are talking about. Blacklisting is illegal.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent and powerful speech. On an earlier point about McCarthyism, Sam Wanamaker was a victim. He came to Britain, and founded the Globe theatre and so on. It is to this country’s credit that we would not tolerate McCarthyism and we gave employment to people who were blacklisted in their own country. He could have made an enormous contribution to America, but fortunately he came to us.
Glenda Jackson
I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said. Sam Wanamaker worked extremely hard and was absolutely fundamental in ensuring that we now have one of the most critically and dramatically acclaimed theatres in the world—the Globe. He was essential in creating for a whole generation that had not thought it would find anything interesting in Shakespeare the extraordinary illumination of what it is to be a human being that only Shakespeare and his plays bring to bear.
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend and pay tribute to what Sam Wanamaker did, but in no way was there equal treatment. America was denied what Sam could have done. He was not alone in being blacklisted. Wider society suffered desperately because of fear during the McCarthy era, when entirely innocent people, as has been the case in this country, were victimised because others were afraid to speak out against what was happening. As we all know, it was only when Senator McCarthy took the fatal final step of trying to bring down the army that the President of the day stepped in and said in no small way, “This has to stop.”
The damage was fundamental and we do not want that infectious disease to take root again in this country. We would delude ourselves if we thought it had not existed here. We would not have had to fight so hard to change the employment Bill if that had not been the case. Blacklisting must never, ever be allowed to flourish again in this country. I pay tribute to those in the Chamber today, those on the broader parliamentary estate, the trade unions and those employees—or, rather, those unemployed people—who were not prepared to stand idly by, but were prepared to take the brickbats, insults and allegations that it was all fantasy, and who fought their corner.
I am on the record as saying that if an hon. Member cannot say what they want to say in 10 minutes, they should not stand up, so I will now throw the floor open to eager colleagues.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Sir Alan, for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) on securing it and on her wonderfully impassioned speech. I will speak for only 10 minutes because, as she said, if hon. Members cannot say what they want to say in 10 minutes, they should not stand up. I shall try to learn from her vast experience.
Blacklisting is completely wrong. Not only does it destroy individuals, their confidence and their personality and who they are, but it destroys their family and prevents them from earning, working, contributing to society and being part of a wider whole. It is wrong for a variety of reasons, and I could wax lyrical on that. I know from my upbringing in Liverpool that blacklisting is a terrible disease, as the hon. Lady said, and must not be allowed to take root. It is illegal and should not be allowed in this country. I am proud that, as the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) said, this country has always been good at welcoming people who have been blacklisted in other countries. I want to put it clearly on the record that blacklisting is completely wrong.
I shall focus my comments on the construction industry, but I will not refer to the case going through the courts at the moment, Sir Alan, as you asked us not to. There are 3,213 victims of blacklisting, and we are well aware that around 2,500 people on that database do not know that they are on it. Will the Minister impress on the Information Commissioner the need to contact them directly to make them aware of that?
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I found out that I was on the Economic League blacklist during the 1980s only when Ciba-Geigy Chemicals gave me a job but then withdrew it for no good reason. The list was published at an event at the university of London, and I found my name on it. How can there be any decency in society if people are on a blacklist, particularly if they have not found work? I was lucky because I was in work and kept work, but some people lose work or do not get it without knowing why because someone, for whatever reason, decided to put them on a list?
Stephen McPartland
The hon. Gentleman always makes powerful and impassioned points, and I agree with him. There can be no justice in society if people are on a blacklist without knowing. I urge the Minister to ask the Information Commissioner to contact those 2,500 people who do not know that they are on a blacklist and make them aware that they are.
I am not a member of any union, but with, I hope, the support of the GMB union and the hon. Member for Luton North, we will launch a cross-party campaign to contact the 44 construction companies that were involved in that blacklisting database, the idea being to ask them to apologise and to provide compensation. What we would ultimately like is for no one in the Government or local government to provide them with any public sector contracts or money until they have taken those actions.
Steve Rotheram
The hon. Gentleman is making really important points. There seems to be cross-party consensus on trying to contact everyone on the list, many of whom do not know they are on it. Would he support a call by UCATT and other unions for a public inquiry into the scandal?
Stephen McPartland
I often agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I reserve judgment on a public inquiry. We have had the result of the Leveson inquiry and no one is sure what the outcome is, and I am keen to get justice for the 3,213 individuals on the blacklist.
Kelvin Hopkins
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his speech. I am pleased to be working with him on the GMB campaign. He mentioned the possibility of compensation and apologies. Does he agree that what we really want is those people to be back working in the industry?
Stephen McPartland
I completely agree, and that is why it is important that the Information Commissioner contacts the 2,500 people who do not know that they are blacklisted to make them aware of that, so that they can get on with their lives. At the moment, those 2,500 people cannot get a job and do not know why. I do not want to stray too far into that area, so I will talk about the campaign.
We know that 44 companies are involved, but they are not all involved in the court case. The hon. Member for Luton North and I, supported by the GMB, will publish a website and write to the chief executives of construction companies asking them to come clean. We will publish the letters and the replies, and will then contact the larger shareholders to identify whether they believe that it is ethical to invest in those companies. The campaign will be long-running and is designed to provide justice for people who are currently blacklisted.
I genuinely believe that blacklisting is not about politics, or about one party or another. It is completely wrong; it is a disease; and it should be excluded. I know some Labour Members question it, but at the moment, there is cross-party consensus.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman will recall that the old Economic League was funded by the Conservative party.
Stephen McPartland
I do not recall that, but the hon. Gentleman might not be aware that I was the first Conservative Member of Parliament in history to write for the Morning Star newspaper. I am often asked whether I am on the left or right of the Conservative party. For me, the reality is about focusing on what is in front of me, and in this case, it is a database that was completely wrong. Those individuals require justice, and I am happy to be working with the hon. Member for Luton North on that.
Natascha Engel
I am sorry to press this point, but it is very important: the database can only be exposed if there is a public inquiry. The public inquiry on Leveson exposed the extent of phone hacking, so I think this is a good example of why we should have a public inquiry, to make sure that every name on the database is exposed and that the individuals are told.
Stephen McPartland
As I said, I want the Information Commissioner’s Office to contact all the individuals on the database who do not know that they have been blacklisted. It is up to the Minister to respond on whether there will be a public inquiry. I have made my position clear: I am reserving judgment, simply because I want to focus on getting justice for the individuals who have been blacklisted. I believe, like the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, that although we are focusing on the construction industry, the reality is that blacklisting has no doubt gone across lots of other sectors, and there is probably a range of other databases that none of us is aware of. I shall focus on this specific issue, and if there is a public inquiry into the wider aspects of blacklisting, so be it, but at the end of the day, we need evidence to be able to create that inquiry. As I only have a minute left, I will not take any more interventions, as I want to finish within the 10 minutes.
I sum up by saying that I believe blacklisting is wrong. It destroys families and has a pervasive effect on British society and the values that we all hold dear. It should not be a political issue; the focus should on providing justice, so I am happy to work with the GMB union and the hon. Member for Luton North to do so.
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
Order. Before we proceed, I remind Members not to link into the case that is taking place for the GMB and its 70 members. That is sub judice, and we should not debate it.
Twelve Members have indicated that they want to speak, and there is about an hour to go; I would be grateful if Members worked it out together, so that everyone gets the opportunity.
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
I will be brief, as you have requested, Sir Alan. I shall concentrate on one exceedingly serious aspect that has recently come to light: the allegation of police involvement in the provision of this information. It comes from the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s revelation that a Scotland Yard inquiry into police collusion has found that it is—I quote the words that were used this weekend—
“likely that all special branches were involved in providing information”
that led to hundreds of workers being excluded from employment. If that is true, it is dynamite.
Let us put that into perspective. It has been known for four years that more than 3,200 workers, in the period from 1993 to 2009, were blacklisted by up to 44 construction companies. Many of the companies were household names, such as Balfour Beatty, McAlpine, Carillion and Costain, and people were consequently kept out of work, not only for years, but in some cases for decades. Across the nation, we have come to a view that phone hacking is a very serious intrusion into privacy and a massive breach of human rights. However, I put it to the Chamber—I am sure that there would be widespread agreement across the country—that it does not compare with being deprived of a job for years, or even decades on end.
It is known from statements made by the Information Commissioner’s Office to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) chairs, that some information revealed on files on blacklisted workers, again, could only have come from the police or security service sources—those were the words used by the officer from the ICO. The firm belief of the IPCC, based on discussions with the Metropolitan Police—an irrefutable source, I think—is that all special branches were engaged in these illegal and highly damaging activities. If that is proven—I come back to the need for a public inquiry—it will expose a monumental scandal. To be fair, it is disputed at present.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He mentioned phone hacking; would he acknowledge that phone hacking is a criminal offence? It would make an enormous difference if blacklisting was a criminal offence. That was called for by UCATT and the other trade unions. Unfortunately, it was not in the regulations that were issued in 2010. I am not disputing the Labour Government’s intentions then, as I think they were perfectly good, but the problem was that the regulations did not go far enough and were therefore not effective.
Mr Meacher
I entirely accept that important distinction—what is or is not the law at the time—but I think that the judgment that the nation would make about the enormity of the offence and the consequences rather override that. It is not that those people were breaking the law, but that they were acting in a way that they knew would be intensely destructive to the livelihood of thousands of people, and that, in itself, is a matter for which they should be held to account.
What has been said is disputed by a senior investigating officer recently appointed to Operation Herne, which is the inquiry being undertaken into the activities of undercover police officers. He says that he has seen “no conclusive evidence” that Scotland Yard exchanged information with the blacklisting companies. That needs to be investigated further. However, it is difficult to deny, and in my view, not only is that a rather unconvincing denial, but it contradicts the fact that the Blacklist Support Group has now had it confirmed that a secret meeting took place in November 2008 between the Consulting Association, which ran the blacklist, and officers from the police national extremism tactical co-ordination unit, which runs undercover policing.
I have one more point to make. Significantly, this new and damning information comes from a freedom of information request to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which replied that it was holding notes about that meeting. That rather invites the question why it has been sitting on this information for four years and only had it revealed when it was extracted from the ICO by the freedom of information procedure. It also raises the further question, which has already come up in this debate why the ICO has so far declined to inform all 3,213 workers that they were subject to the blacklist. Who took the decision that they would only respond to requests to the ICO? That is a very important question. This is not a matter for the ICO; it is a political question. Who is told about this massive breach of their rights is a question for Ministers.
Jim Sheridan
Like my right hon. Friend, I have been in many marches and protests, promoting and trying to defend the rights of workers. He will recall police officers on roofs with cameras taking pictures of people on marches. I often wonder where those photographs ended up.
Mr Meacher
That is another very good question. I cannot give my hon. Friend the answer, but I see the force of his question, and I think it should be pursued.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
This is a valid point. The Blacklist Support Group discovered that the information passed on to the files goes beyond just workplace activities to demonstrations and all the rest, and that could only have come from the police or security services.
Mr Meacher
That is absolutely correct. As my hon. Friends suggest, this is not necessarily about the passage of information; it could involve photographs, often taken covertly.
I think that I am right in saying that only some 800 of the 3,200 people have been informed, as a result of making an application themselves. Three quarters of all those people still have no idea what ruined their livelihood for so many years. I would like the Minister to respond to this question: why should the Government not instruct the ICO to inform all the other three quarters that they were blacklisted?
My final point relates to where the issue is leading. The 44 construction companies now face a High Court battle about their alleged involvement in blacklisting. I will not pursue that point. However, significantly, eight of them have now decided to compensate some of the 3,200 workers, which might suggest that they believe that the evidence being revealed is now sufficient to prove their involvement—
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
Order. I am in a dilemma here. The sub judice rule applies because the case is still ongoing, so the right hon. Gentleman cannot refer to it. As I understand it, the companies have not yet accepted liability, even though they have agreed to pay some compensation; they are figuring out the amounts. They have not accepted liability, so the issue remains sub judice. Do not refer to the case, if possible.
Mr Meacher
I take your point entirely, Sir Alan. I was not intending to pursue the issue in that way. I am prepared to come to an end. I have made the point, which I think is a strong one, and I hope that the Minister will respond to it. The ICO has a role to play. I can think of at least 10 grounds for a public inquiry, which I do not have time to go into. An inquiry is crucial. Will the Government commit to a full public inquiry?
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have helped, with 20 colleagues across the House, to secure today’s debate, and to have been involved with trade unions, including my own, Unite, with Tony Tinley helping out; the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, with Cheryl Pidgeon researching this debate; and the union that I used to work for before coming to this place, the GMB. If the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) is not yet in a trade union, I could put a number of offers to him to put that right. He should be careful; being anti-badger culling and pro-exposing blacklisting, he could be highly sought after, in these days of coalition, after the next general election.
It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson). I hope to be a supporting actor in what we have to do today. Blacklisting is, as my hon. Friend said, a disease. It is pernicious, and it spreads without people even knowing that it is there. It is vital, from the point of view of any civil or human rights stance that any party wishes to have, that we ensure that its days are definitely numbered.
What is blacklisting? It is the termination of workers’ employment for issues not related to performance. Such issues can, and have, included raising legitimate health and safety concerns; being a member of a trade union; and belonging to a political party whose ideals employers do not share. For those subject to the practice, as we have heard, the consequences can be incredibly devastating —discrimination, unemployment, poverty, family breakdown, mental breakdown and, in some extreme cases, even suicide.
The phenomenon is not new; it is not something of the past 20 or 30 years, or something, as my hon. Friend said, that concerns only the construction industry. It goes back a long way—way back to the beginning of the old Economic League in 1919. The league created a list of people whom it—not the courts of law or Parliament — regarded as subversive. Many individuals were listed and blighted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who has had to leave the Chamber, said in his speech to the House on 23 January 2013 that the Economic League’s blacklist was used to create difficulties—he gave his own example—in getting work once someone was on that list. Another colleague of ours in this House who has had first-hand experience of blacklisting is my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton). He has already gone on record about his experiences of being blacklisted. I am sure that he will not mind me saying that, in a conversation this morning, he told me that the only way his wife ever got a job—not him, but his wife—was to use her maiden name; the blacklisting spread past the individual to influence the family.
Steve Rotheram
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. The current blacklist from the 1990s is a slightly separate issue from blacklisting in general. Blacklisting has gone on for many decades, certainly in the construction industry. He will be aware of another person who was put on the blacklist—a member of the Shrewsbury 24—Ricky Tomlinson, who is now fighting a campaign to clear his name. He was denied the opportunity to make a livelihood for many years.
I do not think that many people fully understand the individual impact of being blacklisted. Those 3,200 people —not just the ones who know—have struggled for many years not only to clear their names but to earn a living. Does he agree that is the main reason why we are pushing the issue with the Government?
Mr Allen
I know that not everyone wants to make a speech: some colleagues may wish to make interventions instead. I will gladly take those interventions so that people can get their views on the record. My hon. Friend’s view is one that I strongly agree with.
Another colleague of ours, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern), mentioned the story of a disabled war veteran who had one leg and one eye. He found himself on the blacklist. Why?
“Because he sent a letter to the local press commending them for awarding Nelson Mandela the freedom of the city.”—[Official Report, 23 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 337.]
The problem with this intelligence-based stuff is that it is not verifiable or in the public domain. Things can be said about someone, often trivially, that get them on the list, resulting in all sorts of consequences that they cannot challenge.
The Economic League gave way to the Consulting Association, which purchased the list from the league. It sounds a little bit like one of those building companies that go bust and then suddenly rise again the next day with a different name. That is the blacklist that we have mainly been talking about today—the 3,200 individuals—which has been used by 40 contractors. It is not the street-corner jobbing company that uses the list, but some of the biggest companies, whose names my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) put on the record, and many others too. Looking out of the window at the construction going on around us, we will see their names.
The revelations also highlighted the inadequacy of legal protections. Since 1999, legislation has given UK Governments the power to pass regulations against blacklisting, but all of us have singularly failed to push the Government to do what they should have. Only a year before the blacklisting was uncovered, UCATT, as we heard earlier, began lobbying the Government to pass acceptable regulations, only to be told, “There is no need for them. It is all under control. There isn’t really a serious problem.”
In 1992, the TUC complained to the United Nations International Labour Organisation. What a shaming thing that is for our country: that we were reported alongside sweatshops in the far east to the ILO for having no effective protection for workers in our country against being put on a blacklist, which blights the lives of workers and their families. The ILO’s Committee on Freedom of Association upheld the complaint, saying that UK law fell short of article 98 of the ILO convention. Again, Governments failed to act.
To bring the issue right up to date, in March 2012, The Observer published an article claiming that the police and/or security services had supplied information to the blacklist to be used by the nation’s major construction firms, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton said. That was reinforced when the Information Commissioner’s Office revealed that the records could have come only from the police or MI5— not from a Member of the House or from someone making a political point. A vast database on more than 3,000 victims, whom somebody else deemed troublesome, was being fed by the security services. David Clancy, investigations officer at the Information Commissioner’s Office, stated in The Observer:
“the information was so specific and it contained in effect operational information that wouldn’t have formed anything other than a police record.”
We have to do something about this: the job is not done.
As hon. Friends have said, some protection against blacklisting was introduced in the Employment Relations Act 1999, although unions warned at the time that it was wholly inadequate. However, the raid by the Information Commissioner’s Office triggered a new regulation, which led to Ian Kerr, the chief executive of the Consulting Association, being fined £5,000—not exactly a king’s ransom—for breaking data protection laws. That is the price we put on the destruction of the lives of individuals and their families, for causes unknown to them, by this individual and his pals at the Consulting Association. However, Ian Kerr could not be punished for blacklisting employees, because it was not illegal to do so.
As many colleagues have made clear, there is still no positive right not to be blacklisted. Additionally, the burden of proof is placed on workers who suspect they have fallen foul of this odious practice. It is unreasonable to expect workers to prove in law what is, by its very nature, a covert practice. How on earth do they know it is going on? How, then, can they prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is happening? That is unreasonable.
The Scottish Affairs Committee’s inquiry into blacklisting pointed out that blacklisters do apologise and do seem to be sorry, but only when they are caught, and only when it is revealed, in the light of the public gaze, that they have transgressed. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) has pointed out that claims against blacklisting can be brought only through an employment tribunal or a county court, which can cause problems. For example, claims can be presented at a tribunal only within three months of the offence taking place, but it is often difficult, even years later, to find proof that an offence has taken place.
The professor of public law at King’s college, Keith Ewing, has been in touch with my office. He noted that there is still a tremendous gap in the new legislation that was put in place after the raid on the Consulting Association.
John Cryer
My hon. Friend mentions Keith Ewing, and it is his report “Ruined Lives”, which was commissioned by UCATT, that has been responsible for much of the attention, including the press coverage, that has been given to blacklisting over the past three or four years.
Mr Allen
My hon. Friend has been assiduous in investigating this issue, and I bow to his knowledge of it. He is absolutely right about Professor Ewing’s work.
Professor Ewing has written that there is no automatic compensation for being blacklisted and there are no criminal penalties for blacklisting. Protection from blacklisting applies only to trade union activities, which we might think is reasonable. However, given the way the law works, that protection does not apply to trade union-related activities—work that one out. That means the courts will decide whether unofficial action is caught.
On 30 October 2012, UCATT exposed the activities of two leading blacklisting firms—Sir Robert McAlpine and Skanska—while giving evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee. Both companies were undertaking high-profile projects, including motorway construction and work at the Olympics, while they were blacklisting workers. Giving evidence, UCATT’s general secretary, Steve Murphy, revealed how, in the Consulting Association’s final year of operation, Skanska had paid more than £28,000 for blacklisting checks, while Sir Robert McAlpine had paid £26,000. Skanska admitted it was using the Consulting Association to vet workers and supplying information to the list, yet it escaped without penalty or sanction.
The steps taken in Wales show how we can do something on this issue. The Assembly and the First Minister have made great efforts to move it forward. New procurement guidance issued to all Welsh public bodies has outlined the steps that can be taken through procurement to help end blacklisting and encourage redress and compensation for victims. It makes it clear that companies proved to be involved in blacklisting can be excluded from bidding for contracts. It also sets out the steps companies need to take to avoid being excluded, such as offering proper redress for victims and introducing personnel and organisational measures to ensure that blacklisting no longer takes place.
Huw Irranca-Davies
My hon. Friend makes some very salient points. Does he accept, as many unions have said, that the argument that procurement contracts cannot take account of blacklisting activities is a fallacy? In fact, there is a risk of litigation should we choose not to take account of blacklisting and award contracts to companies involved in it. That is why I think the Welsh Government are showing the way forward.
Mr Allen
The Assembly in Wales is less dominated by the Executive than we are in this place, but, even so, we should draw comfort from the fact that legislators can make a difference and take these things forward. If Wales can set an example, I very much hope that England can follow suit.
I ask the Minister and her shadow to make it clear that there should be a positive right not to be blacklisted and that workers who find themselves on blacklists should have an automatic right to compensation, without the burden of proof being placed on them. The retroactive compensation scheme that has been mentioned should also be established to compensate blacklisted workers. Furthermore, protection should be extended clearly to include trade union-related activities, as well as just trade union activities. Above all, blacklisting should be a criminal offence, and companies that use blacklists should be open to persecution.
I will skip over the issues you warned us about, Sir Alan; perhaps we will come back to them on another occasion. Suffice it to say that the scheme the industry is creating involves only eight of the 44 major construction firms that have been implicated in blacklisting. That is not good enough, and I hope the Minister will take up the suggestion that all those who have been on a blacklist should be written to and that all those who have blacklisted others should be written to and clearly asked to join the scheme. I doubt this will be the last debate on blacklisting, but the day grows closer when those who have blacklisted others and those who have been on blacklists will get the justice they deserve.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) on securing this important debate. Frankly, it is shocking that we are having a debate in 2013 condemning the continuing practice of blacklisting. It is simply a disgrace that blacklisting is still going on in 21st century Britain. We might have been aware, perhaps, from rumour or experience in our own employment, that blacklisting existed. We might have had evidence: managers leaving notes about employees for other managers, and even human resources services that operated a two-file system—one accessible and the other for their eyes only—so it is not surprising to learn that blacklisting is practised by some large, well-known companies.
Blacklisting affects people’s livelihoods, security and well-being. It is a nasty, underhand and vicious practice. The most extreme example of blacklisting to have been made public is one that we can all recall, from the United States. I am of course speaking of the McCarthy era, which we have already heard mentioned—one of the most destructive, harmful and insidious episodes in that country’s history. Talented people fled the United States during the McCarthy witch hunts, to places such as Britain, where they must have thought that blacklisting did not exist, or at least not at the level that they had experienced.
Blacklists have a history of being built on rumour, inaccuracies and downright fabrication, and that still applies to the way they are compiled today. As many as 44 companies in the UK subscribed to the so-called Consulting Association, the successor of the Economic League—none of them questioning or caring how the lists were compiled. We need to take blacklisting extremely seriously, and I call on the Government to take decisive action to stop the blacklisting of workers and to prevent the blacklisting scandal from ever being repeated.
A full investigation of blacklisting allegations is essential, and it should include the allegations of blacklisting in major public projects. Blacklisting is a national scandal. People’s livelihoods were destroyed, their reputations were tarnished and, in some cases, their families were torn apart, just because, for example, they raised health and safety concerns or were an active member of a trade union.
Unbelievably, in this country there are secret files held on thousands of workers in the construction sector, with the result that those people are denied employment. That secret construction blacklist was used by more than 40 of the UK’s largest construction firms, and some construction firms confirmed that they had conducted blacklisting checks even on people seeking work at Olympic venues. It is unacceptable that public money was used on projects where such checks were carried out. It would seem that there was even blacklisting for the construction of Portcullis House. How many people and Members of Parliament knew that at the time?
The majority of the people who were blacklisted still have no idea that they were included in the secret construction blacklists uncovered by the Information Commissioner’s Office in a raid in 2009. It is vital that the ICO should make every effort to inform every individual victim of blacklisting, so that they can seek compensation. However, questions still remain to be put to the ICO, including why its officials did not seize a huge volume of other documents found at the scene of the original 2009 raid. As a former member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, I recall that evidence that it took included serious allegations about the origin of the intelligence used to compile the blacklists.
We need further tightening and extension of the civil regime against blacklisting set up by Labour in 2010. Blacklisting should be a criminal offence. Recent revelations have demonstrated that sanctions do not go far enough to protect workers. The Government cannot sit on the fence any longer. Blacklisting must be made a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. The Government should ensure that no one is excluded from seeking redress because there is no direct employment relationship between the worker and the company who used blacklisting. They must also ensure that anyone found to be blacklisted in future has adequate support to bring a civil claim and that non-trade union members enjoy equal protections.
In additional evidence submitted as part of the Scottish Affairs Committee’s inquiry into blacklisting, there was confirmation of the existence of a separate blacklist on environmental activists—also operated by the Consulting Association. That separate list was said to include as many as 200 environmental activists. The Government should fully investigate that as well.
Given the hugely detrimental impact on those affected by blacklisting, we welcome the current proceedings to seek compensation from firms that have used the Consulting Association lists. I welcome the fact that the ICO has taken steps to work alongside trade unions by sending a list of names and dates of births to four trade unions—the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, Unite, GMB and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—so that they can check the names of blacklisted individuals against their membership lists.
I know that other Members want to speak, so I shall conclude by saying that blacklisting is a national disgrace. It ruins lives and devastates families. It is crucial that the Government should fully investigate blacklisting and prevent that cruel practice from ever happening again.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I shall be brief, as we want to hear the Front-Bench spokesmen.
It is somewhat ironic that on the same day that we are debating blacklisting in Westminster Hall, zero-hours contracts are being debated in the House. That gives some indication of the progress that workers have made over the years. People are kept out of work by blacklisting, and even when they get some work their wages are cut as much as possible. That is progress for you, in the modern United Kingdom.
Perhaps I can reflect on my own experience of blacklisting. As a young man, I never realised what it was. I did not really get involved in trade unions, either, but my family was involved. It was only because of that that I was blacklisted for three years—unemployed with a young family. It was very difficult to get benefits; it was difficult to exist.
I went for an interview as a porter at Erskine hospital—in Erskine, which is in my constituency. The matron told me, “No problem, Jim. You’ve got the job, but we’ll send you official notice in the post in the next couple of days.” I did get something in the next couple of days, telling me, “Unfortunately, Mr Sheridan, you have been unsuccessful on this occasion.” I still did not know that I was on the blacklist, but some time later I met the matron and she told me that I had got the job, but that a name check had been done with the Economic League, and it showed that my family were involved in trade union activities, which meant I could not have it. That is the kind of thing that we are talking about today.
That experience is what brought me into politics—to change that kind of thing. That is why we need people from a working-class background in this place, because they understand what people go through and what it means to be told, “You are inadequate; you are a danger; you are a threat from within”. It was Mrs Thatcher who used to call us the enemy within. Those things brought me into politics, and they are why I stay in politics.
My other passion is for health and safety in the workplace. I chair the all-party group on occupational safety and health and I come into contact with many members of the public. The issues include such things as asbestos-related mesothelioma. I recall, in the shipyards in Glasgow, seeing the white flakes of asbestos dust falling through the sunlight. It was a Tuesday afternoon and sunny in Glasgow, and that is how I remember it.
I could see the flakes floating through, and said to the gaffer, or supervisor, “That’s asbestos, and we’re swallowing it.” “Don’t be silly, son,” he told me. “Nothing wrong with it. It won’t do you any harm. Just go home. A pint of Guinness will wash it all away.” That was the kind of ignorance and arrogance that was around in those days. If anyone dared ever question the employer about safety statistics or safety measures, they were dealt with. The only way they could deal with me—they could not sack me, because my father was a yard convener—was by discriminating against me by not offering me overtime or jobs that were going around.
I am reminded that I sent a letter earlier this year to the Minister with responsibility for employment relations and consumer affairs—the very good Minister present today—who replied that
“there has been a lot of accusations, but we have not yet received any evidence”
about blacklisting.
I sincerely hope that the Minister heard today that there is clear evidence of blacklisting. We now need to know what the Government intend to do about it. I do not want to hear any more warm words, even from our previous Labour Government. I have been to far too many funerals of people who have died from mesothelioma and other industrial diseases. We now need to ensure that blacklisting stops, that it stops now and that people get compensation, and, more importantly, ensure that the companies are exposed and not given Government contracts, on which they depend.
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am possibly the only Member here who has had access to all the Consulting Association files and records. I had that access, on condition of confidentiality, in my capacity as Chair of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I am glad that the coming out of the minutes has focused people’s attention on activities such as the involvement of the police.
There are two sides: one looking backwards and one looking forwards. Looking backwards, first, we need to be absolutely clear that there is a role for Government in ensuring that those on whom cards and information are held are identified. I refer Members to the correspondence that the Scottish Affairs Committee recently had from the Information Commissioner’s Office about the difficulty it is experiencing in taking matters forward.
Secondly, we want an apology from the firms involved. Thirdly, we want compensation. Fourthly, we want to know all the firms involved, not just a few. I welcome the apology from some of the firms involved, but we must recognise: first, that that does not include all the firms who participated in blacklisting; secondly, that the negotiations and settlement will be exceedingly complex; and, thirdly, that a solution cannot be imposed unilaterally by the companies, but must be the subject of negotiation with the unions involved and those representing people who have been blacklisted. There must a negotiated settlement, rather than imposition.
Looking forwards, we now recognise that there must be legal changes. It has been conceded that there was blacklisting on Crossrail, and yet the law on blacklisting was not broken. That leaves us in the position where something clearly must be done. I hope the Minister accepts that and takes the matter forward. We must find a way to ensure that when a new construction site is established and a work force taken on, there is a review after the event to identify whether there is evidence of blacklisting. We need wider acceptance that companies that have not apologised or compensated can be and should be kept off public and private sector contract shortlists. There must be a code of conduct for firms when dealing with employees in these matters.
My final point looks further forwards to the question of an inquiry. I hope that the actions that we in the Scottish Affairs Committee identified and I have commented on today do not have to wait until a full public inquiry. The nature of public inquiries is that they look backwards and take years. Many of the people involved are now elderly and, in my view, require compensation. Those who are not elderly require assistance in getting back into the industry, so that they can have adequate compensation and employment for the working time they have left. We need further inquiries into the role of the police and state security services. The Government have not been unhelpful in pursuing some of the issues, but, as they would expect, I do not believe that they have been helpful enough.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson), who put forward her argument with her usual high levels of eloquence and passion. I share a birthday with my hon. Friend; I only wish she would share some of her skills and talents with me.
I also want to thank all right hon. and hon. Members who contributed in this important debate. They did so with genuine and heartfelt concern and shock that the secretive and insidious practice of blacklisting has been ongoing, and will still be ongoing, in modern Britain. More widely, the manner in which this important issue has been raised and campaigned on has been positive and welcome. I particularly pay tribute to Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and the unions—the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, the GMB, of which I am a proud member, and Unite—for their tireless and professional work in exposing the shady, scandalous and disgraceful practices.
There are many things to be proud of in the UK construction industry, but blacklisting is not one of them. It shames the country and undermines the reputation of the industry. Today demonstrates that the House is fully united in its complete condemnation of such a practice, which, as we heard several times this afternoon, is more reminiscent of McCarthyite witch hunts than a modern and progressive construction industry that values its work force and considers health and safety to be not a bolt-on or troublesome and tiresome, but integral, as it should be.
Such practices are symptomatic of a race to the bottom, with lower employment rights, the undermining of health and safety and a general belief that cutting corners and getting rid of troublesome staff who dare to raise workplace safety are the best ways to raise profit margins. That is not how this country should earn its money in the 21st century.
Today, we heard that many thousands of people have been denied work that they were skilled in and qualified to undertake due to discrimination, and as a result they could not get jobs in their own industry or feed their families. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn and other hon. Friends said in the debate, the practice involved compiling information about individuals on a vast and systematic scale. It was done through a shadowy organisation called the Consulting Association, but has involved many other groups and companies. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) said, The Observer reported this Sunday that the Independent Police Complaints Commission has stated to those affected that the police colluded in the practice of blacklisting:
“it is likely that all special branches were involved in providing information”.
The degree to which the practice permeated through the construction industry is truly shameful and shocking. According to work from the Information Commissioner, 44 construction companies were members of the Consulting Association in 2009 and half of the 20 largest construction companies and all their subsidiaries in this country were involved. For £2.20—not 30 pieces of silver, but £2.20—a construction worker’s livelihood and chance of securing employment could be dashed by the company if they were on the blacklist. Many construction companies are trying to claim ignorance of the practice, but given the amounts of money involved—in a three-year period alone, companies paid the Consulting Association £500,000 for blacklist checks—it is inconceivable that senior management were not aware of it and its endemic nature.
The House is united in its shock and condemnation of blacklisting. I hope that it is equally united in its determination to ensure that the practice is never allowed to happen again. There are practical steps, and we heard some of them this afternoon, that can be put in place to ensure that the practice is ended for good and that those workers unfairly affected are provided with justice.
It is important that we know the full extent of blacklisting. That comment has been made many times and I fully agree. I have focused, as have other hon. Members, on the construction industry, but does it really happen only in construction? Given the endemic nature of the practice, it is probably implausible that it is confined solely to that industry. How does bogus self-employment in the construction industry impact on blacklisting? We can only know those answers and get evidence if we have a full inquiry into the practice.
Will the Minister pledge to put in place a full and thorough investigation of the disgraceful practice? If not, why not? The shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), has pledged that a future Labour Government will, but to make progress now, will the Minister today pledge to? Following the completion of such an inquiry’s work, I hope that the House would be united and non-partisan in considering how the law could be tightened, employees protected and tough sanctions against unscrupulous companies deployed. Will the Minister give any indication of the Government’s thinking on how the law can be tightened? We have heard about blacklisting as a criminal offence, but there are other practical steps and means by which the law can be changed.
I was disappointed that the construction industrial strategy, published in the summer, did not contain a single reference to the practice of blacklisting and gave only scant mention—three paragraphs—of health and safety. I would have liked the strategy to have shown how the Government emphasise a skilled and safe work force as one of the industry’s comparative strengths. Why was that not mentioned?
One of the effective levers that the Government could pull to help eliminate blacklisting is the effective use of public procurement. The Government could exclude firms that use blacklisting from tendering for contracts. They could request information about the practice and find real evidence through the tendering process of how a particular company has used blacklisting. That could include seeking evidence that the practice has ended and that the workers affected have secured appropriate compensation and are back in the employment market. The Government could alter standard terms and conditions in contracts to make it explicit that any such contract would be immediately ended, without compensation to the firm, if it was found that blacklisting was used by the company and its subsidiaries.
The Welsh Government, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), have been at the forefront of using procurement as an effective tool. They have provided a useful policy advice note to local authorities in Wales on the practical steps that can be taken on eliminating blacklisting through procurement. What is Whitehall doing to achieve the same thing? What discussions has the Minister had with other Departments, in particular the Department for Communities and Local Government, to ensure that the elimination of blacklisting is being actively encouraged—not only through central Government, but across local government?
Several hon. Friends have mentioned the development this week in which eight construction companies involved in blacklisting agreed to compensate some of the 3,200 workers affected. The setting up of the construction workers compensation scheme is welcome. We will scrutinise the progress and terms of the scheme to ensure that it provides proper redress to victims in a swift manner. What help and support are the Government giving to the scheme? I know that the Minister cannot provide a running commentary on negotiations, but can she give a time scale for the scheme to be finalised and provide compensation?
As we have heard, some of those affected by blacklisting are elderly. What level of proper compensation is the Minister pushing for from the companies, given that these people—these workers—have endured years of unemployment as a result of blacklisting? They have lost out on tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of pounds of income. We have heard that only eight of the 44 companies have signed up to the compensation scheme, so what pressure is she putting on other companies who were part of the blacklisting scandal to be involved in the scheme? Finally, how does she intend to keep the House informed of progress, so that hon. Friends who have a passionate interest in this issue can scrutinise the proposals?
My hon. Friends have spoken passionately today and said that this is a national scandal, which shames the construction companies involved. It should never be allowed to happen again and those who were discriminated against, often for decades, should be provided with swift and appropriate justice and compensation. I hope that the Minister agrees with the tone of the debate and will set out in detail how the Government will ensure that the practice of blacklisting is ended and compensation provided.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) on securing the debate and opening it in her typically powerful style, with a degree of conciseness, which other Members have managed to emulate. That has meant that we have heard from a good number of Members today, which is positive. I know that a range of Members from all parts of the House have been working on the issue. We discussed it in January, we are discussing it now, and, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said, I am sure it will be not the last time we discuss it. It is important for the House to return to the issue, to be updated on it and to ask further questions on it. As the Minister, I am more than happy to be part of that.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn clearly set out at the beginning of the debate that “the practice of blacklisting” is an innocuous form of words, but that what we are talking about is abhorrent and illegal. All Members who have spoken have rightly echoed those sentiments in their various ways, talking about their experiences in their constituencies or, in some cases, such as that of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan), their own lives.
The Government’s position is the same: this practice is not acceptable in any way. No responsible company should be involved in blacklisting, whether that is providing information for a blacklist, using a blacklist, consulting a blacklist or using information from a previous blacklist that was in operation before the regulations were introduced in 2010. That is not the behaviour of any responsible or law-abiding company or any moral individual. People should be appointed to roles based on their merits and whether they can do the job. If they are independent-minded and involved enough to be able to flag up issues, such as health and safety problems in the workplace, or if they want to give more to their workplace through involvement in trade union activities, that is to be commended. Any employer worth its salt will recognise the positive nature of having an engaged and involved work force that are actively interested in ensuring that their workplace is safe and effective for everyone. The experiences that we have heard about have been not only abhorrent, but hugely counter-productive, as many hon. Members have mentioned, on issues such as workplace safety records. We want to encourage an atmosphere where people can raise issues if there are problems without fearing that that will impact on their future employability.
As hon. Members know, there are significant powers in place to deal with blacklisting, but I entirely understand the frustration. I think it was the hon. Member for Nottingham North who mentioned the case of the Consulting Association and Ian Kerr, the £5,000 fine and the lack of ability to take any kind of serious action against the individuals responsible, because the framework was not in place at that time. That situation rightly needed addressing. The previous Government addressed that issue with the consultation on and implementation of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010, which mean that someone is looking at a £500,000 fine instead of a £5,000 fine. That might not be the unlimited amount that some hon. Members have called for, but no one can deny that it is a serious amount. There is data protection, but there is also the ability to award maximum compensation of some £65,000—the minimum is £5,000—through the employment tribunals system. We are in a better position on the legal framework.
Mr Davidson
Does the Minister accept that the existing legislation must be flawed if someone can be blacklisted on Crossrail without the blacklisting legislation being broken?
Jo Swinson
The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed the issue informally around the House on a few occasions, and I very much welcome the work that he and his Select Committee have been doing on it. I look forward to reading the Committee’s report. We are, of course, willing to look again at whether there are any gaps in the legislation as a result of any evidence that his investigation discovers.
On Crossrail, at the beginning of September the two parties involved—I think it was Unite and BFK—announced that blacklisting had not taken place. A further statement was issued by Unite some days later. I am happy to look at that and hear from the hon. Gentleman and Unite whether there are specific issues there, particularly with contracting, which may be partly why that issue arose. I am happy to liaise with him as his Committee continues its investigation with a view to producing a report.
Mr Meacher
Is it not clear that at the moment it is illegal to compile or maintain a blacklist, but not to use a blacklist, to supply information or to be supplied with information by someone else? Such matters need to be made illegal, so that all the problems we have heard about today are covered.
Jo Swinson
As I have said, I will happily look at the specific regulations, which include provisions on supplying information for blacklists. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will write to me if he has any further points, particularly if there are more details that I can study. It is clearly not appropriate for anyone to create a list or to supply information for such a list, or to blacklist workers, because that would quite rightly leave them open to employment tribunal claims or to possible action for breaches of data protection. The protections were put in place in 2009.
As I mentioned, we made a series of commitments about blacklisting in a debate in the House in January 2013. We promised to investigate any evidence provided about the continuation of blacklisting, to look carefully at the Scottish Affairs Committee’s findings about blacklisting that happened before 2010 and to review the legislation if the Committee identified evidence that the practice was continuing.
We are honouring those commitments, and I want to inform the House about our actions since that debate. In February, the Independent Police Complaints Commission began an investigation into allegations that the police may previously have provided information to the Consulting Association blacklist, a point that various Members have made. I suspect that you would not be happy, Sir Alan, if I commented on a live IPCC investigation, but we will of course be interested to see its outcome. If anyone has concerns about allegations that are not currently under investigation by the relevant authorities, I encourage them to take such allegations to the IPCC or, for data protection breaches, to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
The Secretary of State met the Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, in April to make sure that he is ready and able to investigate any new evidence that comes to light. In July, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) and his Scottish Affairs Committee announced that there was new evidence and information about the continuation of blacklisting. Within 24 hours of that communication, we alerted the Information Commissioner’s Office, which began an investigation. I understand that the ICO is in touch with the Select Committee to ensure that the ICO is provided with the information it needs to further its investigation. I know that the Scottish Affairs Committee is very keen to work with the ICO, for which I thank the hon. Gentleman.
I should tell the House that despite the significant debate on the issue—I am glad that it is a high-profile one, because people will therefore be aware that we are open to new evidence—the Scottish Affairs Committee was the first body to get in touch with new information about the continuation of blacklisting. Significant amounts of evidence have been presented about blacklisting in the past, but the Committee’s evidence is the only piece we have received since the regulations came in and, therefore, the only information that we have been able to act on. We will of course carefully consider both the Scottish Affairs Committee’s report and the outcome of the Information Commissioner’s investigation into its evidence.
Some hon. Members have called for a public inquiry, but while those two investigations are ongoing, it makes perfect sense to await their outcome before jumping to an additional inquiry. The issue is currently being explored through those two avenues, and we should wait to see the reports.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) asked a question, which was echoed by other Members, about ensuring that the victims of this abhorrent practice are made aware of that fact. I very much enjoyed his comment that he was the first Conservative MP to write for the Morning Star, which I am sure its readers appreciated. That earned him a kind offer from the hon. Member for Nottingham North to give him information about how to join a trade union. Perhaps my hon. Friend should be careful, but I note that no Conservative Whips are in the Chamber, so perhaps we will not tell them.
My hon. Friend’s very fair question was about proactively contacting people on the database. It is important to say that there is a fast-track service, so anyone who suspects that they are on the list can find out whether that is the case and get a copy of the information. For anyone who is interested—hon. Members may wish to pass this on to constituents who are concerned about the issue—the helpline number is 0303 123 1113. So far, 3,919 people have contacted the helpline, of whom 446 have been identified on the Consulting Association blacklist.
The ICO is trying proactively to contact individuals on the list in other ways. It has made sure that union lawyers can access some of the information, so that they can write to any of their members they identify on the list, and invite them to get in touch with the ICO. The ICO has undertaken a project with Equifax to check whether address information in the files is up to date. As a result, it has written to 103 individuals, of whom 27 have contacted the ICO to make a subject access request. The ICO has also worked with the Department for Work and Pensions to determine whether up-to-date addresses can be identified from a national insurance number when that is included in the information held. The ICO hopes shortly to write to individuals for whom it has obtained up-to-date addresses.
I understand Members’ frustration, but I would say in the ICO’s defence that such processes are not straightforward. The information is not contained in a snazzy database; much of it is on paper or in card files, and some of it is very scant, with sometimes only a first name and surname. If the name is John Smith, that is almost meaningless, for someone trying to contact the person, without address details and other information. The range of actions that the ICO is taking to piece information together—working with unions, the DWP and credit reference agencies—is certainly very positive. I repeat that anyone who is concerned should contact the helpline.
Mr Meacher
The Minister is making a case for the ICO’s efforts to contact people. The obvious question that remains is whether the ICO is under instructions to correspond with or contact everyone for whom it has information that is adequate enough to enable it to do so. That is the key point. I understand that if the name is one like John Smith, that person cannot be traced, but when the ICO can contact someone because it has a name, a telephone number or anything else, is it under instructions to contact them?
Jo Swinson
The ICO is making every effort to contact people. It is not a body sponsored by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but we have discussed the issue with the ICO, and that is exactly what is happening. We recognise that there are some cases in which the process is difficult, but the ICO is determined that when it can contact people, it absolutely is doing so.
Mr Iain Wright
The Minister is quite rightly focusing on the construction industry, but hon. Members have mentioned other sectors. What active steps are the Government taking to find out whether there is blacklisting in other parts of the economy?
Jo Swinson
I have outlined the investigations that are ongoing. We do need something to go on: there is much speculation about and many suggestions of blacklisting taking place, but the relevant authorities need somewhere to start to look for it. That is why in the debates earlier this year and today I have reiterated that if anyone has information, concerns or suspicions—they do not need to have firm evidence, because it is a challenge to produce bona fide evidence when, by definition, the activity is clandestine—we will of course happily look at such evidence, as the Select Committee has done.
John McDonnell
To make it clear to the ICO, will the Minister state that she expects it to contact everybody on the list?
Jo Swinson
I absolutely expect the ICO to contact everyone on that list, where that is possible, practical and feasible, but I also recognise that the information is incomplete in some cases, and that its attempts to do so may not therefore be successful. I hope that the House recognises those basic practicalities.
Mr McKenzie
Is the Minister aware of the TUC’s campaign to make blacklisting a criminal offence, and will she support it?
Jo Swinson
I am obviously aware of the campaign. A range of civil and criminal offences exist, including in employment or health and safety legislation. Criminal offences are much less common, but some breaches of data protection carry a criminal penalty, so blacklisting would be a crime in those cases. However, that does not apply to a wide range of offences, such as unfair dismissal, causing detriment to whistleblowers or discrimination.
Jo Swinson
My final point was about procurement. The Welsh guidance has been referred to, although that guidance just restates how existing legal provisions already apply, and we look forward to the procurement Bill in the Scottish Parliament, which I understand we may see more details of next week. Of course, the Cabinet Office has general guidance, covering a range of issues affecting procurement, which of course means checking that contractors are adhering to practices that comply with the law—
Living Standards (North Wales)
(10 years, 10 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
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
I rise today to discuss the living standards in north Wales—the dropping living standards in north Wales.
The TUC reckons that Wales has the lowest levels of disposable income in the UK and has experienced the highest falls in living standards in the UK. There has been a drop in living standards for 38 of the 39 months that this Tory-Lib Dem coalition has been in power. In constituencies in north Wales, the impact has been severe. Between 2007 and 2012, in Flintshire the average pay packet for a 40-hour week dropped by nearly £3,000 and in my own county of Denbighshire it dropped by more than £2,000.
The outward sign of the drop in living standards is, of course, the food banks—the food banks that many Conservative Ministers and MPs refuse to go to when they are repeatedly asked to do so in the main Chamber. I have been to food banks in my constituency and I praise the work of people who volunteer at them; they do a sterling job. I have visited the Wellspring centre in my constituency and shared soup with the people it provided food for. The citizens advice bureau in Denbigh set up a food bank; in fact, it is an award-winning food bank and I congratulate the CAB in Denbigh on it.
The Conservatives say, “Oh, food banks increased by tenfold under Labour.” They did, from 3,000 to about 34,000. Under the Conservatives, however, they have increased from about 40,000 to nearly 400,000—another tenfold increase. The food banks under Labour were peripheral; as I say, there were 34,000 of them, at most. Under the Conservatives, food banks are central. Since 2011, the Government have given instructions to jobcentres to refer people who have no money to food banks. Food banks are part of official Government policy—dare I say official Government philosophy? It is charity versus the state; charity taking the place of the state. It is the big society, or, as I call it, the “beg society”, where soup kitchens are here in the 21st century, having last been seen in the 1930s. As I say, I have shared soup with the people using them.
Will there be a return to the workhouse, the alms house, the deserving poor and the undeserving poor? The language coming from certain sections and certain MPs on the right—I do not include the Minister here today in that group—is disgraceful. I will give a case in point. The Education Secretary said that the people who visit these food banks
“are not…able to manage their finances.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 681.]
Could the Education Secretary himself “manage” his finances on £56 a week, if he was a young person, or on £71 a week, if he was over 25? I think not—that money would hardly cover the price of a bottle of Moët. The Government have the wrong priorities—while they are forcing people to use food banks, they are giving a £44,000 handout to people earning £1 million a year.
Of particular interest to people in my constituency and the other constituencies in north Wales is the issue of public sector workers, who are another group vilified by the Conservatives. There are huge numbers of public sector workers in certain constituencies in north Wales. The number of people who reside in my constituency, the Vale of Clwyd, and work in the public sector is 10,200—35% of the work force. In Ynys Môn, the figure is 10,100; in Clwyd West, where the Secretary of State for Wales resides, the figure is 9,000. Those public sector workers are not only vilified by the Conservatives but have had their wages frozen until 2015-16. There is no help to rebalance the economies that have been reliant on public sector jobs; there is no specific help or guidance from the UK Government for those constituencies.
Who are the losers from the drop in living standards? It is the young long-term unemployed. There are more than a million of them in the country. In an 18-month period from early 2009 to 2010, in my home town of Rhyl in my constituency we put 450 young people back to work through the future jobs fund, under a Labour Government. That scheme was abolished almost as soon as the Conservative Government entered office.
Children are big sufferers from the drop in living standards. An excellent Daily Post article from 18 July calculates that 24,400 children in north Wales are living in poverty and that the state will pay an extra £265 million a year in additional school costs, benefits and NHS costs. We are even seeing the disease of rickets creep back into the UK, for the first time since the 1950s. I have tabled questions about this—[Interruption.] I see the Minister huffing and puffing.
The disabled have also suffered because of a drop in living standards. This group has been vilified, as well. Disability is the only one of the five or six hate crime categories, which include sexual orientation, religion and ethnic origin, that has increased in the past year. The elderly are the other group to have suffered because of the drop in living standards. They are on fixed incomes. When their fuel bills increase by 8% or 7%, they have no way of paying them, except by cutting back on food or other necessities.
In north Wales, 8,178 people will suffer because of the bedroom tax, but there are not 8,178 single-person units in the whole of north Wales to look after them.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Last week I heard about a case of a man, in a couple, who was disabled and on whom the council spent a small fortune creating a wet room downstairs. This couple is to be moved to a one-bedroom place. The council will, no doubt, have to spend money converting that and ripping out the stuff from the previous place. It makes no sense.
Chris Ruane
It does not make social sense or economic sense. The state will be paying £60 a week rent for many people living in council houses. If such people are moved into houses of multiple occupation in my constituency, the state will be paying £85 a week. The conditions in HMOs are far worse than on council estates.
Some 420,000 households in Wales are living in fuel poverty, 84,000 of them in north Wales alone. Household fuel bills have increased by £300 since the Government have been in power. Those who suffer most are on pre-payment meters. I was brought up in a household with pre-payment meters; we put a pound in the “leccy” if the lights went out. Those people will be paying an extra £50 a year, because they are not on direct debit. Every which way, the poorest are hit the most.
Fuel bills went up by 7% last year. In this current season, the first energy company out of the blocks is going to increase its prices by 8%, at the same time as chief executive officers in energy companies are having golden handshakes of £15 million or £13.5 million.
Under Labour’s home energy efficiency scheme, the energy efficiency of 127,000 households in Wales was improved, cutting down people’s bills and their carbon footprint. The great green hope from the parties in Government was the green deal, What a failure that has been! At the top of the green deal figures for the whole of Wales is Alyn and Deeside, where 19 households have been checked; at number two is Delyn, with 16 households; third is Wrexham, with 13; and at number four is Clwyd West, with 13. In the Prime Minister’s constituency of Witney, six households were assessed for the green deal. This policy was going to rescue those living in fuel poverty, but it has done nothing for them.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will remember that the Arbed scheme—the insulation scheme that he mentioned—was part of a programme from the “One Wales” Government and was the responsibility of, and was launched by, Jocelyn Davies, the then Housing Minister. Does the hon. Gentleman share my disappointment that Labour’s energy price freeze does not extend to coal, liquid petroleum gas and oil? What can he do, in his party, to ensure that it does extend to those?
Chris Ruane
Fuel poverty is being looked at. It is on the political agenda because our Labour leader put it there during conference season. Labour is dictating the agenda on living standards. That aspect should be looked into.
I shall now talk about those in work. When Labour came into power, the proudest political moment in my 16 years in Parliament was the night, the day and the day after we introduced the minimum wage. The Conservatives kept us up for about 28 hours. They hated it and said that it would cost 3 million jobs and be devastating for the economy. It did not cost 3 million jobs; it created another 3 million jobs. Their prediction was 6 million jobs out. The minimum wage put a floor in for those who are paid poor wages.
The issue today is zero-hours contracts. I have tabled some 50 questions about those.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. When talking about living standards in areas such as north Wales, the cost of travel, particularly in rural areas, should be considered in addition to food inflation and energy prices. The Government are considering areas in Wales that may benefit from a discount, but does my hon. Friend agree that hard-working families are suffering because of the great distances that they have to travel, to work and to take their children to leisure facilities?
Chris Ruane
Absolutely. That is a particular problem in rural areas. I represent the Vale of Clwyd, a rural seat. This is just one of many ways in which ordinary working families are being hit by the parties in government.
Earlier today, I attended the zero-hours contracts debate in the main Chamber. Statistics are scarce. The Office for National Statistics claims that 240,000 people are on zero-hours contracts, but some trade unions reckon that 5 million people are on them. Either way, those are huge numbers and they are having a devastating effect. It is costly to the state, because if companies do not pay the going rate for the job, the state has to step in and subsidise that; it is also a cost to taxpayers.
The issue is also costly for individuals, because they cannot plan their future. They cannot get a mortgage on a zero-hours contract, cannot save up and get Christmas presents and cannot plan for holidays. The working week, including taking children to and from school, cannot be planned for properly. These contracts have an impact on people’s well-being and mental health.
The issue is costly for the companies implementing the contracts, because they will not get loyalty, good will and commitment from a work force on zero-hours contracts—they are pinging and ponging back and forth to work and can be sacked at a moment’s notice. It is also costly for companies paying a proper wage, because they are undercut by those who use zero-hours contracts. Overall, it is a costly business. The Labour party in opposition has shone the light on these dark practices and got the political ball moving.
To combat the drop in living standards, we need a living wage. I congratulate Councillor Joan Butterfield, leader of the Labour group in Denbighshire, who is pushing for that. The local churches in my constituency—Catholic and other churches—led by Father Charles Ramsay, my parish priest, are also pushing for a living wage.
Living standards are crucial. Labour had a good record on that in government and looked after the poorest of the poor, with, for example, Bookstart, child care credits, nurseries for everybody, Sure Start, the education maintenance allowance, child trust funds and the future jobs fund. We dropped VAT from 20% to 15%. All that helped people’s living standards.
Let us look at what has happened to child poverty under the Conservative-Liberal Government. The latest figures on child poverty, on which there is a two-year delay, show that the trough peaked under Labour and that child poverty will rise again under the Conservatives. The Prime Minister is for ever vilifying the Welsh Government and saying, “Look at Labour in practice, look at their bad practice here and their bad practice there.” Let me give MPs a taste of what the Labour Government are doing in practice in Wales.
In England, the education maintenance allowance was scrapped—the allowance was an opportunity to keep 16 to 18-year-olds in school so that they could get their A-levels, go on to college and get a good job. In Wales, it was not scrapped. In England, tuition fees went from £3,000 to £9,000; in Wales, they were capped at £3,500. In England, there were cuts to council tax benefits; in Wales, the Welsh Government allocated £22 million to stop those cuts.
Last week, £17 million was announced by Alun Davies, a Minister in Wales, to combat fuel poverty over a two-year period, which is equivalent to a UK Government allocating £1.5 billion to address fuel poverty. The Welsh Government are doing an excellent job of helping to buffer the Conservative-Liberal coalition’s negative effects on living standards.
The Conservative party has tried to get rid of its nasty reputation. The Home Secretary described the party as the “nasty party,” and the Conservative leader went to the Arctic to hug a husky and to Manchester to hug a hoodie. As has been said today, instead of hugging a husky he is now gassing the badgers. The mask has slipped: Flashman is back in charge.
In the 1980s, the Conservatives atomised, alienated and broke up society. They were out for 13 years, and now they are back to their old tricks—look at the language being used. The Education Secretary says that people are not able to manage their own finances. The Conservatives have the wrong priority in giving money to millionaires. They are allowing £15 million golden handshakes to chief executive officers of energy companies. They are reintroducing soup kitchens. We have beggars in the street for the first time ever in Prestatyn. The number of homeless people in Rhyl has doubled, and we will see people from the inner cities of England driven out to the UK’s coastal towns, including in Wales.
All that does not bode well for the future, and I am pleased that my Labour party and my Labour leader have put living standards at the heart of political debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) on securing this debate.
Listening to the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues, I am struck by the negative picture they paint of life in north Wales. We are debating living standards and quality of life in north Wales. I am not from north Wales—many of the Opposition Members here today are—but let me be the first to say this afternoon that north Wales is, remains and will continue to be a great place to live, a great place to work and a great place for businesses to invest.
At this time, as the economic recovery starts to gather pace in Wales, what should be seizing all of us with an interest in north Wales, on both sides of the House, is how to maximise the opportunities that are coming for Wales, so that we ensure that the economic recovery is a recovery for the whole of Wales and that north Wales is front and centre of that recovery.
Stephen Crabb
Forgive me, but I will not give way because I have not been left with much time.
This afternoon we have heard Opposition Members talking down north Wales and the Welsh economy and not recognising many of the great things that are happening in their own constituencies that we should be celebrating and promoting.
The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd, for whom I have a huge amount of time and respect, finished his contribution with a rather crude political attack on my party and my Government. Of course, it was his party that said it was “intensely relaxed” about people becoming filthy rich. His party was intensely relaxed about abolishing the 10p tax band, which hurt the lowest-paid workers the most. His party was intensely relaxed about soaring petrol prices and soaring council tax. The Government are not relaxed about such things, which is why we are doing everything that we can as the economic recovery gathers pace to ensure that people on the lowest incomes are the ones who benefit and are given incentives to move into work and be at the front and centre of maximising opportunities from the economic recovery.
It is a pleasure and a privilege to be a Minister in the Wales Office, and I have the opportunity to go around all parts of the Principality. I see many of the exciting things that are currently happening in the Welsh private sector, and I have to tell Opposition Members that much of that is happening in north Wales; it is happening in their own constituencies. Unemployment is falling in most north Wales constituencies. Unemployment is not falling everywhere, and we are not complacent about that. We want unemployment to fall in every parliamentary constituency, but the hon. Gentleman cannot stand there and say what he said without recognising that unemployment in his constituency is lower today than when his party left office. I remind him that, under the previous Labour Government, in the five years between 2005 and 2010, unemployment increased in his constituency by more than 100%.
Chris Ruane
The top-line unemployment statistics look okay, but the number of people on jobseeker’s allowance for 12 months or more was 215 in 2010, and it was 516 in 2012. The underlying trend is that the number of people who are long-term unemployed, who are the most difficult people to get back to work, is going massively upwards and there is no room for complacency.
Stephen Crabb
I am the last person to be complacent. I recognise that a huge amount of work still needs to be done, but the latest figures today confirm that the overall employment picture in Wales is positive. Unemployment is falling across Wales. Overall employment levels are increasing, which we should welcome and want to see more of.
At the start of the hon. Gentleman’s speech, he talked about the decline in real wages between 2007 and 2012 in Denbighshire and Flintshire. We can go through the figures later if he wants more detail, but the vast majority of the decline in real wages happened in the last three years of the previous Labour Government, when, as a result of the economic trauma that they visited upon this country, there was an enormous destruction of wealth and real wages fell. We are now seeing a recovery in wages, including in Wales, but there is a long way still to go before we are back to previous levels.
On income tax, I recognise that many families are facing difficult financial circumstances. That is why we are putting cash back into those families’ pockets by taking 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. We are lifting 130,000 of the lowest-paid workers in Wales out of income tax altogether by increasing that allowance to £10,000. Some 324,000 taxpayers in north Wales will benefit from that increase in the personal allowance.
Employers in north Wales are also benefiting from the fact that we are implementing in full all the recommendations of the independent Low Pay Commission. The hon. Gentleman talked about Conservative opposition to the minimum wage, but I for one never opposed the minimum wage, which has benefited the lowest-paid workers. This year, we are able not only to implement all the Low Pay Commission’s recommendations but to go further: the commission recommended freezing the apprentice rate, but we are not freezing it; we are increasing it, and we can do so because we have taken difficult decisions to restore discipline and order to our national finances and to put our house in order, which has given us the capacity and the resources to do things such as increase minimum wages.
One thing that we are committed to freezing, however, is fuel duty, and we have now seen fuel duty frozen for nearly three and a half years. This year, the average motorist will save £7 each time they fill up their fuel tank. I remind Opposition Members that, had Labour been elected in 2010 and implemented its detailed financial plans in full, as it had intended, the price of petrol would be 13p a litre higher than today. That is an example of the Government putting cash back into the pockets of hard-working people and hard-working families. Again, we can do that only because we were able and willing, and had the strength of purpose, to take difficult decisions at the start of this Parliament to put our national finances in order and to restore some sanity to national budgeting.
Albert Owen
I wish to put on record that I very much admire the resilience of the people of north Wales. We were not talking down north Wales; we were giving an honest picture. On fuel duty, will the Minister tell us what negotiations the Wales Office has had with the Treasury and others on the rebate scheme and how it will be implemented in Wales? I am talking about not only asking businesses, but providing leadership from the Wales Office.
Stephen Crabb
I can write to the hon. Gentleman with further details, but we are in close discussion with the Treasury on the implementation of that scheme in Wales. I have personally written to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about the scheme, and we want as much of rural Wales as possible to benefit.
We are also committed to freezing council tax in England. Let us remind ourselves that council tax more than doubled under the previous Labour Government. The council tax freeze, of course, does not apply to Wales, as it is a devolved matter. We have provided the Welsh Government in Cardiff with both the opportunity and the resources, but they have so far refused a freeze. If Opposition Members are genuinely concerned about standards of living and the financial pressures on families in Wales, they should be rapping hard on the doors of Welsh Ministers in Cardiff, wanting to know why they are not implementing a council tax freeze in the same way that we are doing in England.
There was some discussion of energy prices. Let me put it on the record that I have not heard one thing from an Opposition Member, or even from the Leader of the Opposition, about a commitment to freezing energy prices that has a shred of credibility. When the Leader of the Opposition was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, energy prices in this country soared. [Hon. Members: “They went down!”] Opposition Members cannot seek continued investment in energy infrastructure to deliver lower prices in future and to keep our lights on, while making irresponsible and crude promises that they can somehow freeze energy prices.
Housing benefit reform and the overall programme of welfare reform have been mentioned on a day when we again see unemployment in Wales fall. Opposition Members cannot be on the side of falling unemployment, while opposing welfare reform. Welfare reform is a vital ingredient in tackling worklessness at source, which is what we are seeing in Wales.
Hywel Williams
Will the Minister tell the House what assessment the Government made of the elasticity of the housing market before ending the spare-room subsidy? Will the market be able to respond to the increased demand for one and two-bedroom properties?
Stephen Crabb
We have had many opportunities to discuss the availability of certain types of housing in Wales. The housing stock differs between different areas, and I do not deny that shortages exist in certain parts of Wales. That is why we are making more than £7 million available to Welsh local authorities through discretionary housing payments to ease the transition to the implementation of our housing benefit reforms. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may want to chunter and mumble as we discuss such matters, but I am yet to see one of them stand up and give me a credible plan for how they will bring order back to our housing benefit expenditure, while tackling the unfairness of tens of thousands of people in Wales living in overcrowded accommodation or waiting for access to social housing while many people—let me absolutely blunt about it—are able to live in houses with extra space and more rooms than they strictly need.
The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd mentioned food banks and was absolutely incorrect to say that Conservatives have refused to visit them. I regularly visit my local food bank. In fact, I was a trustee of the charity that runs it, so I know exactly what food banks do. I know what they do well and what they do not do so well. From speaking to colleagues right across the House, I know that Conservatives have no fear at all about going to visit food banks. He made the point that Jobcentre Plus has been referring people to food banks since 2011, but what happened before 2011 under the previous Labour Government? They banned jobcentres from advertising the availability of food banks. They tried to cover up the fact that food banks were increasing in number on their watch. They did not want to acknowledge that food banks existed and were growing. We are not taking that approach. We see food banks as a vital part of the social economy at this difficult time, and we are working in close partnership with them.
In conclusion, I have the huge privilege of being able to get out and about around Wales. I see so many good things happening in north Wales. I will say it again for the record that north Wales remains a fantastic place to live, work and invest.
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
Before we move on to the next debate, I want to remind hon. Members of the rules. If Members want to make a speech during a half-hour debate, they should seek the permission of the Member who secured the debate and the Minister. Members can, however, make interventions as long as the initiator or the Minister is willing to give way. I urge hon. Members to keep that in mind. Members are also supposed to write in before speaking in such debates, but so far only one Member has done so. I mention those rules because the attendance showed this topic to be extraordinarily popular, but the debates are only 30 minutes long, so please bear with us.
Badger Vaccines
(10 years, 10 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
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I am delighted to have secured a debate on the important subject of badger vaccinations to prevent bovine TB. I am also delighted that so many hon. Members are here today. I hope that the debate will be measured and grown up, because the subject is truly apolitical and everybody in the room will have an opinion on how best to proceed. Everybody wants to see TB being reduced while the badger population is preserved.
Before I start my speech, may I welcome the Minister to his new role? I have known him for some time and I am elated about his new position. I have always had the utmost respect for his abilities and he will do a huge amount for rural communities such as the Lune valley, which I represent.
We are all acutely aware of the controversy around the ongoing cull and the desire on both sides of the debate to control bovine TB with the minimum disturbance to wildlife. Both sides have offered compelling arguments and I voted in favour of the cull as an interim measure ahead of work on a viable, deliverable and safe vaccine. I hope that the Minister will update us on the progress of the research and development of the oral vaccine. I also want to ask him what steps are being taken with groups such as the Badger Trust towards bringing in volunteers to help with any future vaccination programme.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he agree that any vaccination proposals should be accompanied by improved measures relating to biosecurity on farms and more adequate controls on cattle movement?
David Morris
I totally agree. Later in my speech, I will explain some of the technicalities behind what the hon. Lady has just articulated.
I pay tribute at this point to the work of Team Badger in highlighting the need for vaccinations. The group is led by Dr Brian May, CBE, and I know how much time, effort and money he puts into humanitarian and wildlife issues.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I spoke to him beforehand, Sir Alan, and asked his permission to speak.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman not only on securing the debate, but on supporting the cull. I support the cull, as do many others in the House, but many others do not. Does he recognise that bovine TB costs dairy and beef farmers millions of pounds? Should that not be the first reason for trying to continue the cull and for ensuring that badgers are eradicated?
David Morris
There is a cost to the issue, as there is with anything of this nature, but as I will explain later in my speech, there is a funding situation that can be annexed to involve Team Badger and various other badger projects.
Today’s debate comes during the badger cull and following the Opposition day debate on 5 June, in which a wide range of hon. Members participated. I believe that 5 June was the start of the process of bringing both sides together, to which I hope today’s debate also contributes. It is pretty easy for all of us to understand the opposition to the cull, but we must not characterise those in favour of it as being cruel. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and farmers have the best interests of the countryside and the agricultural community at heart and want to help in the best way possible and protect badgers at the same time, but they believe, rightly or wrongly, that the spread of bovine TB will be significantly reduced if we cull 70% of badgers in the cull zones. That said, the last major cull from 1997 to 2007 was not deemed to have dealt with the problem to the extent that was hoped and cost £50 million.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend recognise that one of the benefits of vaccination versus a cull is that vaccinations have no perturbation effect?
David Morris
I agree totally. Vaccination increases herd immunity, while culling increases the spread of disease.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
For the record, I am a member of the British Veterinary Association. May I ask the hon. Gentleman two questions? Does he agree that a vaccine does not cure an infected beast and that, if a beast is infected, it must be culled?
David Morris
Despite a massive cull in southern Ireland, of 97,000 badgers, the rates of TB in the north, where there were no culls, are still the same. If a badger with TB is vaccinated, it will not be cured, but if it reproduces, its young will be immune.
Ian Paisley
It is important that people understand what the vaccine does. The beast is trapped and tested: if it has the disease, it is culled; but if the test is not positive and it is free of the disease, it is injected. However, it has to be injected for the next five years—caught every year and injected—and that costs about £3,000 per beast.
David Morris
I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying and I understand his argument. In the culling at the moment, however, badgers are being trapped and shot—there is only one sentence for them, if caught, and that is to be killed.
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)
On the points made by the previous two Members who intervened, the whole debate needs to be centred on the evidence base. Perturbation is of concern—the evidence is that perturbation exists when culling takes place.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
On the potential for the Government’s policy to make the situation worse, that is likely to happen if the cull levels are as low as they are reported to be. I have to congratulate the Government, however, on their support for a proposed community-led badger vaccination programme on 200 sq km in my constituency, in the Land’s End peninsula, Penwith. The first year of vaccination on contiguous farms is going ahead with the support of Professor Rosie Woodroffe of the Zoological Society of London.
David Morris
I would like to see similar programmes rolled out nationally.
I must make some progress. The latest parliamentary report was published by the all-party group on dairy farmers, which was established by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). The group had 250 members, of whom 70 were Labour MPs, and the report recommended a badger cull. Research done under the previous Government suggested that the cull will reduce bovine TB by 16%. Obviously, that is a good thing, but we must work towards eradicating TB completely. From what I can see, a vaccination programme for both cattle and badgers is the only way to ensure that. I do not want to dwell on the need to vaccinate cattle and the problems that that would raise, but it is worth flagging up that, if we can do that in a cost-effective manner, we should.
A BCG is available for badgers, which is not unlike the injection most of us had at school. The concern about it is that the need to trap and tag badgers in order to deliver it effectively can make it expensive, as we have discussed. There seems to be widespread agreement, therefore, that we need an effective oral vaccination, and I again invite the Minister to comment on research and development and the progress in that field. It is worth pointing out that, this week, a National Farmers Union briefing was fully in favour of work on vaccines, while DEFRA is undertaking a survey of the number of badgers in the UK, which shows that there is common ground between both sides, even if that is not obvious at first.
Nia Griffith
Will the hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating the Welsh Government on the work that they have done to date on introducing badger vaccines? Will he urge his colleagues in the Government to work closely with the Welsh Government in order to make such progress?
David Morris
That is a helpful intervention, and I shall do so at all opportunities given to me.
Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend has been incredibly generous with all the interventions, so I shall be brief. He mentioned that cost is often cited as the a reason for vaccinations not taking place, but does he agree that, if the cost of policing a badger cull is included, the cost difference is almost negligible? Furthermore, if the good will of all the volunteers who have been campaigning on behalf of badgers were harnessed, and they were turned into vaccinators or those aiding vaccinators, much of the cost difference could be mitigated overnight.
David Morris
That is the spirit of the debate—how we proceed and eradicate a problem that has blighted our countryside.
As I said, the DEFRA survey of badger numbers shows that there is some common ground. On the subject of badger numbers, I have heard huge variations in the estimates, which range from 150,000 to 350,000. It is vital to understand how many badgers there are, and I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for their work on solving the problem. We cannot understand bovine TB and badgers’ effect on it until we can say for certain how many badgers there are.
The problem will not be solved by Government alone. We must have dialogue between DEFRA, the farmer and Team Badger and its affiliates. Together, they can work to ensure that we never need to consider a badger cull again. Vaccines are expensive, but most of the cost of the vaccination programme is in manpower. I dream of a world in which DEFRA trains volunteers from Team Badger to administer vaccines, while farmers play their part by facilitating the volunteers.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Most people in the Chamber fully support the principle of vaccination, but when talking about funding, do we not have to be realistic? An oral vaccine is the only long-term solution to the problem, so is that not where all the money and funding need to be targeted by the Minister and his team, rather than on the injectable vaccine, which is not really a long-term solution?
David Morris
I am all for whichever means of administering a vaccine is found. Yes, its development will cost a lot of money, but, as I shall explain, the way ahead might be a measure that empowers members of the pro-badger community to go into match funding with DEFRA. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
Funding streams for working on better vaccines for animals are available in DEFRA, and Team Badger has indicated that it would be willing to raise money to match what DEFRA puts in. In fact, ahead of any proposed scheme, Team Badger has already set up a website to raise funds and opened applications for volunteers. That represents real progress, but the stumbling block is the cull—it is hard to get people around the table as long as it is going on.
My plea to all sides today, across the political divides—we are all sensible and human—is for us to open genuine dialogue on bringing forward a viable and deliverable vaccination scheme. We are all agreed on our desire to create a viable vaccination programme in order to avoid future culls, so let us concentrate on doing that. People will still disagree about the rights or wrongs of the present cull, but for the purposes of this discussion I hope that we can put our differences aside. That is not to say that people will not vigorously argue and debate it, but ensuring that we are in a position to avoid culls in the future is the bigger issue and what must be fixed.
We are in an age of the big society, with Government determined to bring more volunteers and charities together with Departments. In the case of badgers, we have some amazingly well organised and professional charities and lobby groups. It is vital that DEFRA makes full use of those groups, which could be the magic wand that enables us to deliver a vaccination programme cost-effectively. Furthermore, if the lion’s share of research and development, and of delivery of the programme, is undertaken by groups such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Team Badger, the taxpayer will be in a much better position. When the Government do not have the budgets that they once had, this must be welcome.
To recap, here are the questions that I hope the Minister will answer. How far are we from a deliverable oral vaccine? Can we work on a cattle vaccine without falling foul of European Union rules? Will he commit to creating a dialogue around those things that we agree on? Will he support fundraising efforts by groups such as Team Badger and others? Is DEFRA open to the idea of a big society badger vaccination programme undertaken by volunteers?
I appreciate that the issues are easy to flag up, but much harder to address. I firmly believe, however, that with the right work, public will, dialogue and effort on all sides, we can do this. We must remember that the prize at stake is that none of us would have to go through the heartache and division of further badger culls again.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I welcome this debate, which my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) called for. The number of people here today suggests that we could do with more than half an hour to debate some of the issues. I welcome the tone with which my hon. Friend approached the debate. He is right that some people take different views about whether we should pursue a cull strategy, but we all agree that there is a role for vaccination of both cattle and badgers.
I was pleased to have the opportunity to consider the matter in detail in my recent role as a member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Government’s response to its report was published earlier today and shows that we share a significant amount of common ground on the issue.
Bovine TB is the biggest threat to the livestock industry in England—I was going to say Cornwall, where it is also a threat, as the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) knows. Having lived and worked in the farming industry in Cornwall, I know how difficult the problem is. My family run a herd of pedigree south Devon cattle and in the late 1960s, before my time, they had an incident of TB that wiped out more than half the herd and had a devastating impact on the family farm. My father still talks about it.
By the 1980s, we had almost eradicated the disease, but in the last 10 years there has been a severe deterioration. It has cost the country more than £5 million so far to fight the disease. Last year, we had to slaughter some 28,000 animals. Bovine control is not under control. In Lancashire, the county of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, we have seen an increase in the number of herds under restriction and the number of cattle slaughtered in the last year.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The Minister says that bovine TB is spreading more, and that is exactly why people are saying that culling is not the answer. Scientists involved in a randomised badger culling trial between 1998 and 2005 have shown that culling has not contributed meaningfully to a reduction in the disease and, if anything, has increased it because as the animals are shot, they run away and carry the disease with them.
George Eustice
It is generally accepted that, after the initial conclusions of the randomised badger culling trials, there was a significant reduction of some 16% in the cull area in the following years. On perturbation, which other hon. Members have also raised, there was an increase in TB in a ring immediately around the trial areas as a result of perturbation, but the incidence then dropped. Overall, there was a reduction. I point the hon. Lady to evidence in other countries, such as the Republic of Ireland, which has had a cull policy since 2000 with a reduction of around 45% in the incidence of the disease, and the number of cattle having to be slaughtered has halved.
There is no magic bullet and no single policy that can change the situation dramatically. Vaccination of badgers and cattle has a role; wildlife control has a role; dealing with the reservoir of TB in wildlife has a role; and routine testing, movement controls and better biosecurity all have a role. But none of them alone is the entire solution.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Part of the trial is taking place in my constituency. My first ministerial meeting when I was elected 16 years ago was with Jeff Rooker on this very subject, and only now is any meaningful action taking place. The Minister is absolutely right to say that a whole range of measures is needed to counter the disease, but it has been increasing and farmers have been suffering. We must get a grip on it.
George Eustice
I agree with my hon. Friend. I have painted a picture of how bleak the matter is. The disease is spreading and we cannot ignore it any more; we must take action.
Returning to vaccination, which is the subject of the debate, I think it is worth noting that successive Governments have invested more than £43 million on vaccine research and development since 1994. The coalition Government will have spent at least a further £15 million. I say “at least” because the figure excludes what is likely to be sizeable expenditure on the necessary work on cattle vaccine field trials.
Tracey Crouch
Is my hon. Friend aware that the response to a recent freedom of information request on 22 September shows a significant reduction in the amount of departmental investment in the oral vaccine particularly, but also in all other research into injectable vaccine and cattle vaccines? Spending on the oral vaccine will fall from around £2.5 million to £312,000 in 2015. Should that not be dealt with “drekly”, as the Cornish might say?
George Eustice
It seems that the word “drekly” is catching on in the House. I will deal with oral vaccination later. Right now, only the injectable BCG is available to tackle bovine TB and it does not fully guarantee protection. Some animals will be fully protected, some will benefit from a reduction in the disease, but some will get no protection. That is a shortcoming of a vaccination policy, but it would be a useful addition to the toolkit and we will use it to tackle the disease when we can perfect it.
Angela Smith
I welcome the Minister to his new role. He has mentioned the words “toolkit” and “all the tools in the box” more than once. Will he rule out one tool that most hon. Members believe is unacceptable—the gassing of badgers in any future cull?
George Eustice
We have made it clear that we would never use gassing as a means of controlling the badger population if we thought it was inhumane, but it is in the consultation for research. That does not mean that we will use it, but we will consider further research in this area.
The research is not on animals. It involves laboratory situations and simulated setts to work out how to get gas to go through a sett. The concern is not the gas itself, but the ability to deploy it throughout a sett. I assure the hon. Lady that that is the sort of research that was alluded to in the strategy. There is nothing new about it; it was in our published strategy in July.
George Eustice
I want to make some progress or I will not get to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale.
Laboratory studies have demonstrated that vaccinating badgers with BCG can reduce the risk of infection and transmission of the disease. A four-year safety field study of wild badgers showed a statistically significant indirect protective effect in unvaccinated cubs born into vaccinated social groups, but vaccinating a large enough proportion of badgers to reduce transmission of disease and bring about a reduction of TB in cattle would take time to achieve and be costly to deliver, at between £2,000 and £4,000 per sq km per year.
In practice, it is inevitable that not all badgers in an area will be trapped and vaccinated. There is no evidence that vaccination protects already-infected badgers, and there is a risk that badgers from neighbouring unvaccinated areas may act as a constant source of infection. Nevertheless, computer modelling indicates that sustained badger vaccination campaigns could be beneficial in lowering TB incidence in cattle, but quantifying that contribution is likely to need a large-scale field trial, and it would take some years to collect the results.
David Morris
I would like to put it on the record that should what I am proposing come together, I would like my constituency to be its first trial area.
George Eustice
That has been noted, and we will take it on board—[Interruption.] I do not want all hon. Members asking for their constituencies to be a trial area. Vaccination is a potential additional tool to reduce geographical spread of the disease, particularly on the edge of areas. My hon. Friend’s constituency is in not an edge area, but a low-risk area.
Vaccination could complement badger culling by providing a buffer to limit the impact of perturbation. It may also form part of an exit strategy from culling—for example, by vaccinating remaining badgers with the aim of establishing herd immunity in previously culled areas.
Albert Owen
I welcome the Minister to his place on the Front Bench. Will he assure the Chamber that his Department is working with the Welsh Government so that we can have some data on their trials, share information and eradicate the problem in the whole United Kingdom? His responsibility covers only England, but such co-operation would help both England and Wales.
George Eustice
We are keen to learn lessons from around the country and around the world, so we are looking at the work going on in Wales. I have to say that it is not that encouraging at the moment; a vaccination-only strategy is not seen to be working particularly well, but we will study the results closely. I am also interested in following what is going on in Northern Ireland, where they are trapping and then vaccinating badgers that they believe are not infected and culling those that are. We are also keen to learn lessons from countries such as Australia, which has pursued policies similar to ours.
Ian Paisley
I welcome the Minister to his new role. With regards to the vaccine for cattle and cows, which he touched on at the beginning—the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale also asked about this issue—will the Minister take the opportunity to make it abundantly clear that if a vaccine is given to a cow, it makes the cow test positive? That makes it indistinguishable from an affected beast when it is tested, which leads to one conclusion: the cow is slaughtered. We have to get away from pursuing the idea that there is some sort of magic bullet, or magic pill, that can be used to vaccinate a cow and not lead to its being slaughtered.
George Eustice
I do not want to get drawn too far into cattle vaccination, but the hon. Gentleman is right that we need to perfect the so-called DIVA test that differentiates between the two. It is clear that it will take some time. The European Commission has put a time frame of 10 years on getting to that stage. I would like that to be quicker, but we have to be realistic—there is a lot to be done.
I come back to supporting badger vaccination. DEFRA operates a badger vaccination fund; in the current year, that has prioritised support for vaccination in the “edge area”. The fund offers start-up grants of 50% to fund the first year of vaccinations. Having said that, it is true to say that applications this year have been a bit disappointing. We are now looking to understand precisely why that is, so that we can get it right next year. Coming back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, we are keen to work with all those groups, including voluntary groups, who would like to participate, and to work out how we can get them engaged in that.
I also intend to discuss a plan that the hon. Member for St Ives has on the issue—I have promised to meet him and Rosie Woodroffe. The Department has made a modest commitment to support some vaccination in that regard and he has some ideas; we are keen to pursue that option and look at it.
Andrew George
I put on the record my gratitude to DEFRA for the initial funding of the pilot, which is proceeding this week. The intention is to cover the whole 200 square miles of the Land’s End peninsula, and we are increasingly gathering the co-operation of farmers in the area.
George Eustice
I know that, and I look forward to discussing the matter further when I meet the hon. Gentleman. The training scheme has become more popular since, as part of the DEFRA-funded badger vaccination fund, we have offered grants of 50% to voluntary and community sector volunteers to train as lay vaccinators. That is another area that we would like to look at.
Finally, I want to say a few words about our work on developing an oral badger vaccine. A badger vaccine could be administered orally through baits. It would be more practical and potentially cheaper, which is why DEFRA continues to fund that. It is not true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) said, that we have cut expenditure on that. We are, as I say, still spending about £4 million a year in total on developing cattle and badger vaccines.
There are things that we would need to resolve when it comes to the development of an oral vaccine. We would need to work on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine formulation and make sure that we can deploy the bait to attract the maximum number of badgers. One of the problems is that badgers will not take the bait that is used, so it is important to have the right bait.
Another problem can be that one badger might eat all the bait and another badger might not get any, so there are challenges. We also have to deal with the potential impact and safety for other wildlife. There is still further work to do, but we are committed to taking it forward, and we are clear that that ongoing work will play a role in our strategy.
Written Statements
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Private Rented Sector
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
The private rented market is a vital asset to this country. It is an important option for the millions of people who prefer the flexibility that renting offers, or who are simply saving up for a deposit so they can buy a place of their own. The coalition Government are delivering a series of policies to promote home ownership and affordable housing. But we recognise there is more to do to support a vibrant private rented sector.
I am therefore today announcing a package of further measures to help millions of hard-working tenants get a better deal when they rent a home. These measures will give tenants the know-how to demand longer-term tenancies, stable rents, better quality accommodation, avoid hidden fees when renting a home and demand better standards.
Equally, we recognise the need for proportionate regulation. Excessive red tape—such as compulsory landlord registration fees or rent controls—would reduce investment, restrict choice for tenants and ultimately drive up costs for tenants.
We also recognise the need to support the vast majority of law-abiding, decent landlords in managing their properties and ensure they are protected when tenants intentionally do not pay rent or damage their property. At the same time, action should be taken against the small number of rogue landlords to stop tenants being ripped off when they rent a flat or house and ensure tenants have the confidence to take action without fear of eviction or harassment.
Ensuring high-quality accommodation
I have set out today that we will develop a code of practice on the management of property, in the private rented sector. This code of practice will set out what landlords, letting agents and property managers should do when providing tenants with homes to live in. It will make clear that it is their responsibility to maintain the property to an acceptable standard to prevent tenants having to pay for repairs out of their own pockets.
Tenants have a right to live in homes that are safe and well maintained. We will undertake a review into how we can ensure tenants are satisfied that their homes are safe and healthy and what standards of hygiene and sanitation they can expect and how they will be protected from damp or excess cold. We will consider the scope for requiring landlords to repay rent where a property is found to have serious hazards. This will include considering extending local authorities’ ability to recoup housing benefit through rent repayment orders, so that taxpayers’ money is not used to support landlords who provide sub-standard property.
Protecting tenants from rogue landlords
Tenants must feel able to raise concerns or complaints with their landlords about the homes that they live in, and they must be able to do this without fear of eviction.
We will also work with local councils to share best practice on the prosecution of landlords for housing offences. This will make clear the importance that local authorities demonstrate that such offences have a real impact on the lives of tenants.
Cutting costs for tenants
A Tenants’ Charter, published today in draft, will tell tenants what their rights are, what to expect and what to ask for and what to do if they have any problems. This will explain the flexibility which exists to enable tenants to ask for longer tenancies and promote awareness among tenants of what to expect, including on the transparency of lettings agents’ fees. Greater transparency will help stop unreasonable practices and unfair charges by letting agents, and would-be tenants will know the full costs before they sign up to any contract.
We will also develop a model tenancy agreement, by early 2014, which will simply and more clearly set out the rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords alike and help tenants to understand which clauses should be in every agreement, which are optional but standard and which are unique to that property. We have already directly encouraged those bidding in the second round of the Build to Rent fund to support longer-term tenancies.
We will shortly lay before Parliament the secondary legislation setting out the conditions compulsory redress schemes must meet. All letting and management agents will be required to belong to such a scheme. This will ensure that complaints about their service can be investigated by an independent person. A complaint could be made where the agent had not made clear what fees would be charged and, where a complaint was upheld, the redress scheme could require the agent to pay compensation to the tenant.
Supporting good landlords
We know that the majority of landlords in the private rented sector are good landlords who have excellent relationships with their tenants and who maintain their properties. We want to ensure that all tenants have this same level of service and the same standard of property. We also know that there are some bad tenants out there; we will work with landlords to identify any improvements that can be made to the eviction process, so that the law-abiding landlords have confidence that they can get their property back if a tenant stops paying the rent and which will provide them with more confidence to offer longer tenancies.
We recognise that many buy-to-let landlords will be prevented from offering longer tenancies because of restrictions in their mortgage. We will be holding a mortgage lenders summit to identify the barriers to lenders agreeing to longer tenancies and consider how lenders can make it easier for landlords to offer longer tenancies that benefit families.
Increasing the supply of rented housing
Increasing the supply of housing will provide more choice for tenants and more competition between landlords, which will in turn deliver longer tenancies, stable rents, more professional landlords and better properties for people to live in.
This is why we have introduced the £1 billion Build to Rent fund, and we are offering up to £10 billion in housing guarantees, to bring more developers into the market, and build homes specifically for private rent. These will be high-quality developments that will drive up standards in all areas of the sector. To ensure delivery, quality and affordability, we have appointed a specialist private rented sector taskforce precisely to promote these two schemes to the wider industry. We are also encouraging local authorities to promote purpose-built rental schemes on their land holdings and via the planning system.
We are supporting hard-working tenants while ensuring that good landlords are not penalised by the introduction of unnecessary red tape and rooting out the rogue landlords and letting agents that all too often give the sector a bad name.
I would like to thank the my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) for his assistance on this policy development in his capacity as a member of the No. 10 policy board.
Copies of the associated documents are being placed in the Library. My Department is also publishing today the Government’s formal response to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee’s report on “The Private Rented Sector”.
Foreign Affairs and General Affairs Councils
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 21 October, and I will attend the General Affairs Council (GAC) on 22 October. The FAC will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, and the GAC will be chaired by the Lithuanian presidency. The meetings will be held in Luxembourg.
Introduction—middle east peace process
Baroness Ashton will outline progress on the middle east peace process, including on the EU settlement guidelines. We do not expect discussion, but if it ensues we will reaffirm our support for the negotiation process, our continued support for the economic track and our position on the EU settlement guidelines, as necessary.
Introduction—Iran
Baroness Ashton is expected to report back to the Foreign Affairs Council on the E3+3 talks with Iran taking place 15-16 October in Geneva. No discussion is expected.
Introduction—Serbia-Kosovo
Baroness Ashton is likely to update Ministers on the EU-facilitated Serbia/Kosovo dialogue. We welcome Baroness Ashton’s leadership on this and welcome the progress made, including on agreements on energy and telecoms. Implementation of dialogue agreements by both sides needs to continue and there is more to do more on integration of police and justice structures in north Kosovo. The smooth passage of municipal elections in Kosovo in November will be important.
Introduction—Africa
We expect Baroness Ashton to raise Africa during her introductory remarks, focusing on: Kenya, including the recent terrorist attack at the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi; Somalia, highlighting the importance of maintaining the support to AMISOM in the fight against al-Shabaab; and the Central African Republic where Ministers will agree Council conclusions that highlight the continuing poor security and humanitarian situation.
Introduction—EU-China summit
Baroness Ashton will provide an update on preparations for upcoming high-level meetings, including the EU-China summit, which is scheduled for 21-22 November. “Green growth in a safer world” is the overall headline, with prosperity, security and sustainable development as supporting themes. We do not expect a discussion.
Eastern Partnership
The Eastern Partnership discussion will focus on the preparations for the Vilnius summit and Ukraine’s progress against the December 2012 FAC conclusions. The UK is a firm supporter of Ukraine’s EU aspirations, and has made clear that progress towards a closer relationship with the EU requires Ukraine to demonstrate its commitment to EU principles including the rule of law. Ukraine is an important EU neighbour and a closer relationship between Ukraine and the EU will benefit both parties economically and in terms of European security. Ministers may also discuss how the EU should respond to recent Russian pressure on eastern partners in advance of the Vilnius summit. The UK is clear that a closer relationship with the EU will bring clear benefits to eastern partners, through improved trade opportunities, business environment, and rule of law, and that this is in Russia’s long-term interests as well as the EU’s.
Southern neighbourhood
On Syria, we will continue to encourage convening of the Geneva II talks for a political settlement in Syria by mid-November, including by supporting the moderate opposition. We will encourage the EU to contribute additional funding for humanitarian aid and the mission of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons programme. We will encourage member states to do all they can to support September’s UN Security Council resolution on destroying Syria’s chemical weapons programme and presidential statement on increased humanitarian access in Syria.
On Egypt, Baroness Ashton will brief Ministers on her visit to Cairo in early October where she met with a wide range of interlocutors. Ministers will also discuss the EU’s internal review of assistance to Egypt. The UK remains committed to supporting Egypt in its political transition, and to supporting the strengthening of democratic institutions. There will be conclusions on Egypt.
Burma
There will be a short discussion of Burma at the FAC, before Foreign Ministers join Aung San Suu Kyi for lunch, who is visiting Luxembourg and the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The lunch with Aung San Suu Kyi will be an opportunity to hear her views on the reform process in Burma and discuss her priorities as we move closer to national elections in 2015.
General Affairs Council
The 22 October GAC will focus on the preparation for the 24-25 October European Council, the next stage of the European semester, macro-regional strategies and possibly enlargement.
Preparation of the 24-25 October European Council
The GAC will prepare the 24-25 October European Council. This European Council has an extensive agenda covering: the digital economy, innovation and services; growth, competitiveness and jobs; economic and monetary union; the Eastern Partnership summit; and migration issues, following the tragedy in Lampedusa.
It is very positive that the October European Council has such a strong focus on areas that have the potential to promote growth. We have consistently pressed for action to deliver on many of the areas that will be discussed at this European Council.
I will be arguing for the need for the European Council to prioritise areas where it could go further, such as on the services sector where we would like to see more ambition in the proposals; completing the digital single market by 2015; and continuing the Prime Minister’s drive for the EU to reduce burdensome regulation for business. However I will also be arguing the need to get the details right on issues such as telecoms, where there are complex proposals.
European semester
The GAC will also discuss the European semester, which gives macro-economic and fiscal guidance to member states, assessing implementation of the compact for growth and jobs agreed by the June 2012 European Council. This particular discussion will focus on the lessons learned in 2013 in preparation for the European semester in 2014.
Enlargement—Turkey
Though not yet finally confirmed the GAC may discuss Turkish accession, particularly regarding the formal opening of “Chapter 22—Regional policy and coordination of structural instruments” at an inter- governmental conference this autumn.
Macro-regional strategies
There are two main macro-regional strategies currently in existence, the Baltic sea strategy and the Danube strategy. There are proposals for other strategies including for the Adriatic-Ionian region. These macro-regional strategies are comprehensive frameworks for member state co-operation that have covered a wide range of policy areas from maritime issues to the cross-border delivery of structural and cohesion funded projects and are generally endorsed by the European Council.
The draft conclusions on macro-regional strategies reiterate that they should require no new money (though structural and cohesion funds already allocated to those regions can be channelled towards projects complementing the macro-regional strategies); no new institutions and no new legislation. The conclusions do not propose establishing any new macro-regional strategies but set out preconditions that would help make such strategies effective.
The discussion at the GAC will look at how the existing macro-regional strategies are adding value and lessons learnt from them and the alpine strategy has been added to the agenda as an “AOB” item.
Grand Committee
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Children and Families Bill
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn) (Con)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Amendment 40
“Review of impact of under-occupancy penalty on prospective adopters, prospective special guardians and foster parents
Before the end of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must—(a) carry out a review of the impact of the housing under-occupancy penalty on prospective adopters, prospective special guardians and foster parents, and(b) publish, and lay before both Houses of Parliament, a report of the conclusions of the review.”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 40 focuses on the impact of the underoccupancy charge on would-be adopters, special guardians and foster parents. We know that there is a widely held concern about the negative impact of the housing underoccupancy charge or, as we call it, the bedroom tax. The plight of those who are unable to move to smaller properties, or who need the extra accommodation for obviously justifiable reasons, is regularly highlighted in the media.
However, I want to concentrate our concerns today on a very specific consequence of the new charge, which is how it impacts on the already chronic shortage of existing and potential foster carers. As noble Lords will know, the bedroom tax restricts housing benefit to one bedroom per person or per couple living as part of a household. Tenants affected will face a 14% cut in housing benefit for the first “excess” bedroom and a 25% cut where two or more bedrooms are underoccupied. The average loss of income is estimated to be around £14 per week. Our concern is that foster children are not counted as part of the household for benefit purposes and therefore that, technically, all foster carers could face cuts in housing benefit.
This matter was raised by our colleagues in the Commons and last-minute changes announced in Committee by the Minister mean that foster carers are allowed one additional room in their homes, as long as they have registered as a foster carer or fostered a child within the past 12 months. This means that around 5,000 foster carers would be exempt from the bedroom tax, and obviously we welcome that concession. However, foster carers with more than one child will still face the bedroom tax. The reforms still apply to foster carers who have two or three bedrooms for fostering children.
Carers in this situation can apply to a discretionary housing fund for support with their housing costs but because of its discretionary nature, this is not guaranteed—and carers will have to reapply for this benefit every six weeks, even if they have fostered a child on a long-term basis. We do not believe that this is satisfactory. It shows a lack of joined-up thinking by the Government, given the current acute shortage of foster carers. We believe that if the rules remain as they are, foster carers will be deterred from providing foster care for more than one child at a time. This means, for example, that children in foster care are more likely to be separated from their siblings. With there already being a shortage of foster carers in the UK, these reforms are likely to mean fewer new recruits coming forward and children’s well-being suffering as a result.
Our amendment is simple and modest. It would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of the bedroom tax on foster carers to see what impact this is having on this group and to report back to Parliament on the conclusions within one year. When this was debated in the Commons, I understand that the Minister agreed to take this proposal away and think about it again.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)
I understand that the purpose of this amendment is to ask us to conduct this review. As I know that noble Lords are anxious to move on to the justice provisions, which my noble friend Lord McNally will be covering, it might assist the Committee to know that the Government are committed to conducting an independent assessment of the impact on these particular groups and will be commissioning this shortly. We agree with the noble Baroness that this is very important, and a report on the outcome will be published within the timescale that her amendment calls for—within a year of Royal Assent of the Bill. We will place a copy of the report in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. I hope that noble Lords will find that intervention helpful.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I thank the Minister for that clarification. I was coming to that point. The clarification I was seeking was: will there be just one review, the DWP review that the Deputy Prime Minister announced yesterday, or will there be a separate review within the Department for Education? I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification that it will be placed in the Library, but on an important issue such as this we need some assurance that there will be an opportunity for Parliament to debate the conclusions rather than just read them. Perhaps the Minister could clarify those points, which is what I was going to ask him to do anyway. I beg to move.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the mover of this amendment but also to the Minister for this very good news. The noble Lord, Lord Freud, took great trouble during the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill to consult the interested parties around foster care but I have a couple of questions for the Minister. What is the situation for families who are providing supported lodging for young people at university for whom they wish to keep a room open when they return? More generally, what is the position for families providing supported lodging for older young people who have left foster care but whom they still wish to support?
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I will intervene very briefly if I may. Whereas Part 1 of the Bill largely did not apply to Wales, Part 2 to a large extent does. I therefore ask the Minister, in the context of the new clauses being proposed, whether any review that he will be undertaking will be in co-operation with the National Assembly of Wales and the Government of Wales, which have responsibility for education and social care but not for some aspects of social security and housing benefit. I would be grateful if he could at least give an indication that he will take that on board.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I should like to reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to helping people foster, adopt and be special guardians to some of the most vulnerable children. We want to ensure that government policy supports this aim. As has already been pointed out, on 12 March my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced an easement of the treatment of foster carers under the housing benefit policy to remove the spare room subsidy. Foster carers are now allowed one additional room under this policy, as are those who have a child placed with them for adoption. That will ensure that many foster carers will no longer be affected by removal of the spare room subsidy.
Adopted children, those placed for adoption and those being looked after by special guardians are treated as part of the family in the same way as birth children, so these children’s bedrooms are also included in the bedroom assessment for the household. Prospective adopters and prospective special guardians awaiting a child being placed with them are treated differently. This is because these are temporary situations. People in these circumstances will be able to apply to the local authority for short-term assistance from the discretionary housing payment fund. My honourable friends the Minister for Children and Families and the Minister for Welfare Reform have written to local authorities highlighting that these groups should be a priority for discretionary housing payment funding. The measures the Government have taken should ensure that foster carers, prospective adopters and prospective special guardians are not unfairly treated by the removal of the spare room subsidy.
The Government are committed to conducting this review and it will be placed in the Library. It will be a matter for noble Lords as to whether or not they wish to debate it. The Government have commissioned a separate report from Ipsos MORI but, in answer to the noble Baroness’s question, we will be having our own report on this matter.
I shall write to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in response to his questions about supported lodging. So far as concerns the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, we will talk to the Welsh Government regarding our review of foster carers, and I will write to the noble Lord further about this. In those circumstances, I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the information that he has given about the fact that there will be two different reviews. I could make the point that, of course, within a year a considerable amount of damage could already have been done not only to the incomes of the lowest paid and the poorest people in our society but potentially to the availability of foster and adopter volunteers. Having said that, I am grateful that a review is taking place. I think that we all need to have the evidence, and we need to have some empirical research that shows us the extent to which this is happening.
I thought that the Minister’s response on whether there would be a debate was thoroughly inadequate. On a matter such as this, given that it has already been acknowledged that there is a potentially serious issue here, I should have thought that he could have taken more steps to determine that we could debate the findings. Nevertheless, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, although I shall no doubt come back to it at a future stage.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
“Child trafficking guardians for children who may have been victims of human trafficking
(1) The Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 26A insert—
“26B Child trafficking guardians for children who may have been victims of human trafficking
(1) A child trafficking guardian shall be appointed to represent the best interests of each child who might be a victim of trafficking in human beings if the person who has parental responsibility for the child fulfils any of the conditions set out in subsection (3).
(2) The child trafficking guardian shall have the following responsibilities to—
(a) advocate that all decisions taken are in the child’s best interest;(b) advocate for the child to receive appropriate care, accommodation, medical treatment, including psychological assistance, education, translation and interpretation services;(c) advocate for the child’s access to legal and other representation where necessary;(d) consult with, advise and keep the child victim informed of legal rights;(e) where appropriate instruct the solicitor representing the child on all matters relevant to the interests of the child arising in the course of proceedings including possibilities for appeal; (f) contribute to identification of a plan to safeguard and promote the long-term welfare of the child based on an individual assessment of that child’s best interests;(g) keep the child informed of all relevant immigration, criminal or compensation proceedings;(h) provide a link between the child and various organisations who may provide services to the child;(i) assist in establishing contact with the child’s family, where the child so wishes and it is in the child’s best interests;(j) liaise with the UK Border Agency where appropriate;(k) attend all police interviews with the child; and(l) accompany the child whenever the child moves to new accommodation.(3) Subsection (1) shall apply if the person who has parental responsibility for the child—
(a) is suspected of taking part in the trafficking of human beings;(b) has another conflict of interest with the child;(c) is not in contact with the child;(d) is in a country outside the United Kingdom; or(e) is a local authority.(4) In subsection (1), a child trafficking guardian may be—
(a) an employee of a statutory body;(b) an employee of a recognised charitable organisation; or(c) a volunteer for a recognised charitable organisation.(5) Where a child trafficking guardian is appointed under subsection (1), the authority of the child trafficking guardian in relation to the child shall be recognised by any relevant body.
(6) In subsection (5), a “relevant body” means a person or organisation—
(a) which provides services to the child; or(b) to which the child needs access in relation to being a victim.(7) The appropriate national authority—
(a) shall by order set out the arrangements for the appointment of a child trafficking guardian as soon as possible after a child is identified as a potential victim of trafficking in human beings;(b) may make rules about the training courses to be completed before a person may discharge duties as a child trafficking guardian;(c) shall by order set out the arrangements for the provision of support services for persons discharging duties as a child trafficking guardian; and(d) shall by order designate organisations as a “recognised charitable organisation” for the purposes of this section.(8) In this section a child is considered to be a “potential victim of trafficking in human beings” when—
(a) there has been a conclusive determination that the individual is a victim of trafficking in human beings, or(b) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the individual is such a victim and there has not been a conclusive determination that the individual is not such a victim.(9) For the purposes of subsection (8)(b) there are reasonable grounds to believe that an individual is a victim of trafficking in human beings if a competent authority has determined for the purposes of Article 10 of the Trafficking Convention (identification of victims) that there are such grounds.
(10) For the purposes of subsection (8) there is a conclusive determination that an individual is or is not a victim of trafficking in human beings when, on completion of the identification process required by Article 10 of the Trafficking Convention, a competent authority concludes that the individual is or is not such a victim.
(11) In this section—
“parental responsibility” has the same meaning as section 3 of this Act;
“competent authority” means a person who is a competent authority of the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Trafficking Convention;
“the Trafficking Convention” means the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (done at Warsaw on 16 May 2005);
“trafficking in human beings” has the same meaning as in the Trafficking Convention.””
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, human trafficking is a brutal and shocking business. Trafficked people are modern-day slaves and are among the most vulnerable people in our society. They are deprived of their liberty and brought to a foreign country where they do not speak the language. They have no friends or family, and they do not know whom they can trust or where they can go for help. They have their passports taken away and are then imprisoned, sometimes behind locked doors but more effectively through physical and psychological threats, often to the safety of their families at home, even abroad. This desperate vulnerability is massively compounded when we are dealing with children, for obvious reasons.
It is with these children in view that I move Amendment 42, which recalls our deliberations on a similar amendment, Amendment 57A, which I moved during our debate on the Protection of Freedoms Bill in February 2012. In discussing that amendment on 15 February 2012, a number of noble Lords spoke passionately about the plight of trafficked children and the care they receive after they have been rescued. They emphasised the large number of trafficked children who had been lost from local authority care. The figures may have improved a little since 2010, when, over the preceding five years, 301 of the 942 trafficked children who were rescued then went missing from care. However, the Centre for Social Justice report in March of this year reported that many children are still going missing, with one local authority recording 25 trafficked children going missing in just five months in 2011.
Why am I revisiting this issue today? On the occasion of moving Amendment 57A at the Report stage of the Protection of Freedoms Bill, I was supported by three eminent co-signatories: the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, the shadow Leader of the House in the Labour Party; the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, from the Liberal Democrats; and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, from the Cross Benches. There was considerable momentum behind the amendment but I was pressed by the Government not to divide and, instead, to allow the commissioning of research into the arrangements for the care of trafficked children, and on that basis I agreed not to divide.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, we are all aware of the passionate concern of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for victims of trafficking, and of the concern of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I support the amendment strongly and do so as patron of the child trafficking unit at the University of Bedfordshire, which does amazing work in supporting young people who have been trafficked. The issue foremost in its mind is the importance of guardianship and advocacy. Children are still at risk and the present arrangements are not adequate. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, eloquently detailed the need for guardianship, and I wish to add a few remarks.
I remember when the noble Lord, Lord McColl, introduced the Second Reading of his Private Member’s Bill on human trafficking to the House in November 2011. These issues came up then. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich spoke of trafficking being an issue for our common humanity. Nothing seems to have changed and, in particular, children who are trafficked need all the help they can get. A guardian who advocates in the best interests of the child is a vital element in that support.
Many of these children remain unidentified unless they are associated with criminal offences. I am thinking of young boys who work in cannabis factories, of which, I read in the newspaper, there are about 500,000 in this country. These boys get caught and the bosses escape. I am thinking of girls sold into the sex trade, who have their passports removed and are kept locked away to have sex with dozens of men a day or are sold into domestic slavery. Sometimes, if these children escape or are discovered, they are passed around the systems. They do not speak much English and they have no knowledge of the support systems that might help them. Many simply go missing.
Even if they are found and receive support, it may be well meaning but inappropriate. I remember one girl who was accommodated in a flat in a suburb outside London with no friends. On Christmas Day, a social worker took round a cake. Apart from that she was isolated, and the isolation of such children can mean that they are at real risk of being unprotected and retrafficked.
These young people need a guardian, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl said, to help with language difficulties, legal issues, accommodation, finding a friendship group and protection. It may be the case that the people who trafficked the young person will come looking for them. Importantly, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl, emphasised, the guardian can help with the liaison between the agencies concerned with the child, such as police, social workers, health and education. This is an issue of child protection and should be in the plans of every local authority. Guardianship is the best way to ensure that there is a positive outcome for these children who have undergone the most horrendous and degrading experiences.
The University of Bedfordshire’s child trafficking unit provides interventions for trafficked young people, with individual and group support and education. I want to share briefly the story of one such young woman, just to show that enormous progress can be made with sympathy, understanding and formal support. I first met this young woman when she was about 17 and had been trafficked from a country in Africa. Her English was poor and she was still traumatised. Two years later she came to an event here in the Cholmondeley Room in the House of Lords, where trafficked young people presented their experiences in works of art and short speeches. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, attended and I think he was impressed. He certainly took many photographs.
The young woman I am talking about spoke very passionately to about 80 people. After the ceremony she said to me, “Did you notice anything about me today?”. I said, “Not in particular”, although she was confident, attractive and charismatic. She said, “I read my speech”. Two years earlier she could not read. This young woman, with support and encouragement from guardians and advocates, was now attending college and had ambitions. I do not think I need to say any more about the importance of guardianship and advocacy for trafficked children.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I intended to put my name to this amendment but failed to do so. I have supported each of the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and I strongly support this one. He has set out extremely effectively, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, nearly everything that needs to be said and I do not propose to say very much.
I wish to pick up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, said about this being an issue of child protection, among other matters. As I said earlier this week, very often when children go missing from local authority care, the local authorities do not know that they are trafficked children. Therefore, no one is identifying them and looking for them with the special care that is required for this small group of children. They are treated as ordinary missing children who will probably come back. This is a very serious child protection issue.
The other point made by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is so important that I shall repeat it. There is a real need for one constant person to take an interest in the child, meet the child early on, offer a mobile phone number, be at the end of a telephone and be able to answer the questions that a child with very limited or no English will need to ask someone who can be there. One of the sadnesses highlighted at the Still at Risk event that I was glad to attend yesterday is that these children have multiple social workers. We all know the underresourcing and overwork of social workers, so can they give a special degree of care to a foreign trafficked child who is not even under a care order? Consequently, they have to cope with no one person in their life.
What the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is suggesting in this amendment is crucial. We are failing a small number of grievously disadvantaged foreign children. We are talking about hundreds, not thousands. There was a particularly worrying case in Kent, where children who had been trafficked into Kent were being trafficked out by the same traffickers. Fortunately, Kent Police got hold of this, but if there had been a guardian, that guardian would have kept in touch with the child, with any luck, and would probably have been able to prevent it as they would be the one person who would know where the child was and, in any event, would be in touch with the suitable authorities to try to deal with it.
I have been talking to Barnardo’s about whether it would be prepared to offer some sort of service. The most important point that it makes is that there has to be a sufficient legal status because the majority of social services and, indeed, the NHS, talk about the confidentiality of teenage children and so on, so they will not necessarily tell somebody coming in what is going on. If the person has legal status, people have to open their records. In the absence of that sufficient legal status, a wonderful organisation, such as Barnardo’s, the NSPCC, the Children’s Society and so on, would not be able to offer that service, even if it were to be financially supported to do it.
The noble Lord, Lord McColl, has raised a very important issue. He and I were, if I may put it rather bluntly, fobbed off by the Government in 2011 and 2012 on the basis that there would be this report, and nothing is happening now. Children are going missing and are suffering the trauma of trying to cope with inadequate English through the multiplicity of agencies with which they have to deal. Quite simply, it is unjust. It is not good enough, and we as a country should be rather ashamed of ourselves.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, made a very powerful case and referred to the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ report on its inquiry into unaccompanied children. I want to underline that because we took evidence from people in Scotland with experience of the guardianship system there, and I was very impressed by what we were told. We have clear evidence there of how it can work and can support the kind of children whom we have been hearing from. I was not around when the noble Lord first raised this issue, and it is very sad that there has been this long delay. I hope that this House can now do something to rectify that situation.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I recall the noble Lord’s Private Member’s Bill, his previous amendment and so on. I read the Still at Risk report feeling almost sick. One of the things that makes me feel sick is that so often, apparently, we criminalise children for whom we should be caring because we fail to identify their situation. The point I want to make is not against guardianship; it is an extension of the argument. Those who are in a position to identify very early on that a child has been trafficked need training if they are to be alert to the situation. There is a need for additional awareness and training of all those who come into contact with children who have been trafficked. We are failing them when we fail to provide assistance from the people they perceive to be on their side.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as a volunteer who has worked with vulnerable children and alongside those working with vulnerable young people. What a privilege it is to listen to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who has been a sustained and passionate advocate for these trafficked children; to hear the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children; and to listen to my noble and learned friend, who is the chair of the human trafficking group and whose name escapes me, incredibly.
The Earl of Listowel
Thank you so much. That is extraordinary. I do apologise.
The Earl of Listowel
I re-emphasise the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that there needs to be training for people working with these vulnerable young people. I am very taken with the notion that there should be volunteer advocates working with them but as a volunteer myself, who has had experience of both very poor support and supervision and very good support and supervision, I suggest that the regulations should be very clear about what sort of supervision, training and support these advocates should receive. That is only fair to volunteers and it will make them much more effective as advocates and supporters of these young people. There is a great dearth of resource in children’s services at the moment and the danger is, if regulations are not clear about what the minimum requirements are, there may be a drive to produce the lowest-cost and lowest-quality advocates for these young people. I had only that comment to make. I very much support the amendment.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. Anything we can do to make young people feel worthy is important. Many of these young people are suffering, through no fault of their own, and I wholly support any attempt to make them understand that there are people who care about their well-being, that there is a place to go and that there is some sort of support for them. I hope the Minister will consider these amendments very carefully.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, I cannot think of anybody in this room who would not be in favour of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. It was brilliantly presented in one of the most compelling speeches I have ever heard. With that in mind, unless anybody is prepared to contradict me by saying that they are not in favour of what they have heard, I hope that we can proceed and hear what the Government will do about this.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I am sorry to delay proceedings further. I want to say a couple of sentences. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for his perseverance on this issue and the extremely powerful case that he has made this afternoon. This idea of independent guardians is becoming an increasingly important theme in our debates on this Bill and it is a model that is gaining more and more credibility. My noble friend made reference to the support of the Joint Committee on Human Rights for the concept and the issue was also identified recently in a Commons Education Committee report on child protection.
In addition to the Scottish examples to which my noble friend has drawn our attention, that report identified that this concept has also been in operation in the Netherlands for some time, and there may well be lessons that we could learn from that. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments but there are very powerful ones why we should consider these sorts of policies. First, it would clearly help the children themselves. We have heard how that might happen in terms of providing quality advice and guidance. Secondly, I should like to think that such a measure would go some way to deterring potential traffickers in the future if they felt that when they trafficked children here, those children would have an alternative authority figure with whom they could associate and be aligned. It would be nice to think that the measure could deter traffickers pursuing their dastardly policies in the future. Thirdly, surely this is an area where early intervention and support could prevent children being drawn into greater social and criminal problems in the longer term. Therefore, there are all sorts of savings to be made if we intervene earlier. I do not want to extend the debate. I again thank the noble Lord and hope that he perseveres with this issue.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, we share the concerns of my noble friend Lord McColl for the victims of the terrible crime of child trafficking. I pay tribute to his determined and enduring commitment to these children. I am sorry if the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friend Lord McColl feel that they are being batted away in any sense; they are not and will not be. These debates are extremely important in taking things forward.
At the previous session of this Committee, the failure of some local authorities to fulfil their statutory duties towards these child victims was discussed. We heard, as we have heard again today, some heartrending accounts. I start by emphasising that these failures are absolutely unacceptable. Local authorities should ensure that these very vulnerable children receive the care and support that they so desperately need. In fulfilling those duties, a looked-after child who has been trafficked should be allocated a social worker by the local authority, as noble Lords have heard. The social worker should be responsible for planning the care of the child, ensuring that they are safely accommodated and that their welfare is supported.
The social worker should plan to ensure that all the needs of the child are met. They should take particular account of the specific needs of a trafficked child, including planning to prevent the child going missing from care, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, providing safe and secure accommodation and ensuring that the child understands any procedures in which they are involved. Throughout this they should treat the child as a victim of crime.
The child should also be allocated an independent reviewing officer who would, among many responsibilities, ensure that the child is aware of the implications of their immigration and asylum status and that the local authority considers these as part of its plan to meet the child’s needs. Further, as noble Lords have said, the child would have the right of access to an independent advocate responsible for accurately representing the child’s wishes and feelings. Advocates can support children on all issues, not just their care plan. Social workers have a duty to tell all children about their right to an advocate. Advocates can and do support children of all ages, even the very young children to whom my noble friend referred. The child’s needs and interests are best protected when these professionals work well together and fulfil their statutory responsibilities.
Legal status, perhaps unfortunately, is not the point. Local authorities have a statutory duty to assess and meet the needs of trafficked children. The issue is one of practice and, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out, trying to ensure that what should happen legally actually does happen.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and others mentioned Scotland, and I inquired as to whether this had solved the problem. I understand that the pilot of guardians in Scotland has, thus far, had mixed results. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that we are keeping in touch with the Scottish Government to see what lessons we can learn from them, but it seems again to come back to practice; even setting the arrangements in place has not cracked it in Scotland.
I realise that my noble friend Lord McColl does not accept this point but we continue to feel that adding another person in the form of a child trafficking guardian to those already working in the interests of the child could add another layer of complexity. There could be a real danger of confusion about the role of social workers, independent reviewing officers and the new guardians. The current system is clear about who is responsible for taking decisions about how best to support the young person. However, we accept, as I said on Monday, that this is clearly not working out in practice as it should do. Noble Lords will know that the statutory framework includes specific duties to consider the particular needs of the trafficked child and, for example, keeping the child safe from their traffickers.
From November, every Ofsted inspection report must say how local authorities are doing in reducing the number of, and supporting, children who go missing. It is therefore vital to focus on the reasons for the failure of some local authorities to provide adequate support to trafficked children, rather than perhaps to conceal those failures below further operational layers.
Noble Lords have made reference to the Still at Risk report. They may have noted that several of its recommendations highlighted that all agencies need to implement properly statutory and practice guidance. The structures already exist to provide the support required by trafficked children if the relevant authorities put them into effect. The report showed that effective multi-agency working is an essential part of providing the right support.
I said on Monday that we have already put in place a major programme of reform to transform the care system. We want to see stable and permanent placements, high-quality education and health support, and better support for care leavers as they transition to adulthood. We will ensure that, as we implement these programmes, we will take account of the particular needs of trafficked children. As I said on Monday, we have already published revisions to the statutory guidance on missing children, which strengthen advice on meeting the needs of child victims of trafficking. However, I repeat that we recognise the strength of feeling and the strong arguments around this issue. As I said on that occasion, we would like to take this issue away and I invite further discussions to try to take this forward, drawing on every noble Lord’s expertise. In the light of that, I hope that my noble friend will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
Perhaps I may ask two questions. First, I cannot accept that a guardian or advocate would add an extra layer to the system in supporting trafficked children. The guardian or advocate is supposed to link the layers together and support the child. Secondly, will the Government be talking to Barnardo’s, the NSPCC, the Children’s Society, the University of Bedfordshire and ECPAT in order to hear first hand the experiences of dealing with trafficked children?
Baroness Northover
I heard what noble Lords said about feeling that the guardian would cut through those layers; my noble friend Lord McColl put that case extremely cogently. I should like to reassure noble Lords that we are seeking to tackle this problem as effectively as possible. In some ways, it is perhaps slightly dispiriting to hear that it has not been cracked by the Scottish model. It looks to me as though we need to look further into why this is not working. That is why it is important that we meet up for a discussion, and it is vital that the organisations that the noble Baroness referred to feed in their expertise so that we can best take this forward.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
I thank the Minister very much for her very careful speech, and I am reassured that she is going to have a lot of discussions. I hope that we can all get together to talk about this issue in some detail. She mentioned that the social worker should be the key. If it was one social worker who was responsible for one child and stayed with that child, that would be fine, but the problem is that the children have umpteen social workers. They never know who is coming next and they then have to repeat their story over and over again.
I certainly do not accept that this proposal will add another layer of bureaucracy to the organisation. We have already had an 18-month delay over this and I can see that, with the existing bureaucracy, it will be another 18 months before something effective is done. Meanwhile, hundreds of children are going to be in jeopardy. Therefore, I welcome what the Minister says and look forward to meeting her and all those who have been speaking on this issue and who have done so much work in this field. I thank everyone for their contributions today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Privately fostered children
In section 66 of the Children Act 1989 (privately fostered children), at the end of subsection (1) insert—“(c) the relative exemption does not apply for foreign national children whose parents are not residing in England or Wales”.”
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 43 concerns another very specific group of children—those who are privately fostered but who come from overseas. In some ways, this is a probing amendment to see whether the Government can revisit the regulations around these privately fostered children.
Currently, the number of children in this group in the UK is unknown. The majority will have arrived on visitor visas and will have overstayed. Most will be attending school and will be registered with health services. The adults caring for them have a duty to notify their local authority that they are caring for the child but, as the child is a visa-overstayer, no one does it. Given their other pressures, the majority of local authorities do not proactively look for these children, and schools do not check the visa status of children arriving mid-year or joining in years two to six.
The close relative exemption includes all relatives described under the Children Act 1989 and it exempts them from assessment by the local authority. The issue is that all carers claim to be an aunt or uncle. That is impossible to verify in most cases, and local authorities accept this as it reduces their workload. We should keep in our hearts Victoria Climbié as we think about this issue because that case, too, involved direct relatives.
The child protection issue is fairly straightforward. These children are in the UK without anyone who has legal parental responsibility. No one has overseen their placements and no one has asked about the child’s wishes or feelings. The real crunch comes when these children reach 18, having been brought up here from childhood and English being their one language. They are probably on their way to further education. One young person for whom I was asked to advocate by Voice was in this exact position. Only when preparing to go to college did he find out that he was facing the alternative: deportation as an illegal immigrant. There is a range of these children. It is in their best interests to know their immigration status and to determine their future as soon as it is known, rather than when they reach 18. The organisation Children and Families Across Borders believes that the Home Office will accept this amendment.
There are real practice issues. We have spoken often about practice and its difficulties but in this matter, while the border agency and the children’s services are both governmental agencies and should be working together, the organisation has found that there tends to be little if any exchange between the two at either policy or working level. There seems to be no sense of corporate responsibility within government for the children who have reached British soil. The children’s services focus on the children’s well-being and rarely take the step needed to address durable, long-term solutions. They look at it in the narrow context of pathway planning, which is good for other children who are from this country.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I want to ask a brief question of the Minister, related to this matter. My noble friend alluded to the terrible case of Victoria Climbié, in which Victoria was privately fostered. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, who was charged by the Government to publish an inquiry into her death, was very concerned about a lack of awareness of private fostering—about how we can register private fosterers and make it safer for children to be in that position of being cared for by an auntie and uncle, while not being registered as a child in care.
There has been work in the past 10 years to normalise private fostering and raise awareness about it. I know that the British Association for Adoption and Fostering has done work to raise awareness among private foster carers so that they should come forward and, I believe, give their names to be registered by the local authority. I would be grateful to know from the Minister what progress has been made in recent years in terms of the numbers of those private fostering carers coming forward. Perhaps he could write to me, along with any other information that he can send me on what is being done to reassure us about the safety of children in private fostered arrangements. I hope that is helpful.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Howarth of Breckland. For many years, I was a lay member of the immigration tribunal and I remember seeing a number of young people go through the awful process of asylum appeals when they got to the age of 18. They did not understand what was going on. In many cases, we allowed them because they had been here for so long and had become used to the country. It would have helped them enormously if they had had support earlier in their lives, as my noble friend is suggesting.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, here we are addressing another group of potentially vulnerable children, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, pointed out. They are foreign-national children who are living in this country while their parents reside elsewhere. We recognise that the amendment seeks to improve safeguards for children privately fostered from abroad. We sympathise with that intention.
We fully accept that local authorities should check on private fostering arrangements when children are living apart from their close family, and current legislation provides for this. We recognise that it is sometimes difficult to establish if a family relationship is genuine, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, made very clear, especially where a carer is falsely claiming to be a close relative to avoid the requirement to notify the local authority of a private fostering arrangement. This raises a potential safeguarding issue.
However, we are not convinced that the way forward is to apply the private fostering arrangements to all foreign national children who live here without their parents. This would extend the arrangements to a large number of cases where children are safely looked after by close relatives. However, we agree that this is an important issue, as children from abroad are in a particularly vulnerable position. It remains crucial that professionals who work with children from abroad, including border staff, schools, health professionals, housing officers, et cetera, can spot private fostering when they see it and notify the relevant local authority.
The current private fostering guidance asks local authorities to undertake awareness-raising activities with agencies, such as schools, to enable professionals to encourage private foster carers and parents to notify the local authority. Front-line professionals are also encouraged to notify the local authority of a private fostering arrangement that comes to their attention where they are not satisfied that the local authority has been, or will be, notified of the arrangement, so that the local authority can check that the arrangement is safe and suitable.
We are reviewing the school admissions guidance for children from abroad and are aiming to publish a revised version in January 2014. We will also shortly be publishing revised guidance on safeguarding in schools. The new guidance will specify schools’ statutory duties in respect of safeguarding, provide guidance on roles and responsibilities, including making referrals to child protection services, and indicate where to find up-to-date guidance on particular issues.
In addition, we have a project under way looking at the requirements on local authorities and the role of other agencies and services with a view to focusing efforts and strengthening the response to children most at risk. We will be talking to relevant partners and agencies, such as the Home Office, the British Association for Adoption and Fostering, Children and Families Across Borders, Ofsted and local authorities, to identify what targeted action might be taken to improve practice in local areas. There are a number of issues that we are looking at, and I am happy to share them with the noble Baroness.
An important issue is whether it is better to resolve the immigration status of children and return them to their home country as soon as possible after their arrival in the UK, rather than leave it until they reach the age of 18, by which time their ties with their home country have been greatly reduced. The current practice is to consider the needs of each child on a case-by-case basis and carry out an assessment of what is in the child’s best interests. The child and their social worker have a central role in this assessment, and contributions are usually also sought from other relevant agencies.
We have some sympathy with the argument about early return but, referring to other debates we have had, we need to be aware that many of these children may be vulnerable and have arrived in the United Kingdom having suffered very difficult and sometimes traumatic experiences. It is often the case that their parents cannot be traced or that the reception arrangements in the country to which they would be returning might be inadequate. This has meant that in practice, with the exception of transfers to other European Union countries, the UK rarely enforces the return of unaccompanied children to any country. The important issue is to try to work out what is in the best interests of the child.
I would be happy to provide any more details on this to the noble Baroness. I welcome her expertise feeding in as we consider this. I hope that in the mean time she will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s full reply. The only point that I would pick up is that sometimes social workers will decide to allow children to remain indefinitely without taking action, simply because the social worker is anxious that if they do anything the child will immediately be deported. It is that working together between all the agencies and organisations, including education and the Home Office, and making sure that the child’s welfare is at the centre of any decision, that needs to be taken forward. Otherwise, people make decisions that they think are in the best interests of the child but, in the long term, turn out to be disastrous for their growth. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
“Support for family and friends carers when children are not looked after
(1) Each local authority must make arrangements for the provision within their area of family and friends care support services, including—
(a) counselling, advice and information; and(b) such other services as are prescribed, in relation to family and friends care.(2) The power to make regulations under subsection (1)(b) is to be exercised so as to secure that local authorities provide financial support.
(3) At the request of any of the following persons—
(a) a relative, wider family member or friend caring for a child in any of the circumstances (hereinafter referred to as C) set out in subsection (4) below;(b) a parent or other person with parental responsibility; or(c) a child living with C in circumstances set out in subsection (4) below; or(d) any other person who falls within a prescribed description, a local authority must carry out an assessment of that person’s needs for family and friends care support services.(4) The circumstances referred to in subsection (3)(a) and (c) are—
(a) the child comes to live with C as a result of enquiries or plans made under section 47 of this Act;(b) the child comes to live with C following an investigation under section 37 of this Act;(c) C has been granted a residence order or a child arrangements order to avoid the child being looked after, within care proceedings on the child or following the accommodation of a child;(d) there is professional evidence of the impairment of the parents’ ability to care for the child; or(e) the parent is dead or in prison.(5) A local authority may, at the request of any other person, carry out an assessment of that person’s needs for family and friends care support services.
(6) Where, as a result of an assessment, a local authority decide that a person has needs for family and friends care support services, they must then decide whether to provide any such services to that person.
(7) If—
(a) a local authority decide to provide any family and friends care support services to a person, and(b) the circumstances fall within a prescribed description, the local authority must prepare a plan in accordance with which family and friends care support services are to be provided to him, and keep the plan under review.(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about assessments, preparing and reviewing plans, the provision of family and friends care support services in accordance with plans and reviewing the provision of family and friends care support services.
(9) The regulations may in particular make provision—
(a) about the type of assessment which is to be carried out, or the way in which an assessment is to be carried out;(b) about the way in which a plan is to be prepared;(c) about the way in which, and the time at which, a plan or the provision of family and friends care support services is to be reviewed;(d) about the considerations to which a local authority are to have regard in carrying out an assessment or review or preparing a plan;(e) as to the circumstances in which a local authority may provide family and friends care support services subject to conditions (including conditions as to payment for the support or the repayment of financial support);(f) as to the consequences of conditions imposed by virtue of paragraph (e) not being met (including the recovery of any financial support provided);(g) as to the circumstances n which this section may apply to a local authority in respect of persons who are outside that local authority’s area;(h) as to the circumstances in which a local authority may recover from another local authority the expenses of providing family and friends care support services to any person.(10) A local authority may provide family and friends care support services (or any part of them) by securing their provision by—
(a) another local authority; or(b) a person within a description prescribed in regulations of persons who may provide family and friends care support services, and may also arrange with any such authority or person for that other authority or that person to carry out the local authority’s functions in relation to assessments under this section.(11) A local authority may carry out an assessment of the needs of any person for the purposes of this section at the same time as an assessment of his needs is made under any other provision of this Act or under any other enactment.
(12) Section 27 (co-operation between authorities) applies in relation to the exercise of functions of a local authority under this section as it applies in relation to the exercise of functions of a local authority under Part 3.”
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, my amendments in this group address the issue of kinship care. Amendment 44 concerns:
“Support for family and friends carers when children are not looked after”.
Amendment 45 addresses carers’ allowances and financial support. I should ask for the Committee’s patience in my speaking to these amendments; some of these issues are rather complex and all are important.
Both amendments seek greater support for family and friends carers. Last week, I described such people as heroes—and so they are. They take over the care of children, very often in the direst circumstances, and lack the support that they need and deserve. I am grateful to the Kinship Care Alliance, which includes many organisations concerned with children’s families’ rights, for its tireless and highly professional support for family and friends carers, and for its determination to seek a better deal.
The House has discussed family and friends carers many times before. Some colleagues may remember the discussions, which have notably taken place in Bills concerned with welfare. Ministers from both sides of the House have been sympathetic, and some adjustments to the situation have been made, but not enough. I used to meet kinship carers regularly when I chaired the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, because many of the carers looked after children of a relative who had a drug or alcohol problem. I became aware of what a brilliant job these carers do, often without or with very little support, and often to the detriment of their own physical, emotional and mental health, particularly if they are older carers such as grandparents. Kinship carers take over the care of young relatives because they want the best for them, often in an emergency, such as the sudden death of a child’s parent. I remember a grandmother in a London borough whose daughter died suddenly late at night, and who took over caring for three children aged between one and 10 in a one-bedroom flat. “You know what they call us?”, she said, “The midnight grannies”.
Two key issues underline what I have to say. One is that the outcomes for children who are looked after by a relative are better than those for children looked after outside the family. Secondly, such care saves an enormous amount of money. The cost of a place in independent foster care is £40,000, and the average cost to the state of care proceedings is more than £25,000. However, research indicates that most family and friends care arrangements—86%—are initiated by carers themselves, rather than social workers seeking them out.
An estimated 300,000 children are being raised by relatives and friends. Only an estimated 6% of children who are raised in family and friends care are looked after by the local authority and placed with approved foster carers. By far the majority live with their relatives and friends outside this care system, either with the parents’ agreement, or under a residence order or special guardianship order granted by the courts. Despite the lack of support, children in the care of family and friends do better in terms of attachment. They have a sense of belonging, a sense of safety and the confidence that they will not be moved about. This results in better educational outcomes and fewer behavioural problems. There is a greater likelihood of an ethnic match—88% as opposed to 78%.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, with apologies to the noble Baroness, a Division has been called in the Chamber. The Grand Committee stands adjourned for 10 minutes, to resume at 5.12 pm.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes)
My Lords, it is now 5.12 pm. I apologise again to the noble Baroness for interrupting her mid-flow. The Grand Committee is now resumed.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
It was quite a welcome break in this long speech. I am moving Amendment 44 and speaking to Amendment 45. They support financial and other support to family and friends carers. I was summarising briefly the benefits to children of such care and the hardships suffered by family and friends carers. Although there is a duty on local authorities to establish a special guardianship support service, similar to adoption support, this does not give an individual carer the right to a specific service. Moreover, there is no equivalent support service for children in kinship care under a residence order or no order. A survey of family and friends carers shows that those with special guardianship orders are the most satisfied with the legal order compared to those who do not have such orders.
Secondly in the list I started earlier, despite the Government’s 2011 guidance on family and friends care, most local authorities are not proactive in supporting family and friends care. There is no dedicated family and friends care team, for example, in most local authorities. This means that the carers and children are dealt with—here we go again—by different teams in children’s services, who may not have specific expertise.
The third factor is that there are no official statistics published on the number of children in family and friends care either nationally or locally. One analysis by the University of Bristol excludes friends care, for example. Local authorities do not routinely collect such data so it is difficult to see how they can design and finance such services. The 2011 guidance is clear: it requires all English local authorities to have a family and friends care policy stating what support they would provide by September 2011. Sadly, much later after that deadline, more than 30% of local authorities still have not published a family and friends care policy. The guidance does not change the legal position but while local authorities have to provide support for looked-after children placed with family and friends carers, which is 6% of children, they do not have to provide support for the 94% of children in family and friends care who are classified as not looked after.
I am aware that, in the climate of financial restrictions, local authorities are seeking to reduce service provision and that non-statutory services are being cut. My Amendment 44, which mirrors the special guardianship support service required, seeks to redress the shortcoming by requiring local authorities to provide support to meet the identified needs of children being raised by family or friends under a private arrangement or residence order. The circumstances as to when this would apply restrict the support to children who would otherwise be in the care system because they are at risk or their parents are incapacitated, dead or in prison. I hope the Minister will be able to address these concerns and meet with the Kinship Care Alliance to discuss the urgency of this situation.
Amendment 45 seeks to insert a new Section 77A into the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. It aims to ensure that family and friends carers receive a basic financial allowance from central government to support them in raising a child who cannot remain with their parents and would otherwise be in the care system. Support would be restricted to cases of children whose parents are incapacitated, dead or in prison. The amendment would provide the mechanism for local authorities to provide discretionary support to meet more effectively the assessed needs of children in family and friends care under residence orders or where there is no order at all. However, this does not address the additional costs to family and friends carers of raising a child who is not their own.
Of course, the legal liability for maintaining children lies with the parents at all times, even if their children are cared for by someone else. At no point does legal liability transfer to family and friends carers, except on adoption, but these carers often have existing financial responsibilities—for example, caring for an elderly relative or their own existing children.
They may apply for child benefit, although there are sometimes problems in transferring this from the parents to the carer. They may apply for tax credits according to their means, and an allowance for the child where they are in receipt of income support. However, there is no recognition in the benefits system of the additional costs of raising a child who is not their own. Caring for a child, according to the Fostering Network, is calculated to be 50% higher than the cost of caring for a birth child. This is partly due to emotional distress in the children, maintaining contact with parents and other family members and engaging with social workers and health and education staff. This is why foster carers receive specific allowances from local authorities, paid at substantially higher rates than state benefits and tax credits.
Briefly, there are four key financial issues for family and friends carers in raising a child outside the looked-after system. First, there is the immediate cost of a child coming to live with a carer, often, as I said earlier, in an unplanned or emergency situation. Secondly, there are the costs of applying for a legal order to provide the child with security and permanence. Thirdly, there is the lost income resulting from the carer reducing their working hours, leaving paid work, forgoing career opportunities or losing pension rights. Finally, there are the actual costs of raising a child, which may include a larger home, higher utility bills and so on.
When special guardianship legislation was passed, it was envisaged that many foster carers would apply for special guardianship orders for older children in their care. There have been cases of successful orders in such situations but many foster carers are reluctant to apply for such orders because they fear that the financial support received would be inadequate, as compared to the mandatory support they and the child would receive as foster carers. It is likely that more foster carers would apply for special guardianship orders if they could be guaranteed continued financial support. The regulations should be amended accordingly. I hope that these two amendments will be favourably received by the Government, so that family and friends carers get a much better deal.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I support these two amendments. I am either patron or president of the Grandparents’ Association and I have a particular example of a friend of mine, who took over the care of her goddaughter at very short notice. She would otherwise have gone into care. The social workers encouraged my friend to keep the child and to take a residence order. Eventually she got a special guardianship order, which she has at the moment, but once she got the residence order she discovered that the social workers were basically saying, “That’s fine; now we don’t have to pay you, which is a very good reason why we didn’t want you to be a foster mother”. This is not as it should be.
It is not unusual for this to happen. Family and friends who are carers are quite often treated this way. Because they are prepared to care for one of their own family or somebody close to them, it does not become the requirement of the local authority to give them any support. I battled for this friend of mine to have some support and they gave her a small amount as a sort of honorarium. It really was very small indeed. It happens that some quite young grandparents or other carers, having achieved a good position in a job and a comfortable lifestyle, suddenly find themselves, after a daughter or daughter-in-law dies, taking over the care of a child or children at short notice. Their standard of living drops dramatically, often because they can no longer keep their job. They are therefore losing their comfortable lifestyle. Not only do they have an extremely exhausting time caring for their grandchildren, who of course they love dearly. It is also very trying because they find themselves short of money in a way that they had not been when they were ordinary grandparents and out at work.
It is a real need that the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, has set out with such care and the Government really should be looking at it, because in the majority of cases local authorities will not pay if they do not have to. Many grandparents in the association with which I am connected are in the very position that I have just described.
Lord Northbourne (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss on this issue. I declare an interest as I am also a member of the Grandparents’ Association. One point that my noble and learned friend did not make is that there is a history of some social workers going round at 2 am with little Johnny and saying, “Are you prepared to take him in? We are otherwise going to take him into care”. Of course the grandparent takes him in and then she has lost her money.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Massey’s amendments because it is worth restating that we are addressing here a community of an estimated 300,000 children. It is not a minor group of children; this is a major group for whom friend and family carers are caring. They are being raised by these carers, in many instances as an alternative to being in the care system. In most instances, that produces better outcomes for these children than entering the care system and with huge savings to the state. Yet many of them get too little help and too little support. Therefore, on the one hand as a society we depend on them to protect many children, but we reciprocate with such limited support.
Research reveals that a minority of kinship carers receive financial or practical support from their local authority. Only the foster carers—about 5% of all kinship carers—are entitled to financial support, as my noble friend said. For other carers, the support is discretionary. Yet kinship and family and friends care is the most common form of permanency for children who cannot live with their birth families. Research from Joan Hunt at the University of Oxford shows that there is no relationship between a child’s needs and whether they receive support from the local authority, and that those with the highest needs may in fact be less likely to get any help. This disparity between those needing support and those getting support is reinforced by research findings, which suggest that most family and friends care arrangements—86%—are initiated by the carers themselves rather than the social workers, so giving rise to some of the situations that the noble and learned Baroness referred to a moment ago.
However, it makes no sense at all that such vulnerable children and their carers should face such a lottery when it comes to support. Kinship carers have done the right thing by taking in a child who cannot live at home but then they are often left to struggle alone. However, the children for whom they care have similar high needs to those of the children looked after by the local authority. As a survey conducted by Grandparents Plus found, 45% of kinship carers were looking after children who had experienced abuse or neglect, 44% cared for children who had experienced parental drug or alcohol misuse, 22% were in kinship care because of parental illness, mental illness or disability, and 21% because of domestic violence. Therefore, despite the importance of these placements and the experience of the children, they are often left without adequate support, many under great strain.
Notwithstanding the existing statutory guidance on providing support for carers, to which my noble friend Lady Massey referred in great detail, I reiterate that the legal position remains that, while local authorities have to provide support for looked-after children, they do not have to support the remaining vast majority of children in family and friends care who are not looked after. These amendments would begin to address that failure by putting the onus on local authorities to provide support to meet the identified needs of children who cannot live with their parents and would otherwise be in care.
Research also reveals that many of these grandparents and kinship carers are living in poverty or on low incomes. Analysis of census micro-data from 2001 found that 71% of children in kinship care were experiencing multiple deprivations. I can put it no better than a powerful quotation from a study called The Poor Relations? By Elaine Farmer, Julie Selwyn and others from Bristol University:
“We found that many informal kinship carers lived in grinding poverty, which wore them down and reduced their quality of life. Yet, this was often a consequence of caring for the kinship children—many had given up good jobs to take the children … or in the case of retired carers, had only their pensions to live on … Most carers were under significant strain bringing up the kinship children on low incomes, often when they themselves were unwell”.
Yet these carers face significant additional costs, as eloquently detailed by my noble friend. An example is the widowed grandmother living on a pension raising a six year-old grandson due to the mother’s drug and alcohol difficulties, quoted in the Grandparents Plus report Too Old to Care:
“All my child benefit, £20 a week, goes on my bus fares and his bus fares to get him to school and back. I did say to him about moving schools but he just got so upset. He’s had enough people in his little life so I just keep taking him to school”.
The Earl of Listowel
I rise briefly to support these amendments and to make three points. First, above all, children who have experienced trauma—indeed, all children—need parents who stick with them through their lives. Children who have experienced abuse over periods of time need carers who stick with them over the years and who are reliable and consistent.
Last night, I was at a meeting and met psychiatrists from all over the world who have just published a book on the mental health of looked-after children. The final point in the editor’s chapter in the book was that he encouraged all clinicians always to remember that the most important thing to help these children recover from past trauma is to enable them to have relationships with people who care about them and stick with them. Family relationships—long-term committed relationships—are what they need. If they cannot find that at that particular time in their lives then, as a clinician, you need to equip them to be able to make and keep those kinds of relationships. It seems to me that that is much more likely to happen in these kinship care models than in foster care, although it often happens there too.
Secondly, good social care interventions can make a difference. The most popular intervention that foster carers talk to me about is support to understand how they manage the behaviour of their young people. All young people can, at different times in their lives, be difficult to manage, but young people who have been traumatised, abused or neglected will often display very difficult behaviours. In fact, in 2004 a report from the Office for National Statistics on the mental health of looked-after children highlighted that those in foster care had, I think, a 40% rate of mental disorder compared with, I think, a 5% rate in the general population. The rate for those in residential care was 70% or so. A very high percentage of those mental disorders are conduct disorders, things such as troubling behaviours from young people. Carers need support to understand and manage those behaviours, and they tell me they really appreciate it.
They also need to be connected with other carers with the same experience. When foster carers are helped to connect regularly with other foster carers in the same position and the same job, they value being part of a community of carers and being able to share experience and learn from it.
Finally, I take this opportunity to highlight the letter sent to me by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, regarding the recruitment and retention of child and family social workers. It is key to this area, to trafficked children and to children returning from care. In this brief debate, we have heard examples of poor and variable practice in child and family social work. I know that several noble Lords trained and practised as social workers. It is enormously encouraging that, in recent years, in the previous Government and in this Government, there has been a real commitment to raising the professional status of child and family social work—to raising entry requirements and training standards. In his letter, among several other things, the Minister drew my attention to a review by Sir Martin Narey commissioned by the Government into the initial training of social workers, which is being published in January, and to new data-collecting on social workers on the front line in local authorities, so that we will have a better understanding of how well we are retaining the new social workers that we are recruiting. I draw that to your Lordships’ attention because I think it is important.
I also want to commend the Government for taking this consistent stance towards social work, which in the past has been far too neglected. One of the key ingredients for getting better outcomes for children, whether they are in kinship, foster or other settings, is to get support from the right professionals, and I hope we are moving in that direction now. I strongly support these amendments.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I wanted to speak briefly in support of these amendments. My noble friend Lady Massey has set out the framework and how important it is statistically, but I was sitting as a family magistrate only last week and I thought it might be interesting for the Committee to hear the decisions that we were invited to make as a court. The scenario was of a two year-old boy in a successful fostering arrangement. His uncle had come forward with his wife. They already had three children and they were willing to take on the boy. That would put them in the situation of having four children under the age of six in a two-bedroom flat in London. All parties supported the arrangement that was to be made by the court and the decisions that we were invited to make as a court were to finalise the financial arrangements between the local authority and the carers. There was a bit of brokering and toing and froing on what those payments were to be. As far as I know, they were discretionary but nevertheless they were offered. As I say, it was a bit of a haggle but a figure was agreed for the kinship arrangements to go ahead.
The second decision we were asked to make was whether to put in place a special guardianship order. This was opposed by the local authority but we decided to put it in place in any case, very much for the reasons that my noble friend has said. We believed that it would help the carers to have the support of the local authority for the first 12 months. That was no reflection on their ability to be good parents—in fact, we were sure they would be—but we wanted to help them. So we went against the local authority’s wishes on that particular decision. The other decision we made was to put in place the contact arrangements for the mother. The mother was a recovering drug addict. She was in court and we wished her well. We arranged that she would have contact on a yearly basis and that can be reviewed in due course.
Another issue that we were invited to address was the housing arrangements of this family. As I said, they would have four children in a two-bedroom flat. There was really very little we could do about that other than include a sympathetic paragraph in the judgment, urging local authorities to review their situation sympathetically. Realistically, they were looking at a two or three-year wait for a transfer. Nevertheless, that was something we put in the judgment. The final thing we put in, which we thought about very carefully, were the transfer arrangements. As I said, this particular little boy had been in a successful fostering arrangement where he had blossomed for two years and now he was moving to another arrangement. Obviously, however well-meaning everyone was, it would be a difficult transition arrangement for the boy.
The point that I wanted to make is that all the parties supported this. The local authorities put extra money in and the mother agreed to the arrangement, even though she was losing her boy and the kinship carers would have to take the child on. This is a good solution for all concerned, and if it can be put on a more statutorily substantial footing, I think that that will be to the benefit of all concerned.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for her amendments, which cover support and services for family and friends carers. I commend her for the motivation behind the amendments.
We fully recognise the valuable contribution made by family and friends in caring for children who cannot live with their parents. We owe them a great deal, as the noble Baroness so eloquently showed. We have heard a great deal about the potential benefits of family and friends carers not only from the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, but from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.
I found myself thinking that sometimes women like me are described as the “sandwich generation”. We look after our children and our parents, but if our children then come back and bring their children for us to look after, that perhaps makes us a double-decker sandwich generation. I hope that my children do not do that.
Noble Lords will be aware that family and friends care, or kinship care, covers a wide range of legal arrangements and, where appropriate, as we have heard, assessments are already in place for putting in the appropriate financial or practical supports. The Children and Young Persons Act 2008 amended Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 so that local authorities could provide regular and long-term financial payments to families caring for children where they judged this to be appropriate. This provision, passed under the previous Government and made discretionary, came into force in April 2011.
In order to clarify the role of local authorities, the Government released statutory guidance on family and friends care, and this also came into force in April 2011. It aims to ensure that children and young people receive the support that they and their carers need to safeguard and promote their welfare.
We are aware that family and friends carers often struggle, as we have heard, to obtain information that will assist them in their caring role, particularly when they have taken on the care of a child in an emergency. That is why the family and friends statutory guidance makes it clear that local authorities have a duty to ensure that their family and friends policy supports the promotion of good information about the full range of services for children, young people and families in the area and highlights the availability of advice from independent organisations.
However, we are aware that the quality and quantity of local authority policies in this area are not at the level they should be. That is why we currently have a programme of work to reduce the variation in practice within and across local authorities. This includes sector learning days for local authorities that will support the development of local policies and guidance as well as clarify the primary legislation and how it is being implemented.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for commending this Government and the previous Government for their support for the vital social work profession.
It is also very important that family and friends carers understand what support services they are entitled to, so the department will be developing an information resource containing the basic facts, entitlements, services and advice that are available to them. This resource will not only increase the knowledge base of carers but will raise awareness of front-line practitioners, such as GPs, and those in education and childcare settings, who are often the first point of contact for new family and friends carers.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
I thank the Minister for her response. The case has been made by all the speakers, and I thank those who have given of their expertise today for that.
I shall make a few comments. I am hearing about a great deal of guidance and information packs coming out but not about what local authorities must do rather than what they should do. I want to hear what they must do. I return to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, under which the welfare of the child is paramount. Clearly in some of the cases we have heard today, the welfare of the child is not paramount. Local authorities do not need information packs; they need the will to support these vulnerable families and children.
I will look at the Ofsted report if the noble Baroness can point me to it. It sounds like an interesting breakthrough. I was involved in the legislation that the noble Baroness mentioned earlier. We managed to get one or two little chinks, but we did not get far enough. I hope that we might get further with these amendments. It is quite clear that there is a lack of local authority support to family and friends carers. They should have teams or individuals specifically to support such carers, particularly when they are providing stability for children, often in an emergency, as we have heard. The emotional and educational outcomes are better for children in family and friends care.
I am happy that the noble Baroness will meet those of us who are interested and the family and friends care network so that we can look at this issue again and try to put some steel into it. It is not only children who will suffer; family and friends carers will also suffer because they do not have the money or the support for the magnificent job they are doing. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 47 to 52. Despite the number of amendments, this is about one very short point: that in Part 2 of the Bill, which at long last we are getting to, Clause 10 is headed,
“Family mediation information and assessment meetings”.
These meetings are required before a relevant family application is made to the court.
I say at once that I am entirely supportive of the Government’s approach in trying to get parents to agree on their children and to get those who have had failed relationships to agree on how to dispose of any cases they may wish to bring. The problem is the word “mediation”. I have heard from various sources, particularly from lawyers, and one has to bear in mind that there is no longer legal aid in private law cases. Therefore, both parties will be litigants in person and one quite simply has to recognise that we are talking about people who have parted, some of them in extreme acrimony, and all with the real trauma of a failed relationship. They would not be in the family court if there were no failed relationship.
Many of them, I think the majority, are very sensible about making the arrangements that have to be made after their relationship is over, but there are some who need some help and they will not get it from lawyers any more. There is also a small minority, perhaps no more than 5 %, who absolutely cannot agree on anything and take their failed relationship, covered in acrimony and hate for each other, into the arena of the family dispute in the family court. They fight over the house, they fight particularly over the children and they use the arena of the children to fight through their failed relationship. Sitting as a judge, as I did in this area for 35 years, I can tell you how many acrimonious failed relationships came through my hands.
For a minority of people who are brought to a meeting, which is a requirement before you go to court, mediation is like a red rag to a bull. They absolutely will not accept it, but they will have to accept an information and assessment meeting, which is thoroughly sensible. The word “mediation” may well mean that a number of people will refuse to go to the meeting. They are not going to meet the other party or agree on anything and, therefore, they will not go.
All that I am asking for in this long list of amendments is to take out the word “mediation”. I say to the Minister that of course one expects and hopes that the information and assessment meeting would lead to mediation, probably in the same meeting, if it is possible to achieve, but you will not want to stop the ability to give information and assess what is going on by imposing the stumbling block of the word “mediation”. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, we have Amendments 47, 50 and 52 in this group. I have listened carefully to what the noble and learned Baroness has said in introducing her amendments, and have some sympathy with the points she makes, but we are approaching the issue in a slightly different way.
We accept that mediation is not always appropriate or of sufficient quality but we support the central thesis in Clause 10 that parents should attend mediation before making a court application. We believe that there are clear advantages, particularly to children, in avoiding the adversarial nature of court proceedings wherever possible, but accept that there will be exceptions.
Our first amendment simply adds flexibility to the clause to ensure that where the court considers it unreasonable families are not required to attend mediation, information and assessment meetings. While we believe that mediation, and ADR more generally, can be very useful means of resolving disputes, they are not appropriate in every type of situation—for example, in cases of domestic violence or child abuse. We are therefore proposing amendments for making clearer the process for deciding on exemptions whereby you do not have to be involved in mediation.
This point was picked up in David Norgrove’s family justice review. At the time, he said:
“There would also need to be a range of exemptions for those for whom an application to court was urgent, or for whom dispute resolution services were clearly inappropriate at the outset. The regime would allow for emergency applications to court and the exemptions should be as in the current Pre-Application Protocol”.
When these issues were debated in the Commons, the Minister stated that the Government had invited the Family Procedure Rule Committee to draw up rules specifying areas where exemptions to the proposed procedure would be appropriate, including domestic violence. The Minister also identified at that time other areas where exemptions might be relevant. These included: a need for urgency; where there is a risk to the life, liberty or physical safety of the applicant or their family; when any delay would cause a risk or significant harm to a child; or where a miscarriage of justice might occur. At the time, we welcomed this commitment. However, we requested that the draft rules be made available to Parliament before scrutiny of the Bill is over. We have now received the letter and its attachments from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, which again states that the Family Procedure Rule Committee will be invited to make rules on these matters. Given that we still have not seen the rules, we ask the Minister again: when will these be made available? How can we be expected to judge whether this provision is sufficient to address our concerns in their absence?
Our second two amendments in this group would insert a definition of an “approved mediator” as someone who satisfies defined training and quality standards assurances and would specify that a mediation, information and assessment meeting would always be held with an approved mediator. These amendments originate from concerns expressed to the Justice Committee in pre-legislative scrutiny that the quality of mediators is often far too low. They tie in with the concerns we have just touched upon: that mediators might have to screen for domestic abuse and safeguarding concerns, which require specialist skills. For example, the Children’s Commissioner for England has highlighted research showing that around 50% of all private law cases involve domestic violence or child abuse. For this reason, it is crucial that mediators are trained and skilled in spotting these issues. It is also important that mediators are trained to listen to and draw out the voices of the children and young people involved.
When this was discussed in the Commons, the Minister said that he had asked the president of the Family Division to revise the existing pre-application protocol to make it explicit that family mediators must be approved by the Family Mediation Council. He said that meant that they would also have to adhere to the code of practice of that council. However, we do not believe that the provision in the code of practice is strong enough. We emphasise again that concerns have been raised about the quality of mediators, even working under this code. We would prefer that safeguards be set out in the Bill.
Although we agree with the aim of the clause and welcome the provision as far as it goes, I hope that the Minister will understand our ongoing concerns and agree to give further consideration to incorporating the additional safeguards set out in our amendments.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 50 and 52, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, which would ensure that any mediator who is to deal with family disputes through a family mediation, information and assessment meeting—known somewhat inelegantly as a MIAM—would have to be approved and would need to have undergone relevant training and quality assurance. I also signal my support for Amendments 46 to 49 and Amendment 51, as tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, which would remove the introduction of compulsory mediation.
Currently, of course, attendance at a MIAM is voluntary. Solicitors make a referral to a mediator, allowing clients to receive legal advice prior to the mediation process. Since April 2011, parties have been required to send an FM1 form to the court alongside court applications to show that they have considered or attempted mediation. I should also point out that there is currently no regulation of mediators and that many have no formal training, although of course many are also qualified solicitors.
Under Clause 10, attendance at MIAMs will be made compulsory. There is great concern that this may be used to further domestic abuse in certain cases. Since MIAMs will be compulsory, mediators will be given the task of screening for domestic abuse and children’s safeguarding issues, yet without training there can be no knowing whether the skills these mediators possess will be appropriate or adequate to undertake such work. Legal aid will still be available for mediation but since legal aid has been withdrawn for private family law cases, except those involving recent domestic abuse, parties will be entering into the mediation without having received prior legal advice. That puts children and abused adults in a particularly vulnerable position.
Finally, since the majority of parents settle contact arrangements between themselves, the cases which go through to the courts process are by necessity the most complex and the most likely to involve abuse. Forcing parties through mediation in these circumstances would be highly damaging and potentially dangerous. At the very least, accreditation of mediators should be made compulsory. I urge the Minister to accept these amendments.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, my name is attached to a number of these amendments. I would like to raise some issues that I came across in eight years’ involvement in CAFCASS and many years before that as a social worker. I hope that the Government will look at these issues between now and Report. I would like mediation to be replaced by meetings where information is given. At these meetings, people can find out what they should be doing next; they are often highly successful in helping the parties talk to each other in a different way. If you use mediation, it has a special nature.
Mediators often say that they will not intervene to give direct information and advice, certainly not as regards helping parties to think directly about the implications of their behaviour. Mediation is often about sitting back and thinking things through. When you are using the court arena simply to fight your battles, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, so eloquently described, that type of mediation is totally unhelpful. I have been allowed to sit in and watch CAFCASS officers intervene on parties in an extremely direct way. That has had much more impact than the kind of therapeutic situation which is often delivered through the mediation association—I chaired a government working party on this many years ago—in which people, particularly those in conflict, find it very difficult to sit and reflect on their behaviour.
It is certainly important that we have recognised mediators but I hope that mediation will be looked at in a much broader sense than simply reflective mediation. That was one of the issues which came forward in the pre-legislative scrutiny to the 2006 Act. I think it was that Act although it could have been another—I have been here too long. A number of people from mediation groups came to talk about how they could not direct, or be directed themselves, in their work with families. These families often need a much more behavioural approach, rather than a reflective one. We need to think through some of these issues before we come to a conclusion. However, I stand by my name being attached to those amendments which seek to leave out “mediation”.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
My Lords, I support this amendment. We need to take notice of what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has said, given her enormous experience. Let us leave out “mediation”.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally) (LD)
My Lords, when Rupert Murdoch appeared before a committee down the corridor, he said it was the humblest day of his life. It is not for quite the same reasons but I approach this Bill with more than a certain humility, given the expertise in this Committee. I have listened to a goodly part of the debates. It is common cause that we are trying to get this important Bill right in terms of what is in it. That is the value of this Committee in this Room. It is less frantic than in the other place, less susceptible to the passing trade and more for those with genuine expertise. I approach Part 2, which is the section I shall be dealing with, with a desire to listen and to try to explain how and why the Government have come to the position they have reached thus far in the process of the Bill.
The Family Justice Review recommended that parents who need additional support to resolve a dispute should first attend a mediation, information and assessment meeting—a MIAM—to receive information about mediation and be assessed for suitability to mediate. It is very important that there should be an early assessment for mediation. That was the intention behind the existing pre-application protocol introduced in April 2011, which we intend to strengthen under this clause.
With reference to the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friend Lord McColl, we feel that the name of the meeting should convey to those who will attend it something about its purpose. An “assessment and information meeting” would not meet that objective in our view. Indeed, prospective applicants and respondents might be reluctant to attend such a meeting without knowing what they will be assessed for. The Family Mediation Council has published requirements for the conduct of MIAMs which describe clearly the elements to be addressed by the mediator. They include providing,
“information about all appropriate methods of family dispute resolution, including but not limited to mediation … collaborative law, solicitor-led negotiation and litigation”.
We intend to invite the Family Procedure Rule Committee to make rules that include reference to those requirements.
Turning to the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones, I recognise the concerns about safeguarding access to the courts. The Government do not intend that vulnerable parties should be put at risk or be prevented accessing the court. However, involving the court in every case at the stage before proceedings have started to determine whether it is reasonable for an applicant to attend a MIAM would be unworkable. It would impact on the courts and cause delay, particularly in public law care and supervision cases, and would undermine our efforts to ensure that court involvement is avoided wherever appropriate and safe in private family disputes. We agree that the requirement to attend a MIAM should not apply in circumstances where it is appropriate or necessary for a court to make decisions. That includes where there is evidence of domestic violence, child protection concerns or other reasonable grounds for exemption such as urgency or the significant risk of a miscarriage of justice.
The pre-application protocol in operation since April 2011 already places an expectation on a prospective applicant in relevant family proceedings first to attend a MIAM, but allows for exemptions in the circumstances I just mentioned. A family mediator may also determine, on the basis of their professional judgment, that the nature of the case makes it unsuitable for a MIAM. A mediator might make such a determination on the basis of a telephone discussion with the prospective parties. The current exemptions already reflect our position that adequate safeguards should be in place, and we intend to invite the rule committee broadly to replicate these in making rules under this clause.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, raised the question of the quality and training of mediators. The Government understand the concerns about the need for appropriate training and quality standards for mediators who conduct a MIAM. Family mediators who conduct MIAMs are already required by the Family Mediation Council, or FMC, to meet minimum standards and other detailed requirements, and only certified mediators can conduct a MIAM. Time does not permit me to list these requirements but I am happy to place a copy of them in the House Library and send them to noble Lords.
The existing pre-application protocol specifies that “family mediator” means a family mediator who is subject to the FMC’s code of practice and who is authorised to undertake MIAMs in accordance with the requirements set by the FMC. We propose to invite the Family Procedure Rule Committee to make rules of court under subsection (2)(b), which makes specific reference to those requirements. The rule committee is mandated by statute to make rules about practice and procedure in family proceedings, and we believe it is appropriate that the committee makes these rules about statutory MIAMs.
Clause 10 is intended to strengthen the existing protocol. We are building on a system that has now been in operation for two and a half years. The rule committee has a statutory duty to consider consultation on draft rules, including those to be made under this clause. The detail is, I recognise, important. I am happy to say that the rule committee has decided to consult on the draft rules so that there can be wider scrutiny of them, and it plans to consult shortly. My officials will ensure that the views and concerns expressed by noble Lords are conveyed to the rule committee as part of that consultation process. If any noble Lord would like to receive and consider the draft rules, my officials can ask the rule committee to arrange that.
While checking whether I have covered the other points that were raised, I should just say that we are standing by the point that the MIAM should have mediation in it. It is not helpful for it to be absent. I understand the point that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, made. Even from my limited knowledge, I know of the confusion that there is between mediation and marriage guidance counselling. People who have long decided to get out of a marriage do not want to be guided; they want to be helped through what is a traumatic period. However, I hope that we have this right. The accreditation of mediators is safeguarded. We do not believe that the Government are best placed to undertake a regulatory role in this area, but the guidance is there.
It is interesting that the MoJ has commissioned some independent qualitative research to look at barriers to accessing MIAMs and mediation. This will include looking at the experience of clients who did not attend a MIAM and the reasons for that. We expect to receive a number of emerging findings from that research in early November, and I will certainly make the research available to the House as the Bill progresses.
The rule committee is meeting on 4 November and will seek views in particular from family practitioners who work every day with users of the family justice system. The rule committee itself also has considerable expertise and we believe it is the appropriate body to do this work. My officials will ensure that the views and concerns expressed by noble Lords are conveyed to the committee, and we will make sure that its work is made available to those interested. I hope that with those explanations and rationalisation of our position, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, before the noble and learned Baroness responds, as I understand it her amendments are not seeking to change the content of such a meeting and in particular did not seek to take out the term “mediation” at line 41 on page 9 in the list of what information is to be provided. I understand what she says about not deterring people simply because of a title. Is it necessary to call these meetings anything other than family meetings, just for the purpose of getting people there to deal with the issues as they arise? It seems an unnecessary obstacle.
Lord McNally
That is the very interesting nature of this debate—whether removing the term will mean that it is not on the tin, so people will not be sure what they are letting themselves in for, or whether, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is suggesting, it being on the tin will deter people from opening the tin. As I said, we have commissioned research on this. We are only at Committee stage. I will make the outcome of that research available. There is no absolute certainty at this stage as to which of us is right about this.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, a Division has been called in the Chamber. The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 6.27 pm.
Lord McNally
My Lords, before I was so rudely interrupted, I was about to prompt withdrawal of the amendment by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who I hoped would be convinced by my eloquence. What I was saying when the bell went is that the term “mediation” in the title helps people to know what the purpose is and encourages them to be brought into it. The debate has been interesting. There are those who are arguing that it will frighten people away. We have commissioned some research and perhaps we should await that research and then return to this debate. When the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has seen the research she will say, “Oh, my goodness, I was wrong. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, was right all along”. Mind you, we are paying for the research. On that basis, I hope that she will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
I apologise but just before the Division Bell rang the Minister talked about knowing what was on the tin. The problem with the word “mediation” is that it conveys a range of different concepts, even within the professional world, and certainly if you are a warring parent. I am not saying that we should not indicate what is going to happen in the meeting and that people may be asked to look at how they can approach their relationships, if not mend them, but “mediation” is a difficult word for everybody, inside and outside the profession, and I think that we should look for another one.
Lord McNally
My approach to this Committee is that I genuinely do listen and take back its findings not only to my expert advisers but to other experts in this field who are not members of this Committee but will read its proceedings. If people on either side of the argument want to write to me and relate their experiences, we may be able to make a definitive decision on this issue at a later stage. I will certainly not go to the wall over the name that is used; I want an effective process.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I say to the Minister that I am perfectly prepared to be wrong; I often am. However, I think that on this occasion I am probably right and I shall be very interested to see the research. I would very much like a copy of the draft rules. I used to be the chairman of the Family Procedure Rule Committee. I have to confess that I tried not to attend that committee if I could avoid it as it is quite the most boring committee I have ever sat on. However, I should like to see the draft rules and would be most grateful if they could be provided.
The noble Lord knows that it is the practice in the Moses Room to withdraw the amendment and I will, of course, do so, but before I do so I should like to make one or two points. I am extremely indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for making the point that the title should be neutral. That was what I was searching for, although I did not use that word. The neutral title could be “family information meetings” or, as has been sensibly suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, “family meetings”. Family information meetings might be slightly better as people would know that that was what they were going to get.
I am entirely supportive of mediation in the right cases, and in all but 5% of cases it will be right, if they ever go to court at all, which most of them do not. Where neither party is legally aided, they will both battle through the real difficulties of making their applications and so on in the county court or magistrates’ court and try to cope with something which is completely unfamiliar to them. Therefore, the information meeting, and a requirement to have one, seem to me entirely admirable.
The only problem is that there are in a sense two stages to this because mediation is different from information and assessment. It imposes upon people a requirement to try to settle. You cannot have compulsory mediation. You can have compulsory information and assessment, but you cannot require people to settle. That is something I was taught as a young barrister and I have learnt all the way through my legal and judicial career that people cannot be made to settle. The purpose of mediation is to get them to settle or to try to tackle the issue in a better way, but that could be achieved through the provision of information and an assessment. One has to understand that mediation is in a different class from information and assessment.
I throw out my next point as a possibility for the Family Procedure Rule Committee and the Minister’s experts to look at. I am not suggesting that this is necessarily a good idea but I throw it out for consideration. I would be content if the forms that the parties receive put the words “information”, “assessment” and “mediation” in brackets. Parties could cross out the word “mediation” to show that they are prepared to opt for information and assessment but are not prepared to go through a process of trying to make them settle. That might just do the trick if you want to keep the word “mediation”.
However, I am very concerned about the small number of people who are most likely to go to court. You do not go to court if you can reach agreement. Some 90% do not go to court or go to court only to obtain an agreed order, 5% can be persuaded to go through mediation, and probably mediation is just what they need, but 5% cannot. What could happen if there is a requirement for mediation is that particularly the man, although sometimes the woman, will get to the meeting with the trained mediator and the minute the mediator starts to say, “Well, could you not agree to this?”, he will storm out and not listen to what he needs to understand as to how the court proceedings will go. That is my real worry. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(2) After subsection (3)(g) insert—
“(h) the quality of the relationship that the child has with each of his parents, both currently and in the foreseeable future.””
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, Clause 11 would require a court, in considering arrangements to promote a child’s future, to presume, unless there are reasons to the contrary, that continued involvement of each parent would be conducive to the child’s welfare. I move Amendments 53 and 55 as much to probe the complex issues inherent in this matter as to propose a definitive solution. Indeed, it is not clear yet whether the Government’s proposal or any of the amendments before us today are the best route to achieving the policy objective of meaningful, continuing contact between children and both parents when the parents break up. I hope that this debate will clarify those issues so we can move to a sensible position that maximises the chances of achieving that policy objective, with which I wholly concur, while minimising the possibility of unintended, negative consequences for the children. Much of the debate outside this place has turned on the nuances of different legal interpretations of the impact of Clause 11 on the current overriding requirement in Section 1 of the Children Act that the,
“child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration”.
I will come to that point in a minute but I want to say at the outset that I believe there is a problem to be addressed here, and that the Government are right to try to do so.
We do not yet have a society in which mothers and fathers are accorded equal status as parents. Certainly by much of our public policy, public services and professional practice, whether health, education, social care, policing or the family courts, the default position is very often that parent equals mother. Often this disadvantages mothers because they are held more to account for children’s well-being. They are blamed more when things go wrong and the kids go off the rails and fathers are often let off the hook by professionals and organisations. In other instances, however, this default position can work against fathers who can struggle to get recognition from professionals. When parents separate, if the father becomes the non-resident parent, as is often the case, they are often not supported adequately by the courts or professionals to maintain contact with their children. So I start from the position of sharing the Government’s desire to put in public policy the principle of shared parental responsibility and involvement in a child’s life. Indeed, I would argue—I am sure all of us would argue—that for most children the paramount principle of the child’s welfare enshrined in the Children Act cannot be fully met unless both parents are fully involved in a child’s life and have a continuing relationship with the child, so it may be that there is a need to strengthen the principle of parental involvement.
I was a Member of Parliament for 13 years and during that time I had many cases in which fathers—and they were all fathers—had become excluded from their children’s lives, either because of the minimal contact arrangements decreed by the court in the first place or by the failure of the court to enforce the contact arrangements that had originally been made. Noble Lords may be aware of the recent decision in June this year by the Court of Appeal. Their exceptional but very welcome decision to publish their judgment and findings on one such case—Re A—has revealed the extent to which the system is sometimes failing to enable children to maintain relationships with non-resident parents, usually, but not always, the father. In this case, the father fought for more than 10 years, the family courts made 82 orders, but in the end a senior family court judge decided the impasse should be resolved by banning the father from further attempts to see his child. The Court of Appeal ruled that collectively over time, the failure of the courts amounted to,
“an unjustified violation of M’s and the father’s rights to respect for family life under ECHR”.
It would be a mistake to regard this case as wholly exceptional. It is exceptional only in that it is now in the public domain.
It may reflect in parts, but not all, of the system a culture that does not always regard the non-resident parent as equally important either in initial decisions or in enforcement. When that happens, as the cases I had as an MP showed, it often means that children lose contact not only with their fathers but with their paternal grandparents and their entire paternal family.
However, there is a view that the change in the law proposed by Clause 11, which introduces a presumption of parental involvement, would dilute the paramountcy principle of the welfare of the child in Section 1 of the Children Act. I have seen the Minister’s note which contends that the paramountcy principle is not a rebuttable presumption and therefore cannot be in conflict with the presumption in Clause 11 which is rebuttable if it needs to be on the grounds of the child’s welfare. The Minister’s view is that there is no potential conflict for the courts in juxtaposing the paramountcy principle, which is the overriding one, and the presumption in Clause 11. I am sure we will hear many views on that during the course of this debate, and I look forward to hearing them because this is a complex issue and we need to think about it very carefully.
Another argument raised against Clause 11 is that it is unnecessary, as only around 10% of cases are currently decided in courts and in 2010, for example, only 0.3% of the large number of applications for contact was refused. However, that is to assume that in all other cases contact arrangements are satisfactory, whereas many non-resident parents feel that they are forced—advised, in fact—to accept arrangements for quite low levels of contact between them and their children because that is the cultural norm set by the courts in these contested cases.
We agree that the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child and that this principle should not be jeopardised or diluted. However, we argue that the welfare of most children depends on substantial contact with both parents and the shared involvement of each parent, resident and non-resident, in the child’s life, unless there are reasons to the contrary and subject to the detail of arrangements which give the child as stable and enriched an experience as possible. With the focus on the child, any arbitrary splitting of the child’s time on a 50/50 or other basis would not be acceptable because this is about the child’s rights, not the parents’ rights. Equally, it is not acceptable for a parent to use the child to score points or vent frustration with an ex-partner by opposing or frustrating contact and involvement. Amendment 55 therefore clarifies that parental involvement does not and should not equate to shared parenting or shared time and that the involvement must promote the welfare of the child.
Amendment 53 would not include parental involvement as a legal presumption in Section 1 of the Children Act but instead inserts into the welfare checklist in Section 1(3) an additional criterion, namely,
“the quality of the relationship that the child has with each of his parents, both currently and in the foreseeable future”.
This would require the courts to focus on the current and future involvement of both parents without making it a legal presumption and therefore subject to the debate we are having today. It may avoid the doubt that has been expressed about whether the Government’s preferred formulation in Clause 11 dilutes the paramountcy principle. That is the core issue that we need to clarify this afternoon. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
If Amendment 53 is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 54 and 55 because of pre-emption.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I assume that I am allowed to speak to Amendment 54. I agree with, particularly, Amendment 55. It is extremely sensible because it cuts out the division of a child’s time, which all too many lay people see as “shared parenting”. Thank goodness the Government have taken those two words out of the draft Bill.
Clause 11 raises a technical legal point of considerable importance. It will affect the way in which all family judges and family magistrates try private law cases where the arrangements in relation to children have to be decided by the court. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, would be affected by it sitting in the family proceedings court. I have discussed this clause with some members of the judiciary, who view it with some concern.
I start with a problem. If the clause becomes law, it will raise two potentially conflicting presumptions for the court to tackle. I regret to say, with the greatest respect, that the Minister will be wrong if he says what the noble Baroness said was in his brief. Under Clause 11 the court, in the various circumstances, is to presume, unless the contrary is shown, that the involvement of each parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child’s welfare. That is a presumption. However, the whole basis of family child law is the presumption of the paramountcy of the welfare of the child, which is in Section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989.
“Where a court determines any question with respect to … of the upbringing of a child … the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration”.
That is engraved on the hearts of all family judges and magistrates. In order not to be appealed, they always put it at the beginning of all their judgments. It is extremely important.
The effect of Clause 11 is to bring in a second presumption. You cannot help it because you are presuming in Clause 11 and you are presuming in Section 1 of the Children Act. Those two presumptions potentially clash. Quite simply, a court can have only one presumption at a time.
This is not just me making a legalistic technical point. People might be forgiven for thinking that I am going back to my judicial days, but I promise that this is far broader than a legalistic point. The NSPCC and Coram are very concerned, and I am happy to adopt the points that they make. They make three very important points: this clause could lead to a shift in emphasis away from what is best for the child towards the feelings and desires of parents; it could inadvertently increase risk to children by putting pressure on parents to agree to contact arrangements that are unsuitable or dangerous in the erroneous belief that a court would order that kind of contact; and the proposed change is unnecessary because no evidence of a bias in the court system has been found.
It is not good enough to have two presumptions that the judge has to juggle which could clash. It is particularly difficult for family magistrates who are not lawyers. It is also important to bear in mind that the litigants in the cases to which this clause applies will be unrepresented in the absence of legal aid. As to the increased risk of harm to which the NSPCC and Coram refer, these unrepresented litigants have gone through the traumatic experience of a failed relationship. As I said earlier, 90% will not go to court, or only for an agreed order, 5% can be persuaded by the family information and assessment meeting and the remaining hardcore 5% will be extremely antagonistic towards each other. Some of them actually hate each other. They can hardly bear to be in the same room and the failed relationship has become corrosive. That is not a happy situation in which to make arrangements for their children. I regret to say that I have said from time to time that when parents are in dispute about their children, they are the last people who should ever make arrangements for their future. They are simply unsuitable.
However, one parent or the other may give way and agree to unsuitable access/contact—two failed words—because of the way in which this clause is framed and in the mistaken belief that that is what a court would order. Although the phrase “shared parenting” has been deleted, the public perception is that they will get 50% of the time. When they are not necessarily going to court, that is what one parent will try to impose on the other. Those who cannot agree are likely to hold out for more contact, and this will lead to increased litigation before the courts. The courts are already beginning to be clogged up as a result of the absence of legal aid in private family law cases, particularly at district judge level, where, I am told, district judge first appointments, which used to last half an hour, now go on for at least 45 minutes. The backlog of cases is bound to grow. Of course, the children will suffer while the parents go on fighting and carrying on their dispute about child arrangements because it will take longer for these cases to be heard.
My experience as a family judge and then as head of the family court is that judges look to parents rather than impose gender discrimination in favour of mothers. I made a very large number of decisions in favour of fathers, although Fathers 4 Justice did not believe me. If it had looked at my track record, it might have seen that that was the case. I cannot tell the Committee what Fathers 4 Justice did for me, but its members did lock the gate on one occasion so that I could not get out and I had to get my husband to get the bolt cutters to open it. They also had Batman and Robin on the roof of the law courts. Noble Lords may remember that they stopped Tower Bridge functioning for a week by climbing up to the top, and they also climbed up on to Buckingham Palace.
I know that fathers do not accept that there is no gender discrimination against them and in favour of mothers. However, as the NSPCC said, there is no independent evidence of a bias. The Justice Select Committee accepted that there was no such evidence, as did, I understand, the Children’s Minister in the other place. There is no evidence of bias in the courts in favour of one parent. Therefore, the changes appear to be based on perceived rather than actual bias. I hope that the Minister and those behind him will look at the experience in Australia. At this stage of the evening, I shall not go into that, but it has been unhappy, and it has used similar phraseology. Much of this otherwise admirable Bill is very much based on the Norgrove report, which interestingly does not support a change to the Children Act.
Having said all that, I recognise and support the intention behind the clause that the importance of both parents should be at the forefront of the court’s mind. It is very sad that countless children are losing one parent, generally the father, who leaves home and there is no further relationship between him and his children. That is a very sad situation. Of course, we must encourage the continuing involvement of both parents so that after they separate, both are encouraged to stay in touch. However, to make it a presumption is a step too far, and that is why I have not sought to delete this clause. I have sought to amend it to highlight the importance of both parents, but not to create a second presumption. My amendment leaves out the word “presume” and inserts “pay particular regard” to highlight to the judge that he or she must,
“pay particular regard, unless the contrary is shown, to the importance of the”—
and then the wording of the clause is followed.
This is an important matter that cannot be brushed aside. I am speaking because of the issue of presumption and the effect that it will have on the public who come to court. From my practical experience, I am extremely concerned about the impact on the overriding presumption of welfare not just in the courts—where I think most judges could cope with the provision, although they do not like to have two clashing presumptions—but in the minds of the public who are trying to come to some sort of settlement. That is worrying, and I ask the Government to look at this issue carefully. My amendment would meet the need to emphasise the importance of the relationship between the child and both parents and the continuing involvement of both parents, but would not create the real problem of competing presumptions.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to Amendments 54 and 55. I have a lot of sympathy with both of them. I should declare an interest as chair of CAFCASS. I, too, fully recognise and support the intention of Clause 11. In the vast majority of cases it is always desirable that both parents continue to be involved in the bringing up of their children after separation, but we all know that there are some cases where that is simply not possible, and that is what this clause is all about.
I thank the Minister for his helpful letter setting out how Clause 11 might be put into operation. I will leave it to those far more learned than I am in legal technicalities to consider whether this creates two competing presumptions or whether one presumption is rebuttable and the other is not. Others will be able to set that out very clearly.
My focus is on the practicalities and how this will impact on a child-centred approach. Our experience at CAFCASS is that sometimes these distinctions, these legal technicalities, are harder in practice to observe in the often very feverish atmosphere of a family court case, something that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, set out clearly for us. Our work at CAFCASS shows how hard it can be to help parents in cases in which there are high degrees of hostility and acrimony to focus on the needs of their children rather than on themselves. Anything that distracts from the focus on the child can sometimes be of questionable value.
Of course, our task at CAFCASS, as ever, will be to promote as full an involvement of both parents as possible to reduce the number of caring mothers and fathers who lose contact with their children after separation in a way that does not make things worse for children. The difficulty that we are discussing can be very much compounded by the invisible nature of the emotional harm that many children experience through no fault of their own when parents separate or divorce. A no-fault approach to separation—it was accepted in divorce cases some time ago—needs to be carried through. Courts can help children who often feel that they are at fault and to blame in some way for their parents’ separation. This emotional harm, unless acknowledged and dealt with properly with all necessary support, can cause a concealed social problem and have long-term costs attached to it.
My key concern about the clause is that parental involvement—I very much support the principle of joint involvement—is seen through a child’s eyes. The situation in which a child finds themselves in after separation or divorce can be difficult, affects schooling and friendships and often undermines a child’s healthy development. Decisions about parental involvement need to support a child’s healthy development, schooling and adaptation to the new situation in which they find themselves.
Finally, each child is unique and a formula of any kind about parental involvement has to be subject to the test of relevance to an individual child, and when courts or CAFCASS are asked to intervene, this is the assessment that they have to make. A statement about the importance of parental involvement is absolutely right in general terms but if in practical terms it is to have real meaning and value for the individual child, that child must also receive the support that they need in the very complex adaptation that they are making.
Certainly, recent research has shown us that children want and need different levels of contact with parents and relatives, and particularly with siblings and friends. It is not just about the parents. We need to ensure that we avoid—and I am sure that we will avoid it—this legislation polarising the contact in any way, in terms of one or both parents agreeing on an enforced basis. Children need a range of contacts with siblings and other relatives to be maintained after separation. I think we all recognise that the law can be a fairly blunt tool, both in its current and proposed forms, to deal with a child’s bespoke and individual contact needs. My plea this afternoon is that this should very much be seen in a child-centred way.
The Earl of Listowel
I support my noble and learned friend’s amendment and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes. Listening to the noble Baroness, I remember hearing recently a male acquaintance speaking passionately about his despair at not having access to his child. It seemed that his wife, a wealthy woman, had really done him down. He is poor and does not have the access to legal help that she has. Listening to men talk about this so often is very sad.
I will speak during the debate on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Northbourne about the issue of children having access to their fathers, which is desperately important. It is also important to remember that the evidence seemed very clear that while there is a perception that courts are finding favour more with women and that women are too effective at frustrating what the courts want, in practice this is not happening. I heard a presentation of the evidence a few months back but am ashamed to say that I cannot remember the presenter of the details. As my noble and learned friend has just said, the Justice Committee agrees with that. It seems that the Minister agrees too, so I would be grateful if he could help me by providing the information. I think this was a careful and thorough look at cases by an academic to check the perception that there was a bias towards women. In fact, the research showed, quite conclusively and clearly, that this was not the case. I would be grateful if the Minister’s expert advisors might help with that information. He can write to me with it. It is a perceived problem but it is not a real problem. What is true, however, is how tragic and difficult these issues so often are.
I very much regret that I cannot support the Government on this occasion. I examined a similar proposal to that in the Bill in great detail on a previous occasion. In doing so, I visited two contact centres and spoke to staff and parents there. I also spoke with professionals from the Anna Freud Centre who supported such families. My concern is that, at best, the Government may be raising expectations in parents which will only add to litigation and harm children as the conflict between their parents is prolonged. This is the point that my noble and learned friend made and it was also a concern that Norgrove had. In Norgrove’s family review, at first he was favourable to the idea of having some stipulation in the law that this should happen. Then he looked at what happened in Australia and became determinedly against going forward in this way. At worst, my fear is that the Government may be putting children more obviously at risk as courts are pressured to grant more contact to both parents.
By the time these cases come to court, there are often mental health or substance misuse issues within the family. What I heard from the contact centres and the professionals last time around was that, too often, a parent—and often this would be the father—was granted access to his child before he had addressed his alcohol misuse issues, for instance. Quite often the agreement would be that the father would have supervised access on two or three occasions, but that would be gone through in a quite perfunctory way and the father would have access. I should perhaps not name a gender here; the parent could be male or female.
Following this and before we legislated in this area—it was very helpful at the time—the courts inspectorate produced a damning report on child safeguarding in the private family courts, finding that court reporting officers were not communicating child protection concerns to the relevant authorities. If anything, back then the bias seemed to be too much in the other direction: courts were not taking enough care about granting contact between children and their parents.
Family courts are under great pressure financially. A large increase in litigants in person adds a further burden. It would be wisest to allow judges to make decisions about what they consider to be in the best interests of the child without the distraction that the Government’s proposal offers. I am strongly of the view taken by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Coram—a wonderful institution which produced the model for the children’s centres that have proved so successful—and my noble and learned friends that the Government should think again about this. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, I want to intervene briefly to say two things. All this is about perception as against fact and we have to ask ourselves why we are dealing with this clause at all. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, will know very well that CAFCASS, when being pressed by fathers who were saying that the presumption was against them, carried out research which showed that there was no presumption either way.
Of course there are miscarriages of justice. We cannot deny that from time to time in all areas of the law there will be miscarriages of justice, for both women and men, but that is not to deny the overriding information and the principle. I am very concerned that if we lose the paramountcy of the welfare of the child, the confusion that will follow will lead to other perception issues.
The other perception issue is very clearly, as one or two noble Lords have intimated, what is in the press—and that is that the father, it is usually the father, will be able to gain shared parenting. What they mean by shared parenting is half and half. We know how damaging that would be to a child, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, when seen through the child’s eyes. If you talk to children and young people who are before the court, they want their parents to stay together—you have to work through all that—and then they want their lives disrupted as little as possible. They want to remain in the same school; they want to be able to see their friends at the weekend; they do not want to take a suitcase somewhere else every two weeks—although, I have to say, some children quite enjoy it. I have talked to kids who really enjoy having two places and adjust to it. However, many do not, and therefore it is important that the child’s wishes and feelings are taken firmly into consideration. I think the perception will be that fathers, in particular, can get a different agreement from the court, rather than the paramountcy of the welfare of the child being the main issue.
Several noble Lords have alluded to the Australian experience but we should take it extremely seriously. If this has been tried elsewhere and has gone seriously wrong, why should we do it here and create the same situation? We should remind ourselves that they had this legislation and that the research evidence showed that the number of cases where children’s time was divided increased substantially. The whole thing became dysfunctional to the point that in 2011 the Australian Government were forced to legislate again to prioritise the safety of children over the wishes of adults. I am quite sure that this Government, particularly the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would not wish to find that we were not prioritising children and had to change the legislation after damage had been done. So let us deal with the perceptions and base our legislation on fact.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the noble and learned Baroness says that the judges would cope with Section 1 of the 1989 Act being amended by this but I do not think we want to wait for a judicial review as to exactly what would be meant if the new words were inserted in Section 1. If they were inserted in the form that we have in Clause 11, we would have Section 1(1) saying that welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration—if that is not a presumption, I am even more concerned about it; then Section 1(2) saying that in dealing with delay the court shall have regard to that general principle; and then proposed new subsection 2A referring to presumption unless the contrary is shown.
I have never practised in this area so maybe it does not matter, but I am very unclear as to how weighty the contrary needs to be. To put it in different terms, are we talking about the contrary shown on a balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt? The noble and learned Baroness has those words in her amendment, to which I and my noble friend Lady Walmsley, who is not in her place, have added our names. I do not think they would have the same difficulty when tied to having particular regard as they would to a presumption. I become more and more confused as to what Clause 11 means by a presumption unless the contrary is shown. A presumption is a presumption.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to speak very briefly to Amendments 54 and 55. I welcome the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who both recognise that there are times when fathers are locked out of contact with their children. I applaud the Government for recognising that the involvement of both parents in a child’s life, all things being equal, will further the child’s welfare. No one would question that the child’s welfare has been and must continue to be of paramount importance. There is no question about that, but there have been times when that has been lost and the feeling has been that as long as a child has a mother, perhaps that is okay. That is my concern. I fully recognise what my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss said about the research. I am not suggesting here that there have been wholesale miscarriages of justice but every single miscarriage of justice in terms of parenting one’s own children is a personal tragedy and we therefore need to take these things extremely seriously.
This is being made worse in the modern world because fathers are often intimately involved in their child’s upbringing from birth. In my day it did not happen. Father was a long way away for quite a long time so the big bonding went on with mother, not with father. Often parents are genuinely sharing the parental role. At times a father will be the primary carer—I cannot remember fathers being primary carers in my day—or maybe a better parent than the mother. On occasions a mother may be neglectful, selfish and unloving. They may even emotionally abuse their child. Of course, all these things can apply to fathers, except that fathers, instead of emotionally abusing their child, will tend to hit out. That has been one of the big problems in decision-making on parenting, separation and childcare. As a former social worker, I can say that we found it quite easy to see a bump on someone’s head but found it very difficult to identify and to codify emotional abuse of children.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I would like to say a word or two about this problem because I had the responsibility, rather a long time ago now, of formulating the provisions which are here being subject to amendment. The most important principle was then laid down, and acknowledged as being an important principle, that the case has to be decided in the light of the best interests of the particular child in the particular circumstances in which that child finds himself or herself.
It is very difficult to lay down anything that looks like rules about how you decide that because, as has been said already, the variation in family situations across the board is very large indeed. In some cases, it would be quite wrong for the father to have contact with the children for reasons that are sad and serious. On the other hand, there are sometimes occasions when it is thought to oust the father for no good reason at all. That also is serious. However, they are very different situations and anything that impinges on the importance of the paramountcy of the welfare of the individual child has a danger. Amendment 55, which would relegate this consideration to being one of the factors that has to be taken into account, strikes me as a reasonable way of handling the situation. Not many family judges or lay magistrates do not believe in the importance of the relationship between the parents in both cases, if possible.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I was simply making the fundamental point that adherence to the paramountcy of the welfare of the child is the principle that should rule in all cases without exception.
I understand the problem to which this clause is directed, and I shall not repeat what has been said about where it came from and so on. There is a possibility that Members of Parliament get a slightly distorted picture of what goes on in the courts, because the people they see at their surgeries are generally not those who have won. People do not normally come along to say how well they have got on. I have never been a Member of Parliament myself, so noble Lords will understand that I am only speculating, but that is a possibility.
I believe that all judges—family judges, magistrates and so on—recognise the importance of trying to preserve the relationship between a child and both parents. I entirely agree that that should be affirmed but what I find very dangerous—and they appear in more than one amendment—are the words “unless the contrary is shown”. One can see immediately what might happen. Let us say that the wife decides that she wants to have the child. She concentrates on proving that the father is not fit or that he has done something, unless the contrary is proved. That puts a focus on what are often the most difficult issues.
I suggest that the important factor is the relationship between both parents, as expressed in the clause, and that should be one of the factors that have to be taken into account in considering the welfare of the child. It is obviously important that the relationship with both parents should be preserved if possible. A factor in the checklist that includes that would obviate a great deal of the difficulty that this kind of clause could produce in putting a focus on one party trying to show that the other party is not suitable for some reason or other. It would be much better for the judge or magistrates, in approaching the matter, to take account of the fact that it is very much in the interests of the child and of the paramountcy of the child’s welfare that both parents take an interest and be involved. Precisely how that is done can be looked at as part of the general picture, but it strikes me that focusing on this as a separate matter is very likely to make matters worse rather than better.
It is some time since I had experience of the working of the courts but I used to, and much of what I learnt then remains with me and was part of what I had in mind when the Children Act 1989 was formulated. It is also fair to say that the criteria set out in that Act have proved to be a considerable international instrument in developing justice for children. Therefore, I have a very strong affiliation to what was in that Act and I am not keen to see it much changed. So long as the change is an improvement, I welcome it, but one has to be careful that one does not distort the principle while making improvements.
Baroness Meacher
The noble and learned Lord referred to the clause possibly generating parental attempts to downgrade the other parent. Does he agree that that is absolutely the norm at present? That is what parents do and women are particularly good at it. They really go for the father and try to discredit him. I suggest that we already have that in spades.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
It is the job of the judge to do his or her best to lower that. As I say, it is some time since I had experience of dealing with this issue but I have had that experience. However, it is counterproductive to do the opposite and to make important, and put up as a presumption which may be rebutted, something which is absolutely at the heart of the difficulty between the parents. As the noble Baroness says, this situation often arises. I feel that a judge would be better able to keep the situation under control if he or she did not have to focus on whether or not the contrary was proved. The judge would just have to take account of the nature of the relationships and make sure that they were properly taken into account when addressing the major question of principle.
Lord Northbourne
I seek guidance on one small issue. It is probably very stupid of me not to know about this but I am sure legal colleagues will be able to help me. Can the arrangement be changed? For instance, a little boy of two would be better placed with his mother but, by the time he is 12, his father may well become a much more important part of his life.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
If that is addressed to me, the answer is certainly yes. I have a distinct recollection of a case in which the mother left the family at a very early stage and the father and his mother had to look after the child. After a while, the child’s mother decided to come back. She had had a relationship which soured after a year or two and she thought that she would come back. You have to take account of the existing situation and the paramountcy of the welfare of the child, which may alter over time and need to be reviewed from time to time. There is plenty of machinery to do that, although, as my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss said, one’s time may be consumed by other things. However, so long as you can get a review, that can be dealt with.
Lord McNally
My Lords, this has been an extremely important and high-quality debate. I am not a lawyer but I have spent three and a half years at the MoJ. Therefore, when the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said that she had the greatest possible respect for my opinion, I am aware that the term “greatest possible respect” is reserved for the most insulting comment that a lawyer is about to deliver to an opponent.
I was interested in the joust between the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. When I was first given this ministerial responsibility, I had speaking engagements in Birmingham and Putney that arose within a few days of each other. I experienced some of the doubts that have been expressed in today’s debate about the road we were going down. What interested me was that at both meetings two social workers in the audience said quite unprompted exactly the same thing to me. They said, “Don’t underestimate the willingness of women to use their children in these battles”. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, pointed out that in the 25 years since the original legislation was passed there has been a change in what she described as family dynamics. We are trying to deal with the situation and get the wording right.
Even in this debate there are things that take us down cul-de-sacs. We are not following the Australian model; in fact we have learnt from it. Our proposal does not require the court to balance these two factors—I will come back to this. There is no idea of 50/50 parenting. One of the problems when this was debated down at the other end was that the press coverage was very much in terms of this being a major step change. I welcome the approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, in her opening remarks. The paramountcy of the welfare of the child is still there in this legislation.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, from her vast experience, claims that the way it is worded produces a contradiction. Let me try to explain our approach to see whether we can convince her, but I suspect that we will be coming back to this issue on Report. It is not possible for the presumption to clash with the paramountcy principle. The paramountcy principle is not a rebuttable presumption. The child’s welfare must be the court’s paramount consideration. If the court does not believe that the child’s welfare is served by the involvement of a parent, it will not order any such involvement, and the clause does not require it to do so. We are not saying that the court must make an order that involves both parents, nor are we seeking to define the nature of the involvement which the court may order. We are certainly not making any assumption about how the child’s time may be divided. That is not what the clause is about.
The Explanatory Notes set out clearly how the clause operates. We have included a process chart as well as an example situation to demonstrate how we would expect the presumption to work in practice. In addition, I have provided further information on the clause, which sets out in detail how the clause will work in practice, and it addresses the concerns that have been raised. We will also ensure that clear and accessible information is available for parents about the range of changes we are making. This will help to address wider concerns about the risk that the clause may be misunderstood. We have deliberately avoided defining the nature of involvement, which the court may order. The presumption stands if any form of involvement can take place without risk of harm to the child and would further the child’s welfare. We have used the word “involvement” as the simplest, most neutral approach to express the full spectrum of ways in which a child can have a relationship with a parent. We believe that the introduction of a presumption in legislation is the best and clearest way to ensure that children are able to benefit from the involvement of both parents following family separation.
This clause is part of the consistent messaging that will be conveyed throughout the dispute resolution process about the valuable role that both parents can play in their child’s life, whether they are together or apart. The deliberate reference to a presumption sends a strong signal to both parents and others as to how the court makes its decision. It makes clear that it is the norm rather than the exception for both parents to be involved in the child’s life. On the points raised, I think that I have already referred to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, about whether it was 50/50. The wording in the clause does not suggest or imply in any way equal or substantial shared time. The Explanatory Notes make it clear that this is not the expectation.
As regards the central argument put by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, which I suspect we will continue to discuss on Report, we believe that there are no conflicting presumptions. The parental involvement presumption will always be rebutted in a situation in which the child’s welfare requires it, and the paramountcy principle is not rebuttable.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, whatever I do, I hope that I will do it gracefully. We have had an excellent debate because we knew before we started that there would be a variety of views. It has been a very constructive debate, from which a great deal of consensus has emerged and become evident. We are all agreed that the welfare of the child should be paramount and that this principle should not be diluted. We are all agreed that continued involvement of both parents in a child’s life is desirable, indeed essential, to the child’s welfare, unless there are reasons to the contrary. We are all agreed, or at least will accept, that a change in the law of one kind or another to put greater emphasis on parental involvement would be acceptable; and we are all agreed that parental involvement should be determined from a child-centred point of view—that is, with reference to the child’s experience and not any particular division of the child’s time. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that our reference to indirect involvement is not intended to suggest that, say, three letters a year would be all right at all.
Some differences of opinion are evident, particularly around whether the courts and professionals do enough at the moment to promote contact by fathers and whether there is an issue there. I feel that there is an issue there, and not just as a result of cases from when I was an MP. I take the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, about that. None the less, when as a Member of Parliament you get a large number of cases such as that, it behoves you to ask whether things are working properly. That is what you are there for.
I also cited the recent Court of Appeal judgment, which was very strong on the fact that many courts in that case had issued 82 orders and none of them had resulted in the contact that they had sought the father to make. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said that there is no evidence of bias. Of course, we do not get information from family courts about their individual decisions but there are certainly concerns among fathers themselves. I do not think that many people can top the noble and learned Baroness but in relation to Fathers 4 Justice I think I can, because they actually handcuffed me. However, as your Lordships can see, my wrists are so slender that I was able to slip out of it, much to the man’s consternation. However, I talked to some other very reasonable fathers’ groups over many years when I was Minister for Children. They testify to having difficulties and we have to take them seriously.
Having said all that, I am not sure whether we are any further forward because it depends on the Minister’s contention that the paramountcy principle cannot be overridden by a rebuttal presumption, which is that in Clause 11. So that we do not rehearse these same arguments at Report, I suggest to him with respect that he could arrange some meetings and further briefings so that we could have a discussion in a smaller environment to see whether we can find a way forward before Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, this may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn.
House of Lords
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord Whitby
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Alcohol: Late Night Drinking
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Avebury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further steps they will take to curb the late night purchasing and consumption of alcohol.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have given local people greater powers to tackle problem drinking late at night. I am pleased to say that Newcastle is scheduled to be the first area to introduce a late night levy on 1 November. This will make premises selling alcohol late at night contribute to the cost of policing. A number of other areas are also considering banning the sale of alcohol in the early hours of the morning.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that since only two late night levies—and no early morning restriction orders—have been imposed since they were enacted two years ago, these measures should be more closely targeted on areas and premises that cause the problems, particularly areas of cumulative impact? Secondly, will my noble friend explain how the Government’s current licensing proposals are going to reduce or curb the number of licences issued, particularly in areas of cumulative impact, bearing in mind that the number of licences issued has been increasing every year since 2003?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the cumulative effect of the measures we have introduced enables licensing authorities to target problem premises and areas; for example, we have reduced the evidential threshold, given licensing authorities the power to make representations in their own right, and clarified cumulative impact policies that can apply now to the on and off trade alike.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, a police superintendent has the right to close premises where excessive disorder is being caused. Can the Minister tell the House how often this power has been exercised?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I cannot give the noble Lord a quantitative answer. One of the measures under the anti-social behaviour Bill, which will arrive in this House shortly, will give the power—on the authority of a police inspector—to order the immediate closure of premises.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the number of alcohol-related accidents that impact on A&E departments every week. Is he aware of the considerable evidence that alcohol is a far more dangerous substance than herbal cannabis which is, of course, an illegal substance in this country today? Does he believe that this is a logical policy?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I would not want to venture into a discussion with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on the question of drugs. I believe that we have a debate on this tomorrow. Alcohol is clearly harmful if taken to excess and is responsible for considerable economic damage to the country as well as for health service costs.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it is worth noting that alcohol consumption dropped by 13% between 2004 and 2010, though it seems to have increased since that time. I cannot imagine why. However, we recognise that problems remain, and more needs to be done to tackle anti-social behaviour connected with the excess drinking of alcohol. I am rather concerned at what the Minister said in response to my noble friend Lord Mackenzie, who has been president of the Police Superintendents Association, about the late-night levy and the actions that police superintendents can take. This has not been a success. Problems still continue. Only one late-night levy is about to be introduced and others have not been. Can the Minister assure me that, when the anti-social behaviour Bill is debated in your Lordships’ House, the Government will seriously consider our amendments, rather than reject them, as they did in the Commons?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I cannot promise to accept opposition amendments to the Bill, but I am sure that noble Lords will consider all amendments that are tabled. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that this is an important piece of legislation, and I hope she recognises that the measures being introduced by the Government are designed to tackle the anti-social elements that drinking can cause.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, do the Government recognise that the current below-cost sales of alcohol are responsible for at least 900 major crimes per year? Do they also recognise that the introduction of minimum pricing, on top of banning low-cost sales, would probably cut out 32,000 crimes per year? When are the Government going to revise their policy on minimum pricing and below-cost sales?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Baroness will know that the Government have made an announcement on this. Although minimum pricing is always there to be considered, the policy that we are going to introduce is that no drink can be sold at less than the cost of duty plus VAT. I can give some examples. It will mean that a 4% can of lager will have a floor price of 40 pence and a 70 centilitre bottle of vodka will not be able to be sold at below £8.89.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that, while dealing with irresponsible drinking, we should not penalise responsible drinkers and those who run responsible premises with policies like minimum alcohol pricing or, indeed, the levy? It means that people who are out celebrating—perhaps the return of good government—end up paying more than they would otherwise because of those who behave badly.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My noble friend is perfectly correct to say that the thrust of the Government’s policy is to tackle the irresponsible consumption of alcohol and, indeed, our measures are designed to do that. They will create situations in which people feel that, in licensing matters, they too can be involved in the decision-making process.
Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)
My Lords, since the noble Lord does not have available the information requested by my noble friend Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, will he find it out and place a copy in the Library?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I will certainly do my best to find the information, but it may not be easy to do so because it is a police matter rather than a Home Office matter. However, I will do all I can to find out if the information is available; I will inform the noble Lord, and I will place a copy in the Library.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the excessive consumption of alcohol in the late night economy is often carried out by people who actually hold down quite responsible jobs in the daytime? I think that many people would be shocked at that. Will he continue to consider sobriety schemes? They would be a big disincentive to those people, who will have to explain to their employers why they have been required not to attend work because of their excessive alcohol consumption.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It certainly has been the case that one of the by-products of excessive alcohol consumption is the cost to the British economy of absenteeism and the like. My noble friend makes a very good point.
EU: Northern Cyprus
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharkey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the exclusion of those living in northern Cyprus from the benefits of that island’s membership of the European Union.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)
My Lords, we endorse the European Council conclusions of 2004 by which the Council undertook to end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community, including through much needed assistance programmes. The best way for all Cypriots to enjoy the benefits of EU membership would be through a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem. We continue to support the leaders of both communities in their efforts to achieve this, and we hope that the UN-led negotiations will restart and succeed in the near future.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My noble friend will know that meat and dairy products are the economic mainstay of northern Cyprus, but they are banned from the EU simply because there is no recognised body in northern Cyprus to certify them as safe, although they are safe. Will the Government look at arranging some form of bilateral certification arrangement that would allow such products to be sold in the United Kingdom?
Baroness Warsi
I cannot comment on my noble friend’s specific request, although if there is any ongoing work in the area of food, I will certainly write to him. As he will be aware, many of the rights and obligations that came with membership of the EU do not apply to the north of the island, but the EU has been working with representatives from the north to make sure that programmes are put in place for eventual reunification and membership of the EU.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us how many Turkish Cypriot citizens are members of the European institutions—the Commission, the Parliament, and so on? If, as I suspect, the answer is zero, does she not agree that it is odd that people who are regarded as citizens of the European Union cannot be recruited to its institutions?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord is aware of the ongoing challenges in the area. I presume that he is correct, but if he is not, I am sure that I will write to him with details of how many citizens from the north of the country are members of European Union institutions.
I come back to the basic point in this matter. The way to resolve these issues in the long run is by achieving a settlement. There is some hope for that. As noble Lords will recall, the current president, Nicos Anastasiades, was one of the few politicians who was supportive of the Annan plan during the 2004 referendum. There is therefore some hope that negotiations will resume and will proceed in a positive way.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I may press my noble friend a little further on this. If, as she says, the United Kingdom as a guarantor power has a legal responsibility to recognise and support the Turkish Cypriot community, why does it appear that the EU border seems to end at the Green Line, so that 300,000 Turkish Cypriots are denied any fundamental rights under the European Union?
Baroness Warsi
My noble friend is a real expert on these issues so I shall not seek to question her assertions, but she will be aware that the European Commission directly implements aid programmes in the north of the country. These social, economic and development programmes are specifically for the Turkish Cypriot community. She will also be aware that if Turkish Cypriots take Republic of Cyprus passports, they can access some of the wider benefits that come with EU membership.
Lord Davies of Coity (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister think there is a measure of inconsistency in, on the one hand, encouraging the Cypriots to reunite while at the same time asking the Scots people perhaps to break up the United Kingdom?
Baroness Warsi
I do not think that this Government are encouraging the Scots not to stay part of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord will be aware that we on this side of the House, and indeed noble Lords on all sides, firmly believe that we are better together.
Identity Cards
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Miller of Hendon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce self-financing photo identity card cards on a purely voluntary basis to establish citizenship status.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have no plans to reintroduce identity cards. Identity cards were abolished in 2010 as part of the Government’s commitment to restore personal freedoms and curtail unnecessary intrusion by the state.
Baroness Miller of Hendon (Con)
I thank the Minister for his reply. I declare an interest in family investment companies which own a few residential properties. Bearing in mind that the forthcoming Immigration Bill will impose major responsibilities on private landlords, the NHS, GPs, banks and even the DVLA to undertake the virtually impossible task of verifying the immigration status of individuals, is it not clear that the existence of some self-funding, authoritative and official identity card, paid for by those who volunteer to acquire it, will be of considerable benefit?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am grateful to my noble friend for her helpful suggestion, but the Government do not believe that a voluntary identity card would help in the Immigration Bill measures. These will be implemented via a range of administrative processes, including through existing documents such as the biometric residence permit and with support from Home Office services.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that, as we move forward using ever more online facilities within government, there will be a need for chip and PIN-type cards for people in this country to ensure their security with all the threats that there are from cyberattacks? People have passports and driving licences. The expression “identity card” is rather pejorative, but we will all end up having to have something because we will otherwise be very vulnerable.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Lord is very well briefed as a result of his previous involvement in the Home Office on this subject. He will know that the Home Office takes great interest in this area. The whole question of identity and how we can establish it lies at the core of an awful lot of policies. I accept what the noble Lord says; the work is actively under review. However, we do not believe that an identity card has a part to play in that.
Lord Deben (Con)
I wonder whether my noble friend would be kind enough to look at this again, simply because the proposal here is for a voluntary card and it would help people. Could we not draw a line under the political arguments which preceded this and accept that many people would like to have access to such a card and that we should provide it at their cost? Surely there is no skin off anybody’s nose for doing so.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I assure my noble friend that a sufficient number of documents are already in circulation which will assist identity processes. There is no need to add a further identity card to the list of cards that people have to carry.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s reply on this. Of course it is part of the coalition agreement that we do not introduce ID cards. We have the citizen’s card, which is mainly available for retailers to decide on the age of those who want to buy tobacco and so on, but we also have 45 million passport holders and 43 million driving licence holders. Surely this is enough. I was really surprised that this might be linked to the Immigration Bill that is coming before us. I think we must look very warily before we even think in this direction.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, surely the point is that the Government opposed the previous identity card on the basis that it was compulsory. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is suggesting a voluntary arrangement, one which would cost the Government nothing but would bring great convenience to many people including the carriers of such a card and those who wanted an authoritative proof of identity. Surely this is something that the Government should consider again. The ability to assure one’s own identity is increasingly necessary.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Noble Lords other than me have already pointed out that there is a large number of documents by which people’s identity can be recognised.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that identity cards are dangerous things because they can be forged but the state does have the right and the need to be able to identify its own citizens? What is needed is at least a unique number. The national insurance number would be an obvious one but you do not get it until you are a certain age; probably the national health number, which you get at birth, would be the sensible one. Would he consider the possibility of amalgamating those two numbers to a number given at birth which could then link citizens to the state?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am sure within your Lordships’ House there are plenty of people who can recite their national service number. I am not entirely sure that I agree with my noble friend on this. However, the Government are well aware of the importance of being able to satisfy identities in the modern age. The noble Lord, Lord West, referred to the modern age in his question. The Home Office is well aware of this and is looking at ways in which this can be done.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the uniqueness of the previous identity card is surely the fact that it was biometric, which identified the person who was attached to the identity card very clearly without any doubt at all. In this case it is suggested that it should be voluntary. What is wrong with this idea?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I have answered that question but I can reinforce the view that biometrics are important, and that is why the residence permit is biometric.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, although I do not always agree with my noble friend Lord Deben, his logic this afternoon was impeccable, as was that of my noble friend Lady Miller, who asked this Question. This is a voluntary scheme and—in an age when identity theft is becoming an ever increasing problem—why cannot the Government accept a scheme that is both voluntary and costs the public purse nothing?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think the noble Lord weakens his argument by that last phrase. It would cost the Government money. It could not be set up in a way whereby the issuing of such cards could be done outside the authority of the state. Given that the authority of the state requires the Government to police the issuing of these cards, then—voluntary or not—there would be an expense to the Exchequer.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
Does the Minister not agree that it is ludicrous to believe that the people who create difficulties with security, problems with immigration, difficulties with claiming benefits in certain areas, and who abuse the NHS and claim benefits from it when they should not are the kind of people who—on a voluntary basis—are going to take out an identity card? As the Government present different pieces of legislation to us where they are trying to track people, does the Minister not see increasingly that they made a major mistake in abolishing the previous Government’s policy of introducing a compulsory card? Does he not see that in due course they will have to return to this and will have to do it? Would he not reflect on the silliness of the position they now find themselves in?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I do not consider that the Government’s position is silly. The noble Lord himself says that the problem with the voluntary scheme is that people would not take it up if they had something to hide. That is quite clear. All I can say to him is that I am quite content with the Government’s position and content to defend it at this Dispatch Box, because it has saved the Government and the country as a whole a considerable amount of money for what would have been very dubious benefits.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, in that case, will the noble Lord reconsider his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack? He said that he could not agree with him because there would be a charge on the Exchequer. Passports are already paid for by individuals on a basis that covers the costs. So are visas. If we can cover the costs for passports and visas, why could we not do it for an identity card? Will the Minister please reflect on the answer that he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I can reflect on it and I certainly promise to do so, but the noble Baroness referred to the passport, which is a perfectly good, valid document. It is very useful and an awful lot of people possess it.
Northern Ireland: Abortion
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they will take in the wake of reports last week on BBC Northern Ireland concerning access to terminations for women in Northern Ireland who are carrying foetuses with severe abnormalities and wish to end their pregnancy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office (Baroness Randerson) (LD)
My Lords, the Abortion Act 1967 does not extend to Northern Ireland, where abortion law is governed by the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Constitutionally, abortion law in Northern Ireland is a transferred matter. It is therefore the responsibility of Northern Ireland Executive Ministers and so not a matter where Her Majesty’s Government have any powers to intervene.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I was hoping to have a slightly more hopeful Answer from the noble Baroness, but I thank her for what she said. I hope that she will join me in congratulating the Mary Stopes clinic, which, tomorrow, is marking the first anniversary of its operation in Belfast. I had hoped that she might refer to the review that is taking place about the issue. That review is welcome, but, until it is completed, would it not be fair for Northern Ireland women who need and want terminations under these very unhappy circumstances to have them provided free under the NHS elsewhere in the UK, where that provision is not illegal? Would the noble Baroness care to reflect on the issue raised about how women in one part of the UK are denied rights and access to terminations that are available to all other women in the UK? I recognise that devolution is devolution, but surely it was not intended to achieve this unsatisfactory outcome for women in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Randerson
The noble Baroness will be aware that this case raises some very difficult issues and is very distressing. However, the current difference in legislation means that women travelling to England for an abortion generally make their own arrangements and fund the procedure themselves. To make exceptions to that would be a major departure from the system of residence-based responsibility and the separation of powers between the health services in the four jurisdictions of the UK. The noble Baroness will recognise that this is a sensitive issue that the previous Labour Government, when they were putting in place the devolution settlement, believed should be left to the people of Northern Ireland to decide for themselves.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton (Lab)
My Lords, I am a little surprised by the Minister’s first reply and I would be grateful for clarification. In 2011, the Government supported a report from the Irish Family Planning Association to the CEDAW periodic review saying that there should be a revision of abortion law in Northern Ireland. I fail to understand why the Government did that if the Minister is right in her argument. I add that this year, again, CEDAW has told the British Government that they need to expedite an amendment to the anti-abortion law in Northern Ireland and create a law to ensure that legal abortion covers circumstances such as threats to a woman’s health and cases of serious malformation of the foetus. As a signatory to CEDAW, when are the Government going to honour their commitments?
Baroness Randerson
I think it is important that the UK Government observe the devolution settlement. However, I think it is also important, as the noble Baroness mentioned, that there is consideration of the situation in Northern Ireland. I draw the attention of noble Lords to the comments of David Ford, Justice Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, who has made it very clear that this issue needs to be reconsidered. Indeed, the Health Minister in Northern Ireland has made similar comments about the current legislation and its applicability in this case. However, it is not an issue for the UK Government.
Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)
Is my noble friend aware that some 14 years ago, when we were legislating on setting up the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales, there was serious debate in both Houses about where responsibility for administering the law on abortion should lie? The decision was taken—in my view, quite rightly—that the law should be uniform throughout the UK, so why should we leave Northern Ireland with an 1861 piece of legislation?
Baroness Randerson
The noble Lord is, of course, very much more aware of the background to this situation than I am. However, the current situation is as the previous Government intended it to be—abortion law in Northern Ireland is left to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It would not be acceptable—I am sure that it would not be acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland—for us to seek to change that unilaterally. I also draw the attention of noble Lords to the fact that when the Northern Ireland Assembly discussed new guidelines on abortion in 2007 they were unanimously rejected by Assembly Members.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments on the fact that abortion is a reserved matter for Northern Ireland and should continue so to be. Is she aware that abortions do occur in Northern Ireland and that there is an ongoing legal duty to recognise that the unborn child, whatever its state of health, is deserving of protection? Is it not the case that England and Wales now needs to reconsider the law on abortion, given that we have a situation in which it is lawful to terminate the life of a baby simply because that baby is a little girl?
Baroness Randerson
On the first point, it is, of course, very much an issue for the people of Northern Ireland. It is a devolved matter and I believe that there is no wish in Northern Ireland for that to change. I would, however, make it absolutely clear to the noble Baroness that it is very certainly not legal to terminate a pregnancy on the grounds of the sex of the child. An investigation into a recent case made that absolutely clear and the Chief Medical Officer will be issuing additional guidance to doctors in the very near future to make sure that that is perfectly clear to all those involved.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Examiner of Petitions for Private Bills
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chairman of Committees
That, pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 69, Mr M D Hamlyn be appointed an Examiner of Petitions for Private Bills in place of Mr S J Patrick.
Business of the House
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, before we move on to Report, I would like to raise a point arising from an amendment to the Care Bill that the Government laid late last night—indeed, some might say “sneaked out 10 minutes before the start of the England-Poland game”. This matter will come to be decided by your Lordships on the last day of Report on Monday night.
Amendment 168A is not a technical or insubstantial amendment; it relates to the powers of special administrators in dealing with NHS trusts that are considered to have failed. It follows what happened in south London. Following the appointment of special administrators, proposals were made to downgrade Lewisham Hospital’s accident and emergency department, even though Lewisham is a well run and much supported hospital. This hospital was completely outside the remit of the special administrators. This led to court proceedings where the Government had to back off in relation to the changes to Lewisham Hospital.
This amendment would essentially permit what the Government wanted to happen with Lewisham Hospital, but which was stopped, to be able to happen in future. Whether or not the Government are right or wrong, this is a very important subject. It deserves full scrutiny in your Lordships’ House, not to be taken as last business on the last day of Report when the House has had no other opportunity of discussing this important matter. I ask the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to agree that this amendment be recommitted to a Committee of the House in order that it can receive full and appropriate scrutiny.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I do not propose to debate this amendment now, but I will refer the noble Lord’s request through the usual channels.
Care Bill [HL]
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:01 - Division on Amendment 83. - Ayes: 247 / Noes: 218 - Amendment 83 agreed.
18:17 - Division on Amendment 120 - Ayes: 198 / Noes: 224 - Amendment 120 disagreed.
19:19 - Division on Amendment 128A - Ayes: 178 / Noes: 198 - Amendment 128A disagreed.
Lord Low of Dalston
“Human Rights Act 1998: provision of “care and support services” to be public function
(1) A person (“P”) who provides regulated “social care” is to be taken for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (acts of public authorities) to be exercising a function of a public nature in doing so.
(2) This section applies to persons providing services regulated by the Care Quality Commission.
(3) In this section “social care” has the same meaning as in the Health and Social Care Act 2008.”
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 138A and 138B, which are in my name in this group. I shall get those amendments out of the way first, as the debate is likely to focus principally on Amendment 83. Clause 75(6) says that anything done or not done by a third party authorised to carry out a particular function is treated as done or not done by the local authority. In effect, the local authority is solely responsible for the third party’s acts or omissions, subject to a couple of exceptions in subsection (7).
The Joint Committee on the draft Care and Support Bill recommended an amendment to make clear that a person with delegated authority is subject to the same legal obligations as the local authority itself. This reflected concerns that there should be a clear chain of accountability by which the individual could hold the third party, not just the local authority, responsible if their rights were infringed. The Government have contended that the clause already provides for continued accountability. They said that the local authority,
“will remain liable for the proper discharge of that function”.
This misconstrues what the Joint Committee was recommending. The Government are viewing accountability solely in terms of the relationship between the third party and the local authority. Subsection (6) precludes the possibility of the individual seeking redress from the third party, so it does not accord with the Joint Committee’s recommendation. The Minister in Committee said that care providers with delegated functions must carry them out in a way that complies with the Human Rights Act 1998 and that any failure to do so will be a failure by the local authority. That is not the same as the third party being subject to the Human Rights Act; the third party would be failing in its obligations to the local authority, but to no one else. The Minister effectively conceded as much when she said:
“By that device, the Human Rights Act would end up having an effect on what those third parties could do, even if they were not themselves directly responsible”.—[Official Report, 29/7/13; col. 1587.]
The noble Earl, in his letter to Peers following Committee stage, confirmed that individuals will have recourse only to third-party dispute resolution procedures or the local authority’s complaints process.
Without these amendments the individual will have no remedy against, for example, a private care home delivering poor service, or a private company failing to carry out proper assessments. We therefore need these amendments to give effect to the Joint Committee’s recommendation that a person with delegated authority should be subject to the same legal obligations as the local authority.
On Amendment 83, I set out the arguments in detail in Committee and shall not repeat them at length here. The matter is really quite simple and straightforward and can be stated briefly. The Human Rights Act 1998 applies to all public authorities and to other bodies when they are performing functions of a public nature. That means that it should apply to all providers of care, given that the provision of care is a public function. However, the matter was thrown into doubt in 2007 by the case of YL v Birmingham City Council, which held that care home services provided by private and third-sector organisations under a contract with the local authority did not come under the definition of “public function” for the purposes of the Human Rights Act. This meant that thousands of service users had no direct remedy against their care provider for abuse, neglect or undignified treatment. Though the public body commissioning the care remained bound by the Human Rights Act, that was of little practical value to the individual on the receiving end of poor or abusive treatment, or the person given four weeks’ notice to leave because they had antagonised their provider, about whom the noble Lord, Lord Warner, told us in Committee.
Accordingly, Section 145 was introduced into the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to clarify that residential care services provided or arranged by local authorities are covered by the Human Rights Act. There has been concern that this Bill would undo Section 145 by repealing Sections 21A and 26 of the National Assistance Act 1948, under which persons were placed in residential care and through which Section 145 has operated. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, responding to the debate in Committee, set minds at rest on that when she provided the assurance that,
“there will be a consequential amendment to Section 145 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 so that there will be no regression in human rights legislation”.—[Official Report, 22/7/13; col. 1118.]
However, there remains concern that Section 145 does not cover all care service users, or even all residential care service users. It only protects those placed in residential care under the National Assistance Act. That being so, it is anomalous not to treat residential care provided under other legislation and domiciliary care in the same way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, reflecting the position put to the Joint Committee on the draft Care and Support Bill, further stated that the Government’s position is that all providers of publicly arranged health and social care services, including those in the private and voluntary sectors,
“should consider themselves to be bound by the duty imposed by section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and not act in a way that is incompatible with a Convention right”.
However, there are two things wrong with this. First,
“should consider themselves to be bound”,
is not the same as “covered in law”. Secondly, the Joint Committee was not convinced. It concluded that, as a result of the decision in the YL case, statutory provision is required to ensure this. As I said in Committee, I have seen a letter in which it is stated that the Government’s position is that care providers are covered, and should not just “consider themselves to be bound”. However, the House of Lords in YL said that they were not and the Joint Committee was not convinced either. Given such uncertainty, it is surely essential that the matter is put beyond doubt in legislation and Amendment 83 would achieve this by deeming that all those providing social care services regulated by the CQC are exercising a public function for the purposes of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act.
The amendment would also include those who are eligible for care but who, due to means testing, have to arrange and/or pay for their own care—so-called “self funders”—and therefore currently lack the full protection of the Human Rights Act. To date, it has been the case, at least for those who were found to be eligible for care in their own home, that the obligation for the local authority to arrange care regardless of the person’s resources provided them with a degree of protection under the Human Rights Act. However, the changes to the system of arranging care to be introduced by the Bill weaken this protection. My amendment follows the approach of the Joint Committee and, if accepted, would provide equal protection to all users of regulated social care regardless of where that care is provided and who is paying for it.
The Government believe, as the Explanatory Notes to the draft Bill make clear, that protection under the Human Rights Act extends to care arranged by a local authority, even if it is self-funded, but the Joint Committee does not accept that this does not require explicit statutory provision. However, regardless of this view, it makes the point that it does not address the situation of self-funders, who arrange their own care and support. The Government, they say, will need to consider whether it is right that, of all adults in need of care, only this group should lack the protection of the Human Rights Act.
Given the manifold ambiguities and uncertainties surrounding this question, surely it is right to take this opportunity of putting the matter beyond doubt, as my amendment would do. What reason can the Government possibly have for resisting it, when all it does is to spell out in words of one syllable in the Bill that to which the Government have no objection—indeed, already believe to be the case—but which is subject to so much doubt in everybody else’s mind? I beg to move.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendments 138A and 138B, but will not add to the excellent comments of the noble Lord, Lord Low. I speak in particular to Amendment 83.
I apologise to your Lordships for not having made any comments in Committee but, as I have pointed out, I was away from the House on the orders of my wife. In supporting Amendment 83, I acknowledge the excellent supporting brief from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who sadly cannot be here today, for his considerable guidance.
The amendment stems from a failure by successive Governments to heed the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Joint Committee on the draft Care and Support Bill to legislate to tackle the problem created by the majority decision of the Law Lords in 2007 in the case of YL v Birmingham City Council.
In YL, the issue was whether a care home, such as that run by Southern Cross Healthcare Ltd, was performing functions of a public nature for the purposes of the Human Rights Act when providing accommodation and care to a resident such as Mrs YL under arrangements made by Southern Cross with Birmingham City Council under Sections 21 and 26 of the National Assistance Act 1948.
The Law Lords decided by three votes to two—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, dissenting—that they were not performing a function of a public nature. However, anyone reading the dissenting judgments of the noble and learned Lord and the noble and learned Baroness would understand why the majority ruling appeared contrary to the objective and purpose of the Human Rights Act. The previous Government thought that YL was wrongly decided and I assume that the present Government share that view. It would be useful if the Minister could confirm that that is the Government’s position.
The previous Government then sought to resolve the problem by intervening in test litigation to clarify or overturn YL, but that did not prove possible. The JCHR twice recommended remedial action, but the previous Government refused to take such action or to support the efforts of Andrew Dismore MP, as the chair of the JCHR, to do so by means of a Private Member’s Bill.
Lord Wills (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way and I hesitate to interrupt him, because I agree with almost everything that he is saying, but on a factual point he is wrong. The previous Government—and I was the responsible Minister—did not disagree. We were trying to find a way of resolving this and we ran out of time. It is not that we disagree with it; we were wholly in agreement with the efforts made by Andrew Dismore. We were simply trying to find a robust way of dealing with that particular problem and we ran out of time.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
I thank my former honorary opponent for that clarification and I certainly would not wish to contradict him. The reality is that the previous Government did, in fact, try to find a way out of this judgment and to correct it in a way which they thought would be beneficial for the people of England and Wales. Instead, they introduced an amendment to the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to extend human rights protection to those receiving residential care arranged by a public authority. The amendment did not extend, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, rightly said, to home care services, even though they were provided under a similar statutory framework. It is that gap that this amendment is designed to fill. Surely there is precious little difference between a local authority securing care services of an individual in a residential care setting or in someone’s own home. That is the kernel of this particular problem.
The Department of Health has explained the Government’s position in Written Answers to the JCHR. It said that,
“all providers of publicly arranged health and social care services, including private and voluntary sector providers, should consider themselves to be bound by the duty imposed by section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and not to act in a way which is incompatible with a convention right”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/7/12; col. 702W.]
We are told that:
“The case law supports a broad application of Section 6(3)(b) and provides that individual factors should be considered in each case. As such YL was a case on the particular facts, and it does not necessarily follow that the reasoning in that case will be applied to other social care settings”.
I find that very difficult to understand. Can the Minister explain the department’s judgment in that way?
The factual settings in YL in favour of a finding that Southern Cross was indeed performing a function of a public nature could not have been stronger, and yet were rejected by the majority so that legislative intervention became necessary. The department says that all providers should consider themselves bound by a Section 6 duty, but the law is entirely uncertain as it stands whether they are required by law to do so.
The department continues in its letter to JCHR:
“The Government do not therefore consider that an amendment to the Human Rights Act 1998 is necessary.”
But Amendment 83 is not seeking to amend the general test in Section 6 of the HRA, but to make it clear that someone who provides regulated social care is to be taken for the purpose of Section 6 (3)(b) to be exercising functions of a public nature in doing so. It is hard to see how it could be otherwise. The department continues by saying that the government position remains that:
“Any amendment to the Human Rights Act in relation to third sector and private providers … risks casting doubt about the interpretation of the Human Rights Act”.
However, the uncertainty is created not by this amendment but by the decision in YL, and by the fact that the amendment made by the previous Parliament was too narrow.
The Joint Select Committee on the draft Bill, chaired by Paul Burstow MP, included strong membership from all sides of the House. The committee’s report, published on 19 March, considered the Government’s arguments with great care at paragraphs 280 to 292, and concluded that the present amendment is absolutely necessary.
I therefore hope that the Minister will have had discussions with his ministerial colleagues and officials and will be able to accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Low, without the need to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I will say a few words in support of Amendment 83 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Low. Before I say anything I will follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and apologise for not having taken part in proceedings on this Bill before. As the Minister may know, I have recently returned from a period of disqualification, which has now been lifted on my retirement from the UK Supreme Court, so I am now able to speak, which I was not able to before. I thought I might contribute just a few thoughts to this debate against the background of that experience.
My first point is that Section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act is one of the few provisions in what was an excellently drafted Act which, in my experience, judges have found rather difficult to apply in practice. The reasons for this were explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, in YL. He made the point that any reasoned decision about the meaning of that phrase,
“functions of a public nature”,
risked falling foul of—as he put it—circularity, preconception and arbitrariness. The words are quite imprecise, so one has to search for some kind of policy guidance as an aid to their interpretation. There may be a whole variety of factors in one case taken with another that have to be brought into account as one tries to reach an answer—and in practice, answers are quite hard to predict.
With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, it is not helpful to ask at this stage whether YL was wrongly decided; we have to take the decision as we find it. That is how the law works. Of course, it is always open to Parliament to take a different view and judges—and, I am certain, noble Lords in that case—appreciate that entirely, as the noble Lord, Lord Neuberger, did for a reason I will come to in a moment. We have to assume that the judges in the lower courts will follow the decision in YL if other cases come before them, and it may not be all that easy for the Supreme Court—if the issue comes back before it in some future case—to depart from the basic reasoning in YL. I therefore suggest that one has simply to approach these issues on the basis that YL is there, and proceed accordingly.
The solution to the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Neuberger, indicated in his speech, at the very end of quite a long judgment, was that if the legislature considered it appropriate that residents in privately owned care homes should be given convention rights protection against the proprietors, it would be right for the legislature to spell that out in terms and make it clear that the rights should be enjoyed by all such residents. The words “spell it out”, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Willis, used, make the point that one has to have something which puts the matter plainly on the record and which gets over the difficulty created by the very broad reach of the subsection in Section 6.
As we have heard—I do not need to go over the ground again myself—an amendment was made to the 2008 Act which did not extend to regulated home care services, so there is a gap. There are, therefore, two questions. First, should the gap be filled? Secondly, which is a question for the Minister, how should that be done?
As far as the first point is concerned, as I understand the progress of events, and my reading has indicated this, there is not really any dispute about this because the Department of Health’s position, as explained to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, is that,
“all providers of publicly arranged health and social care services … should consider themselves to be bound by the duty imposed by section 6 … not to act in a way which is incompatible with a convention right”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/7/12; col. WA 702.]
I think it was also suggested that it would not necessarily follow that the decision in YL, which was about a care home, would apply to other social care solutions.
I see a difficulty with that approach. Comments of the kind that were made, that people should consider themselves bound by a convention right, however well intentioned, do not have the force of law. They could not be relied upon, for example, in a court to guide a judge about the meaning of Section 6(3)(b) in the particular context. Therefore, they leave the law in a state of uncertainty because they do not have the force of law, and they have no relevance to a decision that the court would have to take.
If one takes the example of a provider who is faced with a claim from a person who is in need of care and not receiving it or whose rights are being infringed, that provider will probably have to seek legal advice as to what should be done. Legal advice would take the provider back to YL, and we find ourselves once again faced with the gap to which other speakers have drawn attention. It is perfectly true that YL was a decision on its own facts, but I respectfully suggest that the implications of the decision go wider than that. If you read the judgments, there is a distinction between private, profit-making bodies on the one hand and state or government-owned bodies with public functions on the other. One can debate how far private and profit-making bodies may be caught by the section, but that is the area which is creating difficulty.
The fact that that body was regulated, which was the situation in YL, was not determinative. The fact that we are dealing with social care which is regulated is not the answer to the problem. That is where the gap now confronts us. I would respectfully suggest, in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Low, that the answer is to do as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, urged us to do at the end of his judgment and to spell it out in terms that a person who provides regulated social care is to be taken to be exercising a public function.
There is another point. A failure by Parliament to grasp this opportunity now and to make it clear will be noticed. There is a risk that, if that opportunity is not taken by Parliament now, courts may take this as a sign that Parliament is content with the law as it stands and may be understood to be on the basis of YL.
I absolutely appreciate that there is a question for the Minister whether this amendment would have wider implications. From my own experience, and having read the judgment in YL too, I am quite certain that thought passed through the minds of the judges. There is reference, for example, to schools and other institutions; the judges may have considered, “If we make a pronouncement about this, it may affect other circumstances and situations”. There is a difference, of course, between a judge making that kind of pronouncement and Parliament’s putting forward or putting into a measure a precisely targeted measure which deals with a particular problem. It is the difference between a sledgehammer, I would say, to crack a nut, and a rapier which deals with a particular issue. I do not see that there is any real risk that, by dealing with the matter in the targeted way that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Low, seeks to do, it will be taken as a signal in the courts that there is some wider reach in Section 6(3)(b) from that which was being discussed in YL.
It is a difficult issue, but I respectfully suggest that it has to be addressed now and that there is a real risk that, if we do not do it now, it will give rise to real problems later. I warmly support the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Low.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 83. I would have spoken on this in Committee, but unfortunately I was drowning in continuity of care. I feel that we are missing an important aspect in the debate: namely, the provider’s voice. I will give noble Lords an example from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We ran an inquiry into Article 13 of the UN convention on the rights of disabled people. We took evidence from a range of providers, including private sector providers. We heard very good evidence from a private sector provider. When they were questioned about the Human Rights Act, it became evident that there was a great deal of confusion about when their homes were covered and when they were not. They erred towards saying, “No, we don’t think we’re covered because we haven’t been trained in that area”.
It became very evident to me that there was a crying need for clarification in this area. I asked a very simple question about what the witness thought that this meant for her private sector homes. She said, “Well, to be honest, we already do it. We allow our residents to go to bed at whatever time they like before 10 pm”. I feel that the misunderstanding of how the Human Rights Act covers private sector care homes was illustrated in that one moment. Therefore, the law needs clarifying—and this clarification would be welcomed not only by private sector care home providers.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, my name is on the amendment and, of course, I warmly support it. My noble and learned friend, Lord Hope of Craighead, analysed the situation in full, and in a way that in my view was absolutely correct and worthy of being followed. It is quite something for me to realise that my pupil has returned here as a result of his age, but obviously so far his acumen has been in no way affected.
The department says that people who provide this sort of care should consider themselves bound by the Human Rights Act. Why? Is that a mistake? No. So let us make it correct. Let us make sure that they are bound by the Human Rights Act. We are doing exactly what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, suggested: where a particular function is to be regarded as of a public nature, the easiest thing to do is to say that. That is exactly what the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Low, does.
I do not wish to get into the history of the previous Administration. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, came to the battlefront on that on previous occasions in my hearing. I do not know anything at all about that. However, there are two ways of approaching this. One is to consider amending the Human Rights Act, which I think was happening until the demise of the previous Government put an end to their considerations. The other is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, said: do not trouble with trying to provide a better policy in the Human Rights Act but say when you want it to apply. That is exactly what is required here.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment—or that he will table his own amendment at Third Reading. I also hope that this will not be a matter on which we will have to test the opinion of the House, because we agree on the policy that the Human Rights Act should apply. The only question is whether the law has been properly framed to deal with that—and we can have no higher authority speaking on that matter in this House than a retired member of the Supreme Court.
Lord Warner (Lab)
I rise as a member of the Joint Select Committee to strongly support the amendment. I shall not go over the previous legal history, or repeat what I said in Committee, other than to emphasise a particular aspect of the case to which I drew attention then. That case related to an elderly woman in her 90s who was resident in a private care home and was totally self-funded. She had been a resident for some time and had the temerity to air her views on assisted dying, which did not please some of the home’s staff. She did not seek anybody’s help to commit suicide; she just expressed her views. The home’s management gave her four weeks’ notice to leave the home as a result. When her son raised the issue of her rights under the Human Rights Act with legal counsel, the opinion he was given was that she lacked protection under that Act because she was not in receipt of a service from a body providing a function of a public nature as her placement was neither publicly provided nor in a publicly funded home.
As a member of the Joint Select Committee I raised this matter when we were looking at the Bill and, after deliberation, the committee was unanimous in recommending that the Bill should be amended to clarify matters. This is what the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Low, does. It covers all users of a regulated social care service. It is clear that there are differences of legal opinion on this matter when particular cases are raised. I consider that as parliamentarians, it is our duty to put the matter beyond doubt and provide self-funders with the legal certainty that other elderly people may have when they are in receipt of either domiciliary or residential care.
One of the most important new points that has been made on this issue since we debated it before was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, when he said that courts will notice if we do not take this opportunity to amend and clarify this legislation. That means that we cannot—as one of my children would say—faff around any longer on this issue. We have to make a decision; the amendment makes that decision, and we should all support it. Frankly, the Government should stop the legal equivalent of counting how many angels can be put on the head of a pin and accept the legal certainty that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Low, provides. They should be supporting people who are paying their own way by funding their care, not the reverse. There will be a lot more of them in the future so let us provide that protection now.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, I share, of course, the concern of all noble Lords that we should take all reasonable steps to protect vulnerable people who receive social care in whatever circumstances. I enter this debate for the first time with considerable trepidation, having regard to the great distinction of those, both present and absent, who support this amendment. I have to express some real doubts about it.
As far as I am aware this is the first time an attempt has been made to include, within the scope of the Human Rights Act, what may be a purely private function. Those who receive care may not be overly concerned with whether it is being provided by a public authority, a private provider, or in some hybrid arrangement. Nevertheless, this amendment is in effect extending the scope of the convention beyond the terms of the Human Rights Act.
It is important to consider what protection would be available anyway, in the absence of this amendment. If a poor standard of care is provided to an individual, it is likely that the provider will be in breach of an express term of any contract or in breach of a term implied by the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. There will almost certainly be a claim in tort, probably relying on the tort of negligence. There is, of course, a further safeguard in relation to all providers of publicly arranged care, in that all such providers have a duty imposed by Section 6 of the Human Rights Act, at least following what I would submit was the closing of the YL loophole by Section 145 of the Health and Social Care Act. The CQC, as a regulator and a public authority, is subject to the convention.
However, the amendment would, as I understand it, purport to provide some additional remedy; presumably some award of damages. The noble Lord should be aware of the relatively limited scope of damages awards under the Human Rights Act. As Lord Bingham said in the Greenfield case in 2005,
“the 1998 Act is not a tort statute. Its objects are different and broader. Even in a case where a finding of violation is not judged to afford the applicant just satisfaction, such a finding will be an important part of his remedy and an important vindication of the right he has asserted. Damages need not ordinarily be awarded to encourage high standards of compliance by member states, since they are already bound in international law to perform their duties under the Convention in good faith, although it may be different if there is felt to be a need to encourage compliance by individual officials or classes of official”.
The House of Lords also emphasised that the Human Rights Act was not to be regarded as a panacea. Indeed, Lord Bingham went on in Greenfield to say that the purpose of the Act,
“was not to give victims better remedies at home than they could recover in Strasbourg”.
However, that would be the position here if this amendment was passed. My conclusion is that the amendment amounts to an illegitimate extension of the Human Rights Act and would not, in reality, provide any significant extra protection for those who, quite understandably, we wish to protect.
The future of the Human Rights Act will have to await the outcome of the next election. However, amending the Act, which is what in effect this will do, would be inappropriate and, I have to say, unnecessary.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Before the noble Lord sits down, can he explain what, in his view, the remedy is for the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Warner, referred?
Lord Faulks
I understand that in the case to which the noble Lord referred, there was a private provider. There would therefore be the remedies I referred to earlier in my remarks—the normal remedies that those who receive services through a private arrangement would have. The Human Rights Act of course is concerned entirely with remedies against public authorities. I respectfully suggest that one must not lose sight of the remedies that exist, and have always existed, in relation to breaches or violations of anybody’s rights in the circumstances described.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Before the noble Lord sits down, can he just clarify something? Noble Lords will have to forgive me, because we have had some very learned legal arguments here and I speak as a simple clinician. Half of the patients in a place of care run by a private provider may be funded by, and have gone through assessments provided by, the NHS. They would therefore be covered by the Human Rights Act but the other half, who have to fund their own care because some official somewhere said that they did not fall within the bar for continuing care funding, would not be covered. The decision as to whether the cover, at the end of the day, applies or does not apply will be left to whichever person determines the funding bar for that individual, as opposed to our knowing that we have protection for those who are vulnerable across the piece.
Lord Faulks
The noble Baroness refers to protection. With respect, the assumption behind her question is that, whatever the arrangements, those people would lack any protection. The burden of my speech is that they would have protection anyway. There is, of course, a distinction between whether their care is a result of a publicly procured arrangement or a purely private arrangement. In the latter case, as the law is currently, there would not be any involvement of the Human Rights Act. But, with respect, the House should not be under any illusion that there is no remedy or no protection for people in the circumstances where there is a private arrangement.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
The noble Lord sat down without answering the question that I asked him, which I am very keen for him to answer. My understanding is that this elderly lady was in a home and she was given full notice to leave; there was no question of any breach of contract or anything of that kind. Therefore, the sorts of remedies to which the noble Lord has referred would not be available, whereas under the Human Rights Act there is at least a very considerable probability that she would have some protection.
Lord Faulks
I am sorry that I did not answer the question adequately for the noble and learned Lord. My response is that actually the Human Rights Act remedies, which I endeavoured to deal with in my remarks, would not of themselves provide the sort of remedy that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, had in mind. As was outlined by Lord Bingham in the Greenfield case, the remedies are in fact very limited, very often amounting to a decision that there has been a violation, rather than the sort of practical remedy that I understand the noble Lord to have in mind. That is my response.
Lord Warner
My Lords, just to clarify matters, if this lady had been covered by the Human Rights Act, the son would have been able to take legal action to try to prevent the home removing her. The mischief that was being committed was the forcible removal of a woman in her 90s from the place that she had lived in for a very long time. What the Human Rights Act—as I understand it; I am not a lawyer—would have provided protection for was the ability of a relative to seek protection from the courts that this home, in taking that action, was actually in breach of the Human Rights Act. I do not think that the noble Lord’s suggested remedies would have helped in this case or any other like it.
While I am on my feet, I say to the noble Lord that this Act changes the position anyway, because that lady, or a similar person in the future, might well have come up against the cap on her privately funded care and her care would then be paid for by the state, which would be performing a public function—or a function of a public nature—in paying for her care in that private provision. This Act changes the dimension from the past as well.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I do not know whether I am permitted to speak again since we are on Report but perhaps I might just say for clarification that in my opinion the analysis by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, of the reach of the Human Rights Act is entirely accurate. We have had a number of cases, in both the House of Lords Appellate Committee and the Supreme Court, dealing with the kind of problem where people say that they are losing their home because of steps being taken to remove them from premises that they occupy. It is that reach and the uncertainty that has been drawn attention to, where some people have the protection and some do not, that causes real problems.
Lord Faulks
In response to that, of course the Act provides that a court can give just satisfaction, and the remedy may include something of the sort to which the noble and learned Lord refers. However, if there is, as I think I understand the facts of the case, a violation of ordinary private law principles, the remedy should in those circumstances be available. But I think I have trespassed on the House’s patience for long enough.
Lord Skelmersdale (Con)
My Lords, this debate seems to have degenerated into a recommittal stage, which the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite called for at the very beginning of today’s proceedings. However, I do not think that he, or I, or probably anybody else, wants to recommit this particular clause which is, after all, a new clause.
Lord Wills
My Lords, I support Amendment 83. I should also apologise to the House for not being present in Committee on this Bill. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has already said, I do have form on this particular issue.
This amendment deals with what is a long-standing anomaly in the scope of the Human Rights Act, which was created originally by the YL case. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has said, it is not for politicians to determine whether cases are rightly or wrongly decided. It was the considered view of the previous Government—and it remains my own view—that that case produced a result that was not compatible with the original intentions of Parliament in passing the Human Rights Act. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and to all the discussion we have just heard, the intent of the Human Rights Act was not only to provide specific remedies in the sort of case that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has just described. Among other things, it was also to try to create a new culture in the delivery of public services—a culture of dignity and respect for the individual in relation to the state. It seems to me that this is precisely what this amendment sets out to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Low, said in introducing it, it seeks to extend, and to put beyond all doubt, the fundamental protections of the Human Rights Act to some of the most vulnerable members of our society. I support everything that has been said today in favour of this amendment; there have been very powerful speeches putting forward the argument far better than I can.
As we have heard, this anomaly is something that the previous Government wanted to address. We ran out of time before we could adopt the particular remedy that we thought was appropriate. It is an anomaly that your Lordships have debated before, but without finding a way of making progress. Today we have a real chance to make progress. It is significant that two of the proposers of the amendment—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester—have in the past expressed concerns about previous attempts to deal with this particular issue. The fact that they are supporting this amendment suggests that their concerns have now been satisfied and that they do not feel that there are going to be unwelcome and perverse consequences from dealing with this issue in the way that this amendment proposes. For this reason, and for all the other reasons we have already heard, I hope your Lordships will take this opportunity to put this issue beyond doubt and extend these protections to some of the most vulnerable members of our society.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, this has been a very important debate and I am sure we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Low, for the persuasive way in which he moved his amendment. There was a lack of certainty about the scope of the Human Rights Act, arising from the YL case which decided that a private care home providing residential care services under contract to a local authority was not performing a public function and its residents were therefore excluded from the protection of the Human Rights Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was right to remind us that we are on Report, but I wanted to reflect on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in Committee. To an extent, it is an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. What the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said is that the vulnerability of the person receiving care and the risk of abuse is the reason why he thought the law should impose duties on the provider under the Human Rights Act. In all those circumstances, it should encourage the maintenance of high standards and provide a direct remedy for the victim in appropriate cases.
In Committee, we heard from the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, who relied on two defences of the Government’s position. The first was—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has reminded us—that those providers of publicly arranged health and social care services, including those in the private and voluntary sectors, should consider themselves bound by the duty. I am sure that we should all consider ourselves to be bound by many things, but the fact that we consider ourselves to be so does not mean that we are bound by them.
The Government’s second defence was that the Care Quality Commission as the regulator is subject to the Human Rights Act and that may give rise to a positive obligation to ensure that individuals are protected from treatment that is contrary to their convention rights. It is a duty that falls on the CQC itself, and I remind the House that we are talking about thousands and thousands of providers of services. I do not think that it is a sufficient defence for people who are caught in a vulnerable situation. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, expressed doubts about including a private function and he pointed to a number of safeguards that already exist, including Section 6 and the CQC, but the vulnerability of so many of the people who we are concerned about seems to express a need for greater statutory provision.
I also remind noble Lords that many of the people we are talking about will move in and out of private care and public care, and at some point under this legislation will actually be in receipt of public support as well as contributing to the cost of their care. We know that when the cap comes in, people will then be entitled to public support, but that does not cover the hotel costs which are estimated at around £12,000 a year. Many people will be in receipt of public support while also having some form of private contract and top-ups, which we have discussed. It would ensure that people had a relationship both in terms of public support and a personal relationship with their private providers. For all these reasons, the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Low, is very persuasive indeed.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said that she thought that talks would be undertaken. I am not aware of those talks and certainly the Opposition have not been invited to them. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to report on what discussions have taken place. At this point, however, we should note the arguments that have been put and I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Low.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords have spoken eloquently in support of these amendments and I appreciate the strength of feeling across the House. This is an important issue that is fundamentally concerned with the safeguarding of vulnerable people. While I always hesitate in the extreme to disagree with so many distinguished noble Lords, including noble and learned Lords, I have to say to the House emphatically that these amendments are neither necessary nor an appropriate way to achieve the objectives that are being sought.
As I said before on this issue, the Human Rights Act is about public functions; in other words, it is legislation that concerns the interface between the individual and the state. This philosophy underpins the European Convention on Human Rights and therefore also the Human Rights Act. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, to whom I listened with great attention, referred to the case of YL in response to my noble friend Lord Willis, and he urged that the judgment in that case should be accepted and that we should essentially move on. I respectfully agree with that, but I suggest that the key point in this context is what the previous Government did through the Health and Social Care Act 2008. The Act strengthened the regulatory powers to ensure that the Care Quality Commission can enforce regulatory requirements that are in line with the relevant provisions of the European convention, and this applies to all providers of regulated activity, which includes personal care whether publicly or privately funded.
Lord Wills
I would not want the Minister to pray in aid the previous Government’s approach to this. The measures that we took, and which he seems to suggest have sorted out this problem, were in our own minds an interim measure while we tried to work out what any consequences would be not of expanding the scope of the Human Rights Act but of making clear the original intent of Parliament. The Minister suggests that there would be perverse consequences of accepting the amendment. In which areas of public policy does he think those consequences will manifest themselves?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I have just described one of those perverse consequences: that we would purport to be giving rights to people which could not be pursued before the European Court of Human Rights. If I could correct the noble Lord, I was not seeking to suggest that the previous Government had addressed the issue that I have been talking about. They addressed part of the issue in the Health and Social Care Act 2008, but there is another dimension to it, as I have said. The amendment would risk creating an asymmetry, which once again risks creating legal uncertainty and confusion.
What people using services and their families want and need is reassurance that they will be treated with care, compassion, kindness and skill. This amendment would not provide any of those things. People are not, surely, really exercised about which route of redress they have if things go wrong so long as they have one, which they do; what they expect is for things not to go wrong in the first place.
I do not accept the argument that putting this measure into legislation will deter those who abuse or neglect, or galvanise providers into preventing those things. It would not send some kind of message that should not otherwise already be amply clear to all providers of care and support: that poor-quality care is unacceptable.
What I think will make much more of a difference are the stronger measures to improve care that the Government are proposing: the emphasis the CQC is placing on individual experience as opposed to paperwork, the improvements in commissioning and the safe routes for whistleblowers. We are amending the requirements that providers have to meet to enable the CQC to take effective action against providers that do not provide acceptable levels of care. With these things in place, it is my view that when things go wrong we will have a strong and effective mechanism for dealing with the situation. For all these reasons I say to the House that the amendment should be decisively and emphatically rejected.
I now turn to Amendments 138A and 138B, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Low. Their effect would be that, where a local authority delegates a function, in addition to the local authority remaining subject to all of its legal obligations in the way the function is discharged, the person authorised under the delegation would also be directly subject to those same obligations. These would include, for example, obligations arising under the Human Rights Act. The amendments are unnecessary because when it delegates its functions, Clause 75(6) is clear that the local authority remains responsible for the way that that function is discharged. The person using care and support will therefore always have a route of redress against the local authority even if the local authority has delegated the discharge of the function to a third party.
Furthermore, these amendments could prove unhelpful because, by making both the local authority and the contractor liable, they could create a lack of clarity about who is ultimately responsible for complying with the local authority’s statutory obligations when a function is delegated. We believe strongly that it must remain absolutely clear that the ultimate responsibility lies with the local authority and that it cannot absolve itself of this in any way. This is an important principle of allowing local authorities to delegate their functions and we do not want to cast any doubt on this.
The underlying intent of these amendments is unexceptionable as they are about protecting the rights of people using health and care services. However, I am absolutely and firmly resolved that these amendments will not achieve what we all want, which is that everyone receives safe, dignified and respectful care and that we must prevent abuse in the first place. With that, I can only express the hope that the noble Lord will think again and decide to withdraw Amendment 83.
Lord Warner
Before the noble Earl sits down, can he clarify something from his earlier remarks about the Human Rights Act? I ask with a certain amount of humility but also from the perspective of one of the people who wrote the Labour Party’s policy in 1996 on the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into what became the Human Rights Act in this country. When that Act was framed, the definition of a public function, or the nature of a public function, was one which did not to a great extent anticipate the move over the next 10 to 15 years in which public services would actually be undertaken and provided by private and voluntary bodies. It simply did not do that. However, the terminology was wide enough at the time to embrace an organisation like Channel 4, which had a mix of public and private functions. It was incorporated, as I recall, into that legislation on the basis of its partial role in performing public functions.
The noble Earl seems to accept that, over time, case law can change the definition of the nature of a public function. He seems to be saying that we have to plod through the courts, case by case, to change the definition. I rather lost him when he then tried to argue that you cannot do it by groups of cases, which is effectively what this amendment does. Is the noble Earl saying that the definition of the nature of a public function—in the law as it is—cannot be changed by cases and can only be changed by amending the primary legislation itself?
Earl Howe
I think that I covered that point when I said that the courts have ruled that there is no single test to determine whether a function is of a public or a private nature. They have also pointed out that there are serious dangers in trying to formulate such a test, which is what the amendment is trying to do, in its own way. If we go back to the noble Lord’s example of the 90 year-old lady in the care home and even if the Human Rights Act were to apply, it is impossible to predict the outcome of an application to a court for—let us say—an injunction to prevent her removal, because each case is fact-specific. It may be found that the lady’s human rights were not violated, but it is not possible to predict that in advance. I hope that clarifies the position and answers the noble Lord’s question.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, although it obviously leaves me a little disappointed. I do not propose to respond on Amendments 138A and 138B, because I do not propose to press them to a Division when we finally reach them. However, I should like to say something in response to what has been said about Amendment 83.
First, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, especially those who have spoken in support from all quarters of the House. It has been a high-calibre debate which does credit to a House noted for characteristically engaging in debate of a high calibre. This one was, I think, particularly authoritative. Without wishing to be invidious in any way, I particularly give thanks for the exceptionally thoughtful, careful and authoritative analysis to which we were treated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.
I also observe that we were deprived of the analysis of two of my other supporters who attached their names to the amendment, the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Lester, who were unable to be here. In those who added their names to the amendment, those who have spoken and those who would have spoken had they been here, we could not have had a more authoritative and heavyweight line-up in support of the amendment in this House.
There has been general agreement that the matter should be put beyond doubt. Indeed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, pointed out, it would actually be dangerous if we were not to do so. If I understood the noble Earl correctly, he said that we should stick with the position that was arrived at as a result of Section 145 of the Health and Social Care Act. As the noble Lord, Lord Wills, made clear, when he said that noble Lords should not pray in aid the position arrived at by the previous Government, this is unfinished business. No one can pretend that we have reached a final resolution of these matters with Section 145 of the Health and Social Care Act. That is why it is so important that we should take the opportunity presented by the Bill to take the further steps necessary to put the matter beyond doubt.
We have heard what the noble Earl had to say in response to the debate, but I confess that I am baffled. Between Committee and Report, the Government seem to have executed a complete volte face and completely changed their position. The position explained to us in Committee was that the Government did not believe that the amendment was necessary because the matters that it sought to put beyond doubt were already provided for. Today, the noble Earl tells us that he must urge the House to reject the amendment because the matters should not be provided for. The Government need to make up their mind what their position is.
The Minister also made the point that we should not take this step because it would deliver to service users rights over and above those available under the ECHR. I am sorry, but I simply do not understand that point. The amendment simply delivers to service users rights which are available under the Human Rights Act, which is predicated upon the ECHR. Even the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, agrees, I think, that we should put the matter beyond doubt; he just does not think that we should put it beyond doubt in this way or that the Human Rights Act should be extended this far. Having listened to all the debate, I submit that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and of course the Minister in adopting his remarks, are on their own in this matter in the House. There is general agreement not only that we should put the matter beyond doubt, but that we should put it beyond doubt in the manner which this amendment secures. Indeed, until today this agreement used to include the Government.
I think we should put the matter to rest, as the Minister has said, decisively and emphatically in the terms this amendment provides for and which the Government, until very recently, supported in substance, so I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Patel
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in my name in this group. I thank the Minister for the government amendments, which go a considerable way towards helping the arrangements for the transition of children to adulthood. My amendments are intended to strengthen that. I thank my noble friend Lady Finlay for putting her name to the amendments.
Amendment 83A is one of a series of amendments which I have tabled with the intention of bringing about better outcomes for young people who need to transition from child to adult palliative care services. These young people are represented by the Transition Taskforce, a partnership of organisations which includes Help the Hospices, the National Council for Palliative Care, Marie Curie Cancer Care and Together for Short Lives. All these organisations support these amendments.
I have spoken previously at other stages of the Bill about the 40,000 children and young people—these are the numbers we are talking about—aged from 0 to 19 in England who live with long-term health conditions, which for most of these children will eventually end their lives and for which they may require palliative care. Medical advances mean, however, that young people with a range of different conditions now live to adulthood—some 10% of the 40,000 children now live beyond 19 years.
Good planned transition, when it works, changes the lives of these young people. Unfortunately, for the majority that is not happening. I will give the example of one young girl, Lucy Watts, who is 20 years old, and has Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which means that Lucy has a number of inherited conditions which were diagnosed by the time she was a teenager and is unable to eat normal food. Her system does not digest food and she is fed intravenously all the time. While she is able to sit up for a few hours a day, Lucy spends most of her time in bed. Lucy’s mum, who has a full-time job, carries out the majority of her care and all of her day-to-day medical care.
However, Lucy is fortunate, because her transition to adult service was excellent because there was joint working between children’s and adult services over the course of a whole year. That is the important point. It takes a long time for transition arrangements to be put in place for these children. Lucy is quite a feisty young lady. She said:
“Transitioning from children’s to adult in the medical and social world is a huge step ... The people involved in my care have been very supportive and were brought in before I started the transition”.
Lucy’s case demonstrates how important it is for young people and families that their transition is planned well in advance of their 18th birthday and why our amendments to stipulate a timeframe for a child’s needs assessment are so important.
I very much welcome the fact that the Government have amended the Bill to ensure that when it appears to a local authority that the child or their carer is likely to have needs for care and support after the child becomes 18, the local authority must assess them. I appreciate, too, the Government’s stated position that the needs of very young people are different and that their care needs can change between the ages of 14 and 18 in a variety of ways. However, our amendments would provide flexibility by ensuring that assessments could be initiated before the age of 14 if requested by the child or parent or if it appears to the local authority that an assessment is necessary and appropriate. Local authorities would have until the age of 16 to assess the child’s needs. They would not be prevented from reassessing a young person if their needs changed before they reached 18. They would also enable local authorities a period of two years to assess the child’s needs in cases where their care needs become apparent only after the age of 14. Without these important thresholds, it is feasible that a local authority may leave it too late to carry out a child’s needs assessment.
Setting the age threshold for a child’s needs assessment at 14 is also based on the existing statutory requirement for every young person in year 9—that is, aged 14 to 15—with a statement of special educational needs to have a transition plan. Our amendment would ensure that transition planning correlates with that requirement and reflects best practice in exemplary palliative care services in England. It is entirely reasonable that some young people with life-limiting conditions, including those with conditions such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy and cerebral palsy, could be expected from an early stage to live beyond 18. Assessing and planning for their future needs should therefore begin at the age of 14. Our amendments would ensure that this is the case without disadvantaging young people with other disabilities, which is the concern that was expressed. The Bill already stipulates that where a local authority deems a child’s assessment not to be in the best interest of the young person or the young person does not consent to being assessed, an assessment will not take place.
Amendment 89B, which is a long amendment, corrects the anomaly of the transition and the duty on local authorities. While the Bill currently makes provisions to enable local authorities to carry out a child’s needs assessment, there is no duty on local authorities to use the assessment to create a transition plan for the young person. Amendment 89B would ensure that, if a child’s needs assessment finds that a young person is likely to need health or social care when they reach adulthood, a statutory five-year rolling transition plan should be prepared by the time they are 16.
The amendment has a number of other important features. It would ensure that children, parents and carers were involved in the transition planning process and that transition plans are maintained until the young person reaches the age of 25, which 10% of these children would probably reach. Further, one of the provisions included in the Children and Families Bill is to introduce an integrated education, health and care plan—or EHC plan—for young people who have special educational needs. This will include many—but, crucially, not all—young people who need palliative care. Where a young person stays in education or training, they will be eligible for an EHC plan until the age of 25. I recognise that an EHC plan could fulfil the functions which I intend the transition plan in my amendment to fulfil. An optimal position would be for EHC plans to be available to all young disabled people up to the age of 25—but that is not the case. Our amendments will provide similarly joined-up transition provision for young people who need palliative care but do not have SEN.
Amendments 93A, 94A and 94B would amend and address the carer’s needs. In considering young people who need to transition from children’s to adult services, it is also important that we address the needs of those who care for them. I welcome the Government’s aspiration to do so and the amendment that the Government have already tabled to strengthen the Bill. However, as with the clauses relating to planning for young people’s needs on transition, we need to go further in order to ensure that planning for carers also happens in a timely fashion. Amendment 93A would introduce an age threshold of 14 at which a local authority would be duty-bound to undertake a child carer’s needs assessment.
I hope that I have persuaded the Minister that his amendments, excellent as they are, need a bit more tweaking to make it possible to streamline the process of transition of children to adulthood. My amendments merely help to do that. Some children may of course begin to need long-term health or social care after they are 14. In such cases it may not be reasonable to expect a local authority to complete a child carer’s needs assessment before the child reaches the age of 16. I hope that the Minister will be persuaded enough to add to his excellent amendments a few more to fulfil these needs. I look forward to hearing his response.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Patel for the way in which he has introduced our amendments. I greatly welcome the Government’s amendments in this area of transition. The reason that our amendments are written as they are is because this group of children are different to adults who are terminally ill. They have life-limiting conditions, but their prognosis may be years. However, during that time they know that they will deteriorate, as do their parents. We are therefore looking at completely different timeframes, and with completely unpredictable prognoses, except for the likelihood that they will live through into adulthood. Some of them, of course, live surprisingly long periods of time and may live several decades into adulthood. They tend to have the inherited disorders of metabolism. They are a different cohort from those who have terminal illnesses such as cancer. There are also those children who, for example, have had very severe sudden injuries, such as a severe head injury, and then develop epilepsy, which can then become so severe that it is life threatening. Many of the children also have learning difficulties and educational needs.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, I particularly wish to speak on Amendments 83A and 84, but I could just as easily have spoken on any one of these amendments—there is such a big group of them—because the issue that I wish to raise is my concern over this care issue falling down between this Bill and the Children and Families Bill. The timing of these two Bills makes it very difficult unless the Minister, having heard all these debates that everyone will give now, and the comments on these issues, gives us an undertaking that he will liaise with the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and that between them they might try and sort out where it is going to go. This is what worries me: that it will end up going nowhere or come up from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, in a form that will make it too late to bring back here, unless the Minister says that he will look at everything said today and bring back an amendment—or at least accept an amendment if we could all agree on one.
So much of what has been said made sense. The comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, were fascinating, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, put it all very clearly. The noble Baroness spoke more on issues about which I am particularly concerned. My eldest grandson is a Down’s child. His Down’s is fairly severe. He has been fortunate in having wonderful care at a Mencap home. He is 22 and this is his last year of receiving full support. He was very happy at the home for some years, until a glitch appeared in the past year. In his unit, a number of residents are put together to live a normal life and to learn how to go out and live in society. Unfortunately, a very aggressive boy was put into the group. No one knew that he was aggressive. He attacked the staff quite violently. As a result, others—I do not know whether it was just my grandson, or whether it was others as well—copied him. This is a terrible risk. If we do not supervise people and have continuing care and assessment of them, how do we know that they will not meet a violent person who behaves in this way, either deliberately or for some other reason—for example, because they are violent and cannot help trying to impose violence on everyone else? It is a real worry not only for the person but for society and the community.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke about the parents who care so much. The parents of this boy are both very clever doctors. One of his siblings is just starting medicine and the other hopes to in the next year or so. So he has siblings who would be able to care if his parents die before him. However, people with Down’s syndrome can live to a considerable age. I have met people of 50 and 60 who have the syndrome. In many cases, their parents will not be alive. It is a huge responsibility to pass on to siblings. Therefore, it is important that, as far as possible, these people should be brought into society to live as normally as they can. As they grow older, they usually grow bigger and stronger. Therefore, they are more of a worry to themselves and to other people. It is terribly important that the assessment of cases for continuing care should be made, and should continue to be made—and not just at 25. If people are going to live to 50, they may need support until then.
A number of the amendments put down by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, cover that issue, but without defining it clearly. This is why I am speaking in general on the amendments in this group. It is important that this should be clear. I have added my name to an amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in the Children and Families Bill. It is in response to the implication that the Government are thinking of taking out care completely: that once education finishes, nothing more will follow. That is why it is so important to be assured in this Bill that something else will follow.
My daughter tells me—and she has sent me a letter from another parent—that there is great concern that parents are not listened to nearly as much as other people are. The noble Earl’s Amendment 84 does not really cover anyone except a remote person in a local authority who will be responsible for needs. There is nothing to say that they will consult, or even consider the views of, parents or the person who is doing most of the caring for the person concerned. None of the amendments in this group quite reaches what is necessary to cover the issue. I hope that when the Minister sums up, he will give an assurance that will leave the way open for this to be considered at Third Reading. The rules on what can be brought back at Third Reading are very specific. If today we all ended up either winning or losing on some particular thing, it would not necessarily mean that we could modify it in a way that we all thought was better and brought a better answer. I support Amendment 83A and probably quite a number of others, but I will not go into the details because my argument applies both for and against so many of these amendments and I do not want to waste the House’s time by speaking more than once.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am pleased that I have been able to table amendments that significantly strengthen these important provisions, and I am grateful to noble Lords for acknowledging that. Currently, assessment under the transition provisions has to be requested and I sympathise with the concern that in some instances, people who are unaware that they can request an assessment may lose out.
Amendments 84, 87, 89, 92, 94, 96, 98, 102, 103, 106, 108 and 113 remove the need to request the assessment. I have also tabled Amendments 85, 95, 99 and 104. They will replace provision that local authorities may assess a child, a child’s carer or a young carer when it appears to them that it will be of significant benefit to the individual to assess and where they are likely to have needs once they turn 18, with a duty that a local authority must assess in these circumstances.
Amendments 110 and 111 reflect an amendment to the young carer’s amendment to the Children and Families Bill. This is an example of the detailed work undertaken to ensure that the two Bills work together. I want to reassure my noble friend Lady Gardner in that context that we have done a great deal of work over the summer to make sure that that is indeed the case. Amendments 83A, 84A, 89A, 93A, 94A and 94B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, reflect concern that a local authority may leave it too late to carry out an assessment. I need to be very clear about this. The amendments I have tabled place a duty on local authorities that they must assess at the time where it appears to them that there is likely to be a need when the young person turns 18, and it is of significant benefit to that individual to assess at that time. My noble friend Lady Gardner was worried that the government amendments might not be sufficiently precise or prescriptive. The clauses are formulated in this way precisely so that assessments happen at the right time, whether that is before or after the age of 14, depending on the individual. The Bill approaches transition planning with a firm focus on assessing at the right time for the individual by the new duty to assess where it would be of significant benefit to the individual. I am not persuaded that the interests of young people are best served by prescribing when assessment should take place.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I understand what the noble Earl is saying: it is difficult to prescribe in legislation. However, does he take the point that experience suggests that in the main assessments do not take place early enough, so when the young person is a little older it is often too late to put in the necessary arrangements? Behind the stricture of saying that it should be done at that age lies a real concern about how it works out in practice.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I accept that that is a problem in many cases and it needs to be addressed. It should be addressed satisfactorily by the government amendments in combination with guidance, which I am about to refer to.
To prescribe the age thresholds proposed would run the risk of failing young people and their families by creating a system that is run according to the age of an individual, rather than according to what is best for the individual at a given time in their life. I remain absolutely committed to ensuring that the question of when to assess a child, carer or parent carer is further addressed in guidance. This will do justice to the broad range of needs and circumstances of young people and their families at the point of transition. Guidance will be developed with the involvement of stakeholders.
Lord Patel
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. If I had known before I started speaking that he was going to produce the guidance to cover all these issues, I might have said that I would not move this amendment. But having heard him say that there will be guidance in statute to cover all these issues, I am extremely grateful. I thank the other noble Lords and noble Baronesses who spoke. I thought for a minute that the Opposition were going to remain silent on this amendment but I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, felt obliged to intervene, and I am grateful to him for that. I withdraw the amendment.
“( ) Where a child refuses a child’s needs assessment and the consent condition is accordingly not met, the local authority must nonetheless carry out the assessment if the child is experiencing, or is at risk of, abuse or neglect.”
“( ) When carrying out a child’s needs assessment, a local authority must also consider whether, and if so to what extent, matters other than the provision of care and support could contribute to the achievement of the outcomes that the child wishes to achieve in day-to-day life.”
“( ) But in a case where the child is not competent or lacks capacity to understand the things which the local authority is required to give under subsection (3), that subsection is to have effect as if for “must give the child” there were substituted “must give the child’s parents”.”
“(3A) Where a child’s carer refuses a child’s carer’s assessment, the local authority is not required to carry out the assessment (and subsection (1) does not apply in the carer’s case).
(3B) Where, having refused a child’s carer’s assessment, a child’s carer requests the assessment, subsection (1) applies in the carer’s case (and subsection (3A) does not).
(3C) Where a child’s carer has refused a child’s carer’s assessment and the local authority concerned thinks that the carer’s needs or circumstances have changed, subsection (1) applies in the carer’s case (but subject to further refusal as mentioned in subsection (3A).”
“( ) When carrying out a child’s carer’s assessment, a local authority must also consider whether, and if so to what extent, matters other than the provision of support could contribute to the achievement of the outcomes that the carer wishes to achieve in day-to-day life.”
“( ) Where a young carer refuses a young carer’s assessment and the consent condition is accordingly not met, the local authority must nonetheless carry out the assessment if the young carer is experiencing, or is at risk of, abuse or neglect.”
“( ) When carrying out a young carer’s assessment, a local authority must also consider whether, and if so to what extent, matters other than the provision of support could contribute to the achievement of the outcomes that the young carer wishes to achieve in day-to-day life.”
“( ) But in a case where the young carer is not competent or lacks capacity to understand the things which the local authority is required to give under subsection (3), that subsection is to have effect as if for “must give the young carer” there were substituted “must give the young carer’s parents”.”
“(2) A local authority may combine a child’s needs assessment or young carer’s assessment with an assessment it is carrying out (whether or not under this Part) in relation to another person only if the consent condition is met in relation to the child to whom the child’s needs or young carer’s assessment relates and—
(a) where the combination would include an assessment relating to another child, the consent condition is met in relation to that other child;(b) where the combination would include an assessment relating to an adult, the adult agrees.(3) A local authority may combine a child’s carer’s assessment with an assessment it is carrying out (whether or not under this Part) in relation to another person only if the adult to whom the child’s carer’s assessment relates agrees and—
(a) where the combination would include an assessment relating to another adult, that other adult agrees, and(b) where the combination would include an assessment relating to a child, the consent condition is met in relation to that child.(3A) The consent condition is met in relation to a child if—
(a) the child has capacity or is competent to agree to the assessments being combined and does so agree, or(b) the child lacks capacity or is not competent so to agree but the local authority is satisfied that combining the assessments would be in the child’s best interests.”
“( ) A person is a “relevant person”, in relation to a child’s needs, child’s carer’s or young carer’s assessment, if it would be reasonable to combine an assessment relating to that person with the child’s needs, child’s carer’s or young carer’s assessment (as mentioned in subsections (2) and (3)).”
“Independent advocacy support: involvement in assessments, plans etc.
(1) This section applies where a local authority is required by a relevant provision to involve an individual in its exercise of a function.
(2) The authority must, if the condition in subsection (4) is met, arrange for a person who is independent of the authority (an “independent advocate”) to be available to represent and support the individual for the purpose of facilitating the individual’s involvement; but see subsection (5).
(3) The relevant provisions are—
(a) section 9(5)(a) and (b) (carrying out needs assessment);(b) section 10(7)(a) (carrying out carer’s assessment);(c) section 25(3)(a) and (b) (preparing care and support plan);(d) section 25(4)(a) and (b) (preparing support plan);(e) section 27(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (revising care and support plan);(f) section 27(3)(b)(i) and (ii) (revising support plan);(g) section 59(2)(a) and (b) (carrying out child’s needs assessment);(h) section 61(3)(a) (carrying out child’s carer’s assessment);(i) section 64(3)(a) and (b) (carrying out young carer’s assessment).(4) The condition is that the local authority considers that, were an independent advocate not to be available, the individual would experience substantial difficulty in doing one or more of the following—
(a) understanding relevant information;(b) retaining that information;(c) using or weighing that information as part of the process of being involved;(d) communicating the individual’s views, wishes or feelings (whether by talking, using sign language or any other means).(5) The duty under subsection (2) does not apply if the local authority is satisfied that there is a person—
(a) who would be an appropriate person to represent and support the individual for the purpose of facilitating the individual’s involvement, and(b) who is not engaged in providing care or treatment for the individual in a professional capacity or for remuneration.(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), a person is not to be regarded as an appropriate person unless—
(a) where the individual has capacity or is competent to consent to being represented and supported by that person, the individual does so consent, or(b) where the individual lacks capacity or is not competent so to consent, the local authority is satisfied that being represented and supported by that person would be in the individual’s best interests.(7) Regulations may make provision in connection with the making of arrangements under subsection (2); the regulations may in particular—
(a) specify requirements that must be met for a person to be independent for the purposes of subsection (2);(b) specify matters to which a local authority must have regard in deciding whether an individual would experience substantial difficulty of the kind mentioned in subsection (4);(c) specify circumstances in which the exception in subsection (5) does not apply;(d) make provision as to the manner in which independent advocates are to perform their functions;(e) specify circumstances in which, if an assessment under this Part is combined with an assessment under this Part that relates to another person, each person may or must be represented and supported by the same independent advocate or by different independent advocates;(f) provide that an independent advocate may, in such circumstances or subject to such conditions as may be specified, examine and take copies of relevant records relating to the individual.(8) This section does not restrict the provision that may be made under any other provision of this Act.
(9) “Relevant record” means—
(a) a health record (within the meaning given in section 68 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (as read with section 69 of that Act)), (b) a record of, or held by, a local authority and compiled in connection with a function under this Part or a social services function (within the meaning given in section 1A of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970),(c) a record held by a person registered under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000 or Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, or(d) a record of such other description as may be specified in the regulations.”
“Independent advocacy support: safeguarding enquiries and reviews
(1) This section applies where there is to be—
(a) an enquiry under section 42(2),(b) a review under section 44(1) of a case in which condition 2 in section 44(3) is met or a review under section 44(4).(2) The relevant local authority must, if the condition in subsection (3) is met, arrange for a person who is independent of the authority (an “independent advocate”) to be available to represent and support the adult to whose case the enquiry or review relates for the purpose of facilitating his or her involvement in the enquiry or review; but see subsections (4) and (6).
(3) The condition is that the local authority considers that, were an independent advocate not to be available, the individual would experience substantial difficulty in doing one or more of the following—
(a) understanding relevant information;(b) retaining that information;(c) using or weighing that information as part of the process of being involved;(d) communicating the individual’s views, wishes or feelings (whether by talking, using sign language or any other means).(4) The duty under subsection (2) does not apply if the local authority is satisfied that there is a person—
(a) who would be an appropriate person to represent and support the adult for the purpose of facilitating the adult’s involvement, and(b) who is not engaged in providing care or treatment for the adult in a professional capacity or for remuneration.(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), a person is not to be regarded as an appropriate person unless—
(a) where the adult has capacity to consent to being represented and supported by that person, the adult does so consent, or(b) where the adult lacks capacity so to consent, the local authority is satisfied that being represented and supported by that person would be in the adult’s best interests.(6) If the enquiry or review needs to begin as a matter of urgency, it may do so even if the authority has not yet been able to comply with the duty under subsection (2) (and the authority continues to be subject to the duty).
(7) “Relevant local authority” means—
(a) in a case within subsection (1)(a), the authority making the enquiry or causing it to be made;(b) in a case within subsection (1)(b), the authority which established the SAB arranging the review.”
Lord Lipsey
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that this can be a short, sharp debate because it is about a very clear matter of principle.
Clause 67(4) provides that councils can recover money paid out on claims for any benefit in Part 1 of the Bill which are made in error—and here are the operative words—“whether fraudulently or otherwise”. My amendment would substitute a longer form of words whereby councils can recover where a claim,
“fraudulently or negligently misrepresents or fails to disclose any material fact that they might have reasonably been aware would have a bearing on expenditure incurred by the local authority”.
That is designed to narrow the scope of the “otherwise” that allows councils to recover in all circumstances. In other words, as the Bill stands, someone who applies for a benefit who inadvertently errs in their application can be pursued to repay the full resulting cost to the council, including the cost of the council’s action, I think. My amendment preserves the recovery if the claim was fraudulent but otherwise allows it only if the old person was negligent. In a sentence, it protects the claimant who makes a slip.
I will give an example of what could happen under the Bill as it is worded. An old person applies for a deferred payment loan on their house so as not to have to sell it. Unfortunately, they make a slip in declaring their assets: they forget some bank account or other. If they had declared it, their assets would have exceeded the £23,250 limit, which the House discovered to its surprise now applies to anybody who wishes to apply for a loan; they cannot apply for a loan if they have more than £23,250. The local authority later finds out and demands its loan back; it perhaps forces the house to be sold to pay it back. I do not suggest that this is going to happen regularly or often but we should not allow the possibility that it should happen at all.
I raised this matter in Committee and subsequently discussed it, with the Minister’s encouragement, with his officials. My aim was to find a compromise that protected the old person who had made a mistake in applying for the benefit while enabling the local authority to go after somebody who was deliberately trying to get something they were not entitled to or who had behaved extremely stupidly and should have known better than to claim.
I thought we were making headway in those discussions but last week the Minister sent me a note refusing to change the Bill. I must say that this is wholly out of character for the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who is usually the most humane of men, and I beg him to think again. If he does not like my wording, that is fine; I am quite happy to consider any other wording that he and his officials may put forward that avoids the pitfalls I suggested. What I will not accept is anything short of an amendment to the Bill.
I know, because he said so in his note to me, that the Minister may claim that he can provide guidance which stops this sort of illegitimate recovery of a debt incurred through error. To that I say two things: first, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush and I would rather change the Bill now than to rely on promised guidance, which we have not seen and could not later amend; secondly, it is not only the people the council would prosecute or seek to get their money back from that we need to worry about. A lot of old people are quite nervous about handling financial affairs—quite rightly, given the complexity of these affairs. They might be thinking of applying for a benefit but if they learn that, under a Bill passed by this Parliament, if they make a slip they can have their assets seized to repay it, many of them will simply decide not to apply at all.
I think I have a pretty thick skin but I was a bit surprised when I read in the newspapers this morning a Conservative spokesman quoted as saying that this was a politically motivated amendment. Just to set the record straight: it was not my idea to amend the Bill in this way. This amendment was put forward by Age UK, which sent a note to all noble Lords explaining why it believes it to be necessary. We all know Age UK: it is a splendid group working for old people. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, used to run its predecessor. A less political organisation than Age UK is hard to imagine, so I hope that the Minister will apologise for the inadvertent—I am sure—slur that has been cast on Age UK.
I should add that Age UK believes that the Bill may be in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In a House which earlier on displayed such expertise on the subject of the European Convention on Human Rights, I am certainly not going to express my own opinion on whether that view is right or wrong. Nothing could be more stupid than for us to pass this Bill in its present form and later on to find it challenged in the courts, and perhaps overturned.
My argument does not rely on the convention on human rights. It relies on what seems to me to be a simple fact, obvious to anybody who reads this clause in the Bill. This is not the kind of legislative provision that you would expect in a democracy. It is a provision which enables authorities here, in Britain, to punish the innocent and, in the process, to terrify people who might otherwise apply for benefits to which they are entitled. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I support my noble friend. In our debates, both in Committee and on Report, we spent a considerable time talking about some of the complexity of the decisions that have to be made when it comes to the financial affairs of many people who require long-term care. In our debate on Clause 4, we talked about the need for regulated financial advice, because these issues are so complex. It is quite likely that people who are providing information to a local authority will make slip-ups. The kind of forms that have to be filled in can be very difficult. Clause 67(4) states:
“Where a person misrepresents or fails to disclose (whether fraudulently or otherwise)”.
That does seem a very wide definition of when a local authority can demand sums. My noble friend has come up with a compromise. He has tried to narrow the circumstances in which a local authority can require sums to be paid back to that authority.
I understand the concerns of the Government. They believe that completely to change this would lead to some perverse incentives in that people would deliberately give false information. My noble friend has met those concerns with his amendment because he has clearly drawn a distinction between fraudulent activity and claims, and slips and mistakes which are inevitably going to be made. Even at this late stage, it would be helpful if the noble Earl could reconsider this matter. I think my noble friend has put his finger on an important matter here. We are talking about very vulnerable people who will find the information required to be given to a local authority very complex. We need to make sure that we are as sympathetic as possible to those people.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to address the one word “otherwise”. I come under that category of otherwise. Since arriving in the House—let me see now, when was it? I am getting quite old; I can put the wrong statistics down on pieces of paper. Yes, I think it was 2011. I have in the course of the time since then turned up at the House on the wrong day. I got it wrong—not deliberately, not fraudulently, but for “otherwise” reasons—because I am old. I forget to have my post redirected during the Recess and come back to a mountain of post which I have not been able to answer, all because I get the dates wrong. That is because I am old.
As people get older, life gets more threatening. The bureaucracy weighs down on us more and we are frightened of authority. That is why I choose to support my colleague in—which amendment is it? Yes, Amendment 120.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, it occurs to me that the problem has been created by the use of the word “fraudulent”. It tends to suggest that the word “otherwise” is in some way connected with that. I wonder whether one could not take out that whole phrase in brackets. The idea is that, because of some mistake, something extra has been paid out. Ordinarily, it might be perfectly all right to recover that. You do not need to look into the detail of why it was wrong. The person in question—vulnerable people particularly, and those who are not so vulnerable, more recently arrived—may fall into error. The error may result in extra payments out by the local authority which, in ordinary circumstances, it should be able to recover. “Fraudulently” gives an idea of people trying to put something over on someone, and “otherwise” tends to be coloured by the same adverb. Perhaps this problem could be dealt with in that way.
Earl Howe
My Lords, we agree with the general view expressed by noble Lords that we must ensure that vulnerable elderly people are protected and are not discouraged from seeking help when they need it. However, I do not agree with the conclusions reached by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and I regret to have to say that the manner in which he has expressed his concerns risks causing unnecessary worry to people who need care and support. Let me be clear: this power is not there to punish people, as the noble Lord put it, and should be used by local authorities only as a last resort, as I shall explain. Its purpose is to ensure that any charges that should have been paid can subsequently be recovered. It is not to penalise people unduly. But neither should the system reward mistakes or prevent unpaid charges being recovered. This would not only undermine the principle of personal responsibility, it could also result in local authorities having less money to provide care and support to those who need it the most. In practice, it means in some cases a licence to subsidise the better off at the expense of the worse off. Is that really what the noble Lord wants? The use of this power is to recover a debt and is not intended to imply a judgment about the person’s culpability. It does not look for the mens rea; it exists to ensure only that charges not paid can be recovered, as the equivalent current powers do now.
The principle of this provision is not new; the power is 60 years old. The noble Lord likes to make out that we are doing something radically new, but that is not the case. We recognise that there may be a number of reasons why someone has not paid the full amount of the charges due to the local authority, including misrepresentations of their assets which were entirely unintentional. But even where the reason is an accident or a mistake, local authorities still suffer a loss and must be able to recover that loss if there is no other means of doing so. This is public money.
One of the objectives of the Bill is to make access to care and support easier and more focused on people with care and support needs and their families. We expect local authorities to help and support people with care and support needs, discussing any concerns they have and providing advice and assistance as appropriate. This would include advice to help people understand the process of financial assessment and their responsibility to disclose financial assets. I absolutely fail to see why the noble Lord thinks it is socially just to allow people who misrepresent or fail to disclose their assets, whether intentionally or not, to receive more than their fair share of financial support. I reiterate that to do so would reduce the resources available to other people with care and support needs. That is what his prescription amounts to. I am concerned that this amendment would risk making it much easier for people to take advantage of the system and avoid charges and subsequent legal action. What the noble Lord is suggesting is that people could be as careless as they liked when filling out the form. Is that what he wants? The high evidential burden that local authorities would have to meet to recover debts risks making this power largely useless in practice. It would leave local authorities facing costly and uncertain legal action if they chose to pursue the matter.
Let me be clear on another point. A local authority should not, as a matter of course, use these powers to recover debts without first having discussed other options with the individual concerned. In most cases, especially those where the failure to pay the correct charges was inadvertent, there would be other simpler routes to follow, such as agreeing a repayment plan which allows for recovery over time in a way that is manageable. The noble Lord suggests that local authorities may exercise these powers in a way that will drive people out of their own homes. Quite aside from the fact that we have no evidence that local authorities behave in that way and have used their existing powers like that, I have to say that I find that assertion particularly unconvincing.
Local authorities are bound by the public law principle of acting reasonably at all times and must act in accordance with human rights legislation, as well as the well-being principle, which we have already debated. That alone should prevent a local authority using this power to force someone out of their home. The noble Lord is stretching our credulity if he is asking us to imagine a set of circumstances in which a court would make an order in favour of a local authority knowingly to evict a person from their home in this kind of situation. It would be counterproductive in the extreme. Should there be any possibility of this happening, we would use statutory guidance to make the position clear. Indeed, where I do think further action is needed is in the form of guidance. We will use statutory guidance under the Bill to set out the steps that we expect local authorities to take. For example, we would expect a local authority to discuss the situation with the cared-for person and their family when appropriate to establish what, if anything, is owed to the local authority; if there is a debt, to establish whether it is appropriate to recover it, because the local authority does not have to recover it—it can choose not to do so; and, lastly, if money needs to be recovered, to find an affordable way for the money to be repaid. As I have said, whether or not the person could have been reasonably aware of something that needed to be included in the financial assessment is one of the factors that the local authority should consider when deciding whether it is appropriate to recover a debt.
We plan to engage with local authorities in the wider sector on what happens at present and how this could be improved. I accept the need for effective communication about financial assessment and the recovery of charges. This highlights the importance of high quality information and advice, including financial advice, which was debated last week, and the importance of the new duties we are placing on local authorities in this regard. Should mistakes be made, people will not be criminalised, nor will any punitive charges be imposed, but ultimately it is right that mistakes are rectified so that individuals do not benefit from any errors they make, whether they were intentional or not. Neither local authorities nor those who rely on their services should be disadvantaged, but the amendment as it stands runs the risk of failing on all these counts.
I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that the debt recovery power, while to be used only as a last resort, remains important. There is nothing that people should fear from its use. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, on reflection and at this late time, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and I predict that in the handbook which all civil servants use to train themselves in their art, his reply will figure as an example of how best to argue an indefensible case, because that is what I think he has just done. “Resent” would be too strong a word, but the argument that by raising this matter I am creating a problem and raising the fears of old people is not plausible. This is what Governments do the whole time: they try to do something wicked, but when that is pointed out to them, they say, “Oh no, it is you who are causing the trouble because you are pointing out that it is wicked”. The fears are raised not by my speeches or interventions; they are raised by the words in the Bill to which the Minister has put his name.
The Minister also said that this power is all right because it is 60 years old. To that I have two things to say. If a power like this has been lurking around in legislation for 60 years, it is about time we took a little look at it, and I hope the noble Earl will start some such operation. Wherever that power exists now, this is a different case because here we are dealing with elderly people. As my noble friend Lady Bakewell so graphically pointed out, with the best will in the world, older people can make mistakes. Whether it applies to other social security legislation, I cannot say. It may do so, but I do not think it is appropriate to this legislation.
The Minister then rightly said that if a local authority goes to court, the court will not grant the order. But before the local authority goes to court, it will have to deliver a letter to the old lady saying that it is going to do so. What will be the impact of that? Is she going to say, “Oh, that is fine. The court will turn it down. I will see my solicitor or my son and get this defeated”. No, the old lady will be thrown into a panic as a result of what the local authority is doing. I agree totally with the Minister that most of the time, most local authorities act perfectly reasonably. That is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is whether on the face of primary legislation there should be the scope for the odd authority to act unreasonably and thereby cause terrible fear and distress to older people. That is what the noble Earl, I am sure inadvertently, is doing.
Finally, I turn to the most powerful of the Minister’s arguments. He said that this would be very unfair because people would get away with it and they would gain at the expense of others who are also claiming benefits. But I beg the Minister and the House to study my amendment. It does not say, “Well, if you fill in the form inattentively and get it totally wrong, you will get away with it”. That would come under the phrase in my amendment, “they might have reasonably been aware”. In most conceivable circumstances, my amendment would allow recovery in just the same way as the Government’s drafting, but it would do so without that frightful “or otherwise”. It is a sword of Damocles being held over the heads of many innocent older people, and they should be spared from that.
The Minister has made his speech and the House has heard both sides of the case. I think that it is time to test its opinion in the Division Lobbies.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Initial funding assessment
Before enactment of Part 1, the Secretary of State must ask the Office for Budget Responsibility to complete by the end of 2014 a review of the funding of adult social care that assesses—(a) the adequacy of current public funding of these services; (b) the proposals for funding the provisions in this Act;(c) the implications of the Act and its funding for the NHS over the next five years; and(d) in particular the short and long term costs of setting the eligibility criteria at the level set out in regulations.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, as I said on Monday, the principles which underpin this Bill are widely supported, although recent revelations around deferred payments have put a considerable damper on that. We have been concerned in our debates mostly with trying to improve the Bill. A major feature of discussions has been the capacity of local authorities to do what is required, including responsibilities around assessment, providing information, preventing needs for care and support, promotion of integration, provision of information and support, direct payments, promotion of diversity and quality in the provision of services, and dealing with provider failure. Another concern has been about the amount of resources that will be available to make the Bill effective—the more so when one considers the number of self-funders who will in the end receive support as a result of the introduction of the cap.
This is done in the context of a very tight funding situation for health and care generally. The Minister will be aware of reports from both the King’s Fund and the Nuffield Trust, and, more recently, from the NHS Confederation, which talked of the problems in healthcare and of there being basically no growth in real-terms funding in the next few years, together with a big increase in demand.
This is matched, and more so, by the additional costs which it is clear will fall to local authorities to meet the extra care responsibilities that they have been given. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill are rather disarming. They state:
“Most of the costs to the public sector associated with Part 1”—
which is what we are discussing—
“arise from introducing and funding a cap on care costs and from the proposed increase to the capital threshold. These are partly offset by consequential reduction in costs of attendance allowance and disability living allowance”.
The Minister cannot be in ignorance of the widespread concern among local authorities that, in essence, the Bill places many additional financial responsibilities on local authorities for which they have little confidence they will receive proper support from the Government. Let me give one example. We know that the settlement for 2013 provided £335 million so that councils can prepare for reforms in the system of social care funding, including the introduction of a cap, and a universal offer of deferred payment agreements from April 2015—this was in the guidance issued by CLG. That money was intended to cover assessment and reviews, capital investment in systems, capacity-building in individual councils, information and advice, and introduction of deferred payments from April 2015. However, my understanding from the Local Government Association is that that £335 million was not new money; indeed, it was top-sliced from the local government settlement. So the cost associated with funding reform should be seen as a new burden and funded as such. If that is only associated with the introduction—essentially with helping local authorities prepare for the provisions in this Bill—how much more will the additional funding responsibilities be when it is actually up and running?
There is widespread concern and doubt about local authorities’ capacity to set up the infrastructure to do the job, but the funding issue is even more important. That is why my Amendment 121 suggests that the Secretary of State asks the Office for Budget Responsibility to complete a review of the funding of social care that assesses the adequacy of current public funding of these services, the proposals for the funding of provisions in this Act, the implications of the Act and its funding for the NHS over the next five years and in particular the short- and long-term costs of setting the eligibility criteria at the level set out in the regulations.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has been established and we see many uses for it. This would be a very good way of getting an impartial view of the future costs resulting from the Care Bill and of the likely consequences for local authorities and the Bill’s funding. In the spirit of harmony and consensus which has prevailed over much of our discussions, I think it would be very good if the Government agreed to do this. It would provide us with a very good foundation and also help in taking forward the Bill and in terms of local authorities’ actual ability to implement the provisions. I beg to move.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I want to speak to Amendment 122 in my name. This requires the Secretary of State to publish a review of the working of Part 1 and its funding before Clause 15 is brought into operation.
I have tabled this amendment because of my continuing concern that the Government are sleepwalking into the introduction of the new arrangements in this Bill without adequate funding provision and they do not really appreciate the parlous state of adult social care funding. I think my noble friend was being rather generous in his remarks. The situation is very bad. I have a cutting about the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report into home care, published last week, in which the commission made it clear that council cuts could be affecting the human rights of older people. This is a serious situation.
People are very supportive of the basic architecture of the Dilnot and the Law Commission’s proposals enshrined in this Bill, and are very supportive of the Government bringing this Bill forward, but they simply do not believe that the funding is in place effectively to implement the Bill’s good intentions. They remain unconvinced by the Government’s assurances on funding and I think this is hardly surprising because the Government’s social care funding strategy seems almost designed to confuse. We have Eric Pickles signing up to quite swingeing cuts to local authority grants which inevitably reduces social care funding substantially. We then see Health Secretaries having to scrabble around to slip NHS cheques to local government to mitigate some of the Pickles cuts. Of course I do not want to be ungenerous to Health Secretaries, and these cheques are better than nothing, but they do not make good the shrinking base budget of adult social care that has been taking place over many years.
People like to claim and use bits of the Dilnot commission’s report that they favour and fancy. I would like to draw attention to pages 14 and 15, where we said:
“We know that the funding of social care for older people has not kept pace with that of the NHS. In the 15 years from 1994-95 to 2009-10, real spending on adult social care increased by around 70% for older people while, over the same period, real spending in the NHS has risen by almost 110%”.
We showed in this report that in the four years to 2010, demand outstripped expenditure by about 9%. We went on to say that in the future this approach to funding was going to need to change. It has changed, but not quite as we had expected or intended.
Adult social care will start the next financial year with a base budget about £3 billion lower in real terms than in 2010. So the base budget for social care is underfunded. That is where we start from. Most of the discussion that has taken place about the implementation of the Bill takes no account of the base budget deficit from which we are starting. That deficit is due only to get worse because there is another set of proposals under the DCLG settlement in Spending Review 2013 for another 2.3% cut in the budgets of local councils, which can only take even more money out of the local government budget for adult social care.
I have no doubt that the noble Earl will say much the same thing as he did in Committee about the Government’s proposal for a £3.8 billion pooled budget for 2015-16 to join up health and social care services. I welcome that. Most people welcome that. However, as the Minister acknowledged in Committee, only half of that £3.8 billion is new money, and only half of the new money will be paid upfront to local authorities as they start to implement the proposals under the scheme. The assurance that that new money will be in place takes no account of the further reduction of 2.3% that I mentioned in the spending of local councils in 2015-16.
We have a situation where the base budget is highly deficient, further cuts are coming out of local government expenditure by councils, which can only have a further impact on that base budget in 2015-16, when the new legislation is due to be implemented, and we have no guarantee that the lion’s share of that £3.8 billion pooled budget will be in the hands of councils when they start to implement the scheme. That is not a situation to fuel people outside with confidence that they will have successful implementation of the legislation.
The Government can protest as much as they like but, at the end of the day, we need public documentation —preferably, I would say, by someone as independent as the OBR, but I would even settle for the Institute for Fiscal Studies. If I cannot have that, I would settle for legislation requiring the Secretary of State to put some of that information in the public arena and before Parliament before the Bill is put into full operation. People who are to implement it and the public need far more convincing than they have received so far that all will be well financially, to give people a reasonable chance to implement this highly desirable, on the whole, well constructed Bill, successfully when the time comes.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I have listened with care to noble Lords as they have introduced their respective amendments and I am confident that we can all agree that the issues that they raise are vital to the successful implementation of government policy and are essential parts of good policy-making. Let me first address the questions about the cost and funding of these reforms. We have taken and will continue to take a robust, evidence-based approach to assessing the cost of the reforms. We are working closely with local authorities to help them to understand the costs at a local level, and we will use this knowledge to refine our national modelling further. Funding of care and support, including the reforms in Part 1, will be reviewed regularly as part of the spending review process, and the core elements of the capped-costs system will be reviewed within each five-year period.
Turning to the specific issue of the short and long-term costs of the national eligibility threshold, I can assure noble Lords that we have published an impact assessment fully setting up the costs and benefits of the policy. We have comprehensively assessed and funded those provisions. We have published impact assessments for all elements of the Bill and, in line with the Government’s approach to all new burdens on local authorities, those costs were fully funded in this year’s spending round. Those estimates are based on the best available evidence in the area. They have been produced in co-operation with academic experts and officials from across government.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, although I am disappointed by his response. He argues that the cost and funding elements in the Bill have been subject to a robust, evidence-based approach and are reviewed regularly, and he prays in aid the spending reviews. However, there is often a distance from ministerial assurances about well-being and the reality on the ground floor, and I have to say to him that the experience up and down the country is of a health and social care system under huge pressure. The Bill brings more pressures and many local authorities do not see how they will be able to find resources in order to pay for the extra demands and responsibilities the Bill places upon them. That is the reality up and down the country.
The noble Earl does not like the referral to the Office for Budget Responsibility. This is a remarkable institution set up by the Government with a great fanfare; now they seem very reluctant to use it. That is a great pity. My noble friend suggests the Institute for Fiscal Studies, another organisation to which we might refer it.
It would have been of great benefit to all of us concerned to see some independent work that could be published and would inform the Bill’s implementation, but I fear the noble Earl is not going down that path. It is probably time to move on to another debate, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Warner
“( ) In advance of the first five-yearly review, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a review of the working of Part I and its funding before the date in subsection (4) and after consultation with interested parties.”
Lord Warner
I am not going to detain the House. I remain unconvinced about the direction of travel that we are taking and I learnt long ago in Richmond House not to believe everything I was assured of which came to me in my Red Box. I hope that the Minister is right, but I have a terrible feeling that I shall be saying, “I told you so” in a few years’ time.
“(aa) if, immediately before being detained, the person concerned was ordinarily resident in Wales, for the area in Wales in which he was ordinarily resident; or”
“(4) Where there is a dispute about where a person was ordinarily resident for the purposes of subsection (3) above—
(a) if the dispute is between local social services authorities in England, section 40 of the Care Act 2013 applies to the dispute as it applies to a dispute about where a person was ordinarily resident for the purposes of Part 1 of that Act;(b) if the dispute is between local social services authorities in Wales, section 164 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2013 applies to the dispute as it applies to a dispute about where a person was ordinarily resident for the purposes of that Act; (c) if the dispute is between a local social services authority in England and a local social services authority in Wales, it is to be determined by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers.(4A) The Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers shall make and publish arrangements for determining which of them is to determine a dispute under subsection (4)(c); and the arrangements may, in particular, provide for the dispute to be determined by whichever of them agree is to do so.”
Lord Patel of Bradford
“(5) In this section, “after-care services” means services that reduce the risk of a deterioration of the person’s mental condition (and, accordingly, to reduce the risk of the person requiring admission to a hospital again for treatment for mental disorder).”
Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)
My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment 128A which affects Clause 71(5) that aims to provide a definition of “after-care services” as they relate to the Mental Health Act 1983.
We had an extensive debate on this clause in Committee and as a result the Government have tabled their own amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for Care and Support, Norman Lamb, and his officials for taking time to meet me and discuss my concerns about this clause. During the debate in Committee, I highlighted the importance of Section 117 in providing a comprehensive care package of health and social care services to a very specific and extremely vulnerable group of patients when they are discharged after detention in a psychiatric hospital. Without appropriate community health and social care support they may relapse, come to harm or even present a risk to others.
In recognition of the inherent vulnerability of these patients and the risks involved, and to encourage take-up by them, after-care services under Section 117 have required local authorities and clinical commissioning groups to provide after-care services free of charge and are deliberately not defined in statue, as there is a wide range of services that a detained patient might need in order to leave hospital and live in the community. Mental health professionals need to have the widest flexibility possible to devise creative care packages to keep patients who have been detained well and prevent them relapsing. The concept appears well understood by both health and local authorities and has been for over 30 years.
There is also a clear public health policy purpose behind Section 117, which is to help get vulnerable people out of hospitals and back into the community. No one should remain in hospital any longer than they need and after-care services should be provided to enable a safe discharge and to avoid all the emotional harm and exposure of a deterioration. This is vital to prevent our hospitals being bedblocked—I am sure that all noble Lords saw the news headlines this morning about the severe lack of in-patient psychiatric beds. So what does this clause do and why?
Clause 71(5) proposes to provide the first ever statutory definition of after-care services, but it is a narrow definition which I and many others believe will be detrimental to patients’ welfare. For example, an after-care package may include daytime activities, welfare benefits and financial advice, residential accommodation and medication. However, if the proposed definition is introduced, after-care providers may argue—I think they will argue—that it is only the provision of psychiatric medicine that meets,
“a need arising from … the mental disorder”,
of the person.
I accept that the Government have made some concessions on this issue. For example, concerns were raised that the definition in the Bill refers to, “the mental disorder”, which might refer only to the medical treatment of a single diagnosis, rather than looking at a person holistically. In response to these concerns, amendments have been tabled by the Government to make it clearer that Section 117 after-care services are to meet needs,
“arising from or related to the person’s mental disorder”.
That can mean one or more mental disorders, and not necessarily the mental disorder for which the person was detained in hospital for treatment. While this concession is, of course, welcome, and the current proposed definition is wider than that set out in the draft Bill, I still remain extremely concerned about the risk of confusion, litigation and delays, which is why I have tabled my amendments.
Noble Lords will be very relieved to hear that I will not repeat the many reasons I have for tabling Amendment 128A; I simply want to give two very clear reasons why this amendment should be accepted. First, I want to challenge the basis on which the Government have introduced this definition and say why it is wrong. Secondly, I think that the definition, even with the Government’s amendment, remains problematic and harmful to patients.
The Government have clearly stated that they have put this definition into the Bill following the recommendation from the Law Commission’s report Adult Social Care, a recommendation that is based on the Law Commission’s concerns around one case, Mwanza v the London Borough of Greenwich in 2010. I am not a lawyer, but I had a nasty feeling about this case, so I contacted the counsel, Nicholas Armstrong from Matrix Chambers, who actually represented Mr Mwanza in this case, to get his views. I am extremely grateful for his time and the explanation he gave me. Suffice to say he was very concerned to hear that the case is being used in this way. He informed me that there were a number of issues that make this case unique and unrepresentative, explaining that,
“this is a very unstable basis on which to disturb a provision of primary legislation that has benefited many and operated largely without difficulty for 30 years (rather a long time in these areas of law and, some might feel, a testament to its success)”.
I have shared the full contents of the communication from Nicholas Armstrong with the Department of Health so that it can clearly see the issues and concerns that Mr Armstrong has raised about his own case. Most importantly, he states:
“Mwanza was highly unusual and complex. First, it is critical to recognise that it was a migrant case. The family had no immigration status and so were cut out of mainstream benefits and sources of support, including housing. Their possible routes to support and, in particular, accommodation were therefore very limited. Normally, accommodation is not an issue because people get it from any number of other routes. Not so here . . . Second, the Section 117 issue had to be addressed here, despite how difficult it was, because of the way the other possible route to accommodation (Section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948), works. That provision cannot provide accommodation if there is an alternative. Hence, to resolve where a Section 21 duty was owed, the court had first to decide whether Section 117 applied . . . We were, in other words, only in Section 117 at all because of the way the migrant exceptions work.”
The situation was then complicated by the detention under Section 3 many years earlier—about eight to nine years prior to this case—and it looked like the duty had not been discharged properly by the local council. Nicholas Armstrong continued:
“It is critical to recognise that it was a disabled migrant case where another local authority wanted to avoid liability under Section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948, and we had to resolve the Section 117 question because we could not get to Section 21 unless Section 117 was definitely not in play . . . That was a pretty rare set of circumstances. So far as Section 117 is concerned, Mwanza is a permission decision only. It was fully argued but it is not binding, even on courts below the High Court”.
The Lord Speaker
I remind your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 129 to 131 by reason of pre-emption.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, it is vital that people with mental illness have adequate aftercare. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, if his Amendment 128A would cover such cases as the tragic case of the schoolgirl who was travelling by bus to school and was killed by a person who was mentally ill. There should be more protection for the public, who are at risk from mentally ill people who are let loose in the community without adequate aftercare and supervision. It is vital that people have aftercare, otherwise we will have more and more disasters.
Lord Patel of Bradford
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I would not like to associate mental health patients leaving hospital with the case that she has outlined, but clearly it is true that if we do not provide good quality aftercare services and encourage people to take them up but rather leave people in hospital anxious about whether they will have to pay for some of these services, then that is a potential result that we will have to live with, in circumstances where people do not have accommodation, health and social services provided or someone coming in and saying to them, “Deal with your accommodation and social care issues as well as your medication”. This is a real anxiety.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I commend the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford. I shall not say much more than that other than that he commented on the risk that the current situation could lead to more likelihood of a more medical approach to aftercare. Noble Lords might think that as a retired psychiatrist I would support that, but I do not; it is incredibly important that people who have a history of mental illness and need aftercare services receive the broadest possible support so that admission to hospital is not simply because there is inadequate support for them in the community. I commend his proposal.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I wish to indicate my support for the continuance of Section 117, as I have done on many occasions before, not least during the passage of the most recent Mental Health Act—when various people, whom I shall not embarrass now by saying who they were, did indeed stand up to defend some of it—because it works.
When the Law Commission first made this proposal in its report, I had occasion to talk to that body. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, is right; the commission relies very heavily on the Mwanza case, and there is a great deal of dispute about the advisability of doing that. The question that I had when I first met the Law Commission still remains: when everything else in the legislation is geared towards enabling health and social care to work together to enable the transfer of people from acute health settings back into the community, why rip up the one piece of legislation that has been there doing that for 30 years? It is not just that some of us see Section 117 as being important with regard to the individuals whom we might know or come across; rather, we see it as an important means of bringing about the transfer that some of us have long hoped would happen in mental health services whereby, instead of having patients who revolve between acute and the community, we could have proper care planning in which people’s mental health needs were addressed by some of the same people, whichever setting they were in. It is not just about trying to preserve a pot of money; it is about trying to keep open a pathway to good and better practice. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Patel, as he always does in this area, has presented the House with a very persuasive argument. I have not yet fully understood why the department feels the need to make the changes that it is making.
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, we fully support my noble friend in his valiant efforts once again to try to get this important issue on mental health aftercare sorted out. We recognise the Government’s concession in removing “the” from subsection (5)(a), but my noble friend is right that there still remains the very real risk that leaving the rest of the subsection in place could lead to local authorities arguing that,
“a need arising from or related to a mental disorder”,
was the requirement only to provide psychiatric, medical and follow-up services.
The statutory definition of aftercare services in the Bill is confusing because it separates out the needs arising from the person’s mental disorder from the need to reduce the risk of deterioration in the person’s condition and the risk of readmission to hospital. My noble friend’s amendment would instead define aftercare services as those services that reduce the risk of deterioration in the person’s mental condition and the likelihood of the person requiring readmission to hospital.
It is right that the definition of aftercare services focuses on reducing the likelihood of hospital readmission and does not lead to confusion or legal disputes about a local authority’s role in this or what services should be provided under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act. It is also right that aftercare continues to be viewed as a comprehensive range of generic services across healthcare, social care and other services such as suitable accommodation and community support.
Amendment 128A is a compromise offered by my noble friend that I hope the Government will take up because, as he said, he would prefer to delete Clause 5 entirely, so that the current position in relation to Section 117 remains unchanged. Mind, the mental health and disability committee of the Law Society and the Mental Health Lawyers Association all consider that the best way to avoid confusion over the definition of aftercare is to remove Clause 71(5)(a) altogether.
I hope that the Minister will have some good news for my noble friend and for other Lords who, too, are very frustrated that the mental health aftercare issue has not been laid to rest in the way we thought it had under our discussions as far back as on the Health and Social Care Bill.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I first would like to echo the comments made by my noble friend Lady Northover during Committee, when she paid tribute to the excellent work of the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, in the mental health field.
I think we can all agree that setting out a definition of mental health aftercare in legislation is important. A clear legal definition will mean that the scope of aftercare will no longer be entirely open to interpretation by the courts, whose views have varied over time. The question is what that definition should be. As updated by government Amendments 129, 130 and 131, our proposed definition contains a carefully framed duty that reflects the Government's policy on the appropriate scope of the duty to provide free aftercare services for a very small group of patients who have been detained for treatment under certain sections of the Mental Health Act. It has carefully drawn limits because the Government do not consider that it would be appropriate for the Mental Health Act to impose a duty on local authorities to commission services that are based on needs which neither arise from, nor are related to, a mental disorder.
Therefore we believe that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, goes too far and would create an inequity between this group of people and others with equivalent needs for care and support who are not eligible for free aftercare, either because they have been detained under other provisions of the Act or not detained at all. They will be means tested and will have to meet eligibility criteria for the social care part of their aftercare package, so may not receive any social care from the local authority. In addition, with an ageing population, local authorities will have to be able to differentiate “mental health aftercare” in order to know when the “aftercare” finishes and ongoing support for other reasons begins.
The noble Lord suggested that the case of Mwanza was not a stable basis for primary legislation. He said that it is, after all, only one case. There is a bit of a misunderstanding around this. The Mwanza case merely triggered a debate; the issue is whether the definition is a good idea and, if so, how it can most helpfully be drafted. The Government’s definition of mental health aftercare services builds on the definition recommended by the Law Commission. The Government accepted the recommendation of the Law Commission as a sensible starting point, but we have gone further. We propose a wider definition than that suggested by the Law Commission, including that Section 117 services may relate to as well as just arise from the person’s mental disorder, and that the aftercare should prevent deterioration as well as readmission to hospital.
Because our definition is more precise, I feel that it will be more helpful than the noble Lord’s in ensuring that clinical commissioning groups, local health boards and both English and Welsh local authorities more easily agree on the aftercare services to be provided, so that these services can be put in place promptly.
I reassure the House that the definition we are now considering is the result of extensive consultation. In consequence, we have added a positive objective to prevent deterioration as well as preventing readmission to hospital, and have further changed the clause to remove the definite article when referring to “the mental disorder”, for which the noble Lord made the case in Committee. This is intended to remove any doubt about our intention that the scope of aftercare covers more than just one form of mental disorder, and is not necessarily limited to the specific disorder or disorders for which a person was previously detained under the Act and which gave rise to the right to aftercare.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, what will happen to the protection of the public from those who have schizophrenia?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the protection of the public is of great importance, as I need hardly say; but we are dealing here with quite a narrow point of definition about who should be entitled to free mental health aftercare. To expand the scope of that definition to include others would not be fair on many people, which is why I have argued that I believe we have positioned the definition in the right way. The noble Baroness’s question is a very relevant one in the broader context of how we look after those with mental illness, but I would like to think that this amendment should not affect her concern one way or another.
Lord Patel of Bradford
My Lords, I am clearly disappointed at the response. I was expecting at least a halfway point at which we could meet and perhaps change the definition once again. I will not detain the House for very long. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, very clearly and succinctly put the benefits of Section 117 and the joint working that takes place. That is probably the only piece of legislation that has encouraged joint working really well and has worked.
The noble Earl talked about the Government’s definition, and that is what it is: a Department of Health definition. However, it does not ride with everybody else out there. Everybody that I have spoken to clearly says that this is the wrong way. I fear that the department has got itself in a corner because it has accepted the Law Commission’s recommendation on this point. It did not accept the other three recommendations, which clearly shows, to me, that the Law Commission does not understand Section 117 services properly. Although the department has accepted this recommendation, I think it has realised that the basis on which it has done so is not appropriate; the case is unique and unrepresentative.
We have talked about inequity. These people have their liberty taken away: they are locked up against their will. They have been in and out of mental health services; they have had a raw deal. That is why they are there. This is a reciprocal duty on behalf of society to make sure that we give them free aftercare services. Yes, other patients may not get that, but this group of patients is extremely vulnerable. There is also the issue of public safety. We should give them the services they require.
I could go on, but I will not. I am really disappointed. This matter deserves that the House makes its views known, so I want to test the opinion of the House.
“(7A) In section 37 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2013 (direct payments: further provision), at the end insert—
“(11) The ways in which a local authority may discharge its duty under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 include by making direct payments; and for that purpose Schedule A1 (which includes modifications of sections 34 and 35 and this section) has effect.”
(7B) Before Schedule 1 to that Act insert the Schedule A1 contained in Part 2 of Schedule 4 to this Act.
(7C) In section 163 of that Act (ordinary residence), after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) A person who is being provided with accommodation under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (after-care) is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as ordinarily resident in the area of the local authority, or the local authority in England, on which the duty to provide that person with services under that section is imposed.”
(7D) In consequence of subsections (7) to (7B), in subsection (2C) of section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983—
(a) in paragraph (a), for “regulations under section 57 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 or” substitute “—(i) sections 31 to 33 of the Care Act 2013 (as applied by Schedule 4 to that Act),(ii) sections 34, 35 and 37 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2013 (as applied by Schedule A1 to that Act), or(iii) regulations under”,(b) in paragraph (b), after “apart from” insert “those sections (as so applied) or”.”
“( ) In section 145 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (interpretation), for the definition of “local social services authority” substitute—
““local social services authority” means—
(a) an authority in England which is a local authority for the purposes of Part 1 of the Care Act 2013, or(b) an authority in Wales which is a local authority for the purposes of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2013.””
“Part 2Provision to be inserted in Social Services and Well-Being (Wales) Act 2013Schedule A1Direct payments: after-care under the Mental Health Act 1983General1 Sections 34 (direct payments to meet an adult’s needs), 35 (direct payments to meet a child’s needs) and 37 (direct payments: further provision) apply in relation to section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 but as if the following modifications were made to those sections.
Modifications to section 342 For subsection (1) of section 34 substitute—
“((1)) Regulations may require or allow a local authority to make payments to an adult to whom section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (after-care) applies that are equivalent to the cost of providing or arranging for the provision of after-care services for the adult under that section.”
3 In subsection (3) of that section—
(a) in paragraph (a), for “who has needs for care and support (“A”)” substitute “in respect of the provision to the adult (“A”) of after-care services under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983”, and(b) in paragraph (c)(i), for “of meeting A’s needs” substitute “of discharging its duty towards A under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983”.4 In subsection (4) of that section—
(a) in paragraph (a), for “who has needs for care and support (“A”)” substitute “to whom section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 applies (“A”)”, and(b) in paragraph (d)(i), for “meeting A’s needs” substitute “discharging its duty towards A under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983”.5 In subsection (5) of that section—
(a) in paragraph (a), for “A’s needs for care and support” substitute “the provision to A of after-care services under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983”, and(b) in paragraph (b), for “towards the cost of meeting A’s needs for care and support” substitute “equivalent to the cost of providing or arranging the provision to A of after-care services under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983”.6 In subsection (6)(b) of that section, for “A’s needs for care and support” substitute “the provision to A of after-care services under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983”.
Modifications to section 357 For subsection (1) of section 35 substitute—
“((1)) Regulations may require or allow a local authority to make payments to a person in respect of a child to whom section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (after-care) applies that are equivalent to the cost of providing or arranging the provision of after-care services for the child under that section.”
8 In subsection (3)(a), (b) and (c) of that section, for “who has needs for care and support” (in each place it occurs) substitute “to whom section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 applies”.
9 In subsection (5)(a) of that section, for “meeting the child’s needs” substitute “discharging its duty towards the child under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983”.
Modifications to section 3710 In subsection (1) of section 37—
(a) in the opening words, for “34, 35 and 36” substitute “34 and 35”,(b) omit paragraphs (a), (b) and (c),(c) in paragraph (i), for “a local authority’s duty or power to meet a person’s needs for care and support or a carer’s needs for support is displaced” substitute “a local authority’s duty under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (after-care) is discharged”, and(d) in paragraph (k), for “34 to 36” substitute “34 and 35”.11 Omit subsections (2) to (8) of that section.
12 After subsection (8) of that section insert—
“((8A)) Regulations under sections 34 and 35 must specify that direct payments to meet the cost of providing or arranging for the provision of after-care services under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (after-care) must be made at a rate that the local authority estimates to be equivalent to the reasonable cost of securing the provision of those services to meet those needs.”
13 In subsection (9) of that section—
(a) for “, 35 or 36” substitute “or 35”, and(b) for “care and support” substitute “after-care services”.14 In subsection (10) of that section, for “care and support to meet needs” substitute “after-care services”.””
Probation Service
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the impact of the proposed provisions for the supervision of offenders by the private and voluntary sectors after the proposed reorganisation of the probation service.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the probation service is facing fundamental changes, yet during the passage of the Offender Rehabilitation Bill through this House, there was very little chance to debate these changes in any depth. The central issue I wish to explore in this debate is how far, when these changes are made, can we maintain and even improve the quality of probation services for the rehabilitation of offenders?
That issue raises a number of questions. First, can we retain our existing probation officers within the new structure when the bulk of the service is in private ownership? Secondly, how do we maintain the standards, morale and ethos of the probation service? Thirdly, how can we maintain the high quality recruitment and training in the future? Fourthly, will the new structure deliver the promised new services we all want to see: the through-the-gate supervision, and supervision for offenders on release from short sentences? Fifthly, will the reorganisation genuinely lead to more diversity, more innovation, and better results or are we heading, as some fear, for low-cost uniformity, led by commercial organisations with bad records of failure which will be of no long-term benefit? Finally, will payment by results actually deliver results or will the targets be either too hard to reach to make them worth aiming for or insufficiently challenging so that they make no difference?
It might help if I set out my understanding of how the proposals stand now. On 1 April next year the probation service is to be split. The existing 35 probation trusts will be wound up, the new National Probation Service will be charged with looking after offenders classified as high risk, with providing advice to courts, with conducting the risk assessment of new clients and with handling cases of breach. They will have a clear responsibility for public protection. The NPS will look after 20% of the probation trusts’ current case load, while 21 new community rehabilitation companies will take over the remaining case load. It is intended that existing staff will be reassigned between the NPS and the CRCs.
Initially, each of the CRCs will be wholly owned by the Ministry of Justice. They will cover England and Wales split into areas and each will be charged with delivering the relevant orders of the court in its own area, including community payback, unpaid work, curfews and drug rehabilitation. The CRCs will generally be located in the same premises as the NPS and, initially at least, those will be the existing probation trust buildings.
Starting in late 2014, the intention is that the CRCs will be taken over by the successful bidders in the competition which is being organised. The bids will be judged on which provide the best package within what the department calls an affordability envelope. So there is a slightly uncomfortable compromise between competition on price, which risks reducing quality, and competition on quality. However, in this area, of course, an objective comparison of quality is very difficult because bidders are expected to propose a range of different ways of delivering the orders of the court.
In the first stage, following 1 April, the probation services will look to their clients and to the public much like the services provided by the existing probation trusts; the same staff doing much the same work in the same premises, though with some change in the allocation of work. However, after the new contracts are let, the shape of the probation services is going to be much more difficult to predict. The new through-the-gate resettlement and supervision following short sentences will only be implemented at this second stage, so the CRCs’ contractual obligations will then have to change. What other changes will there be in the obligations of the CRCs under their new ownership and will they vary from one CRC to the next?
These substantial changes take place against a background of considerable success for the probation trusts. Reoffending rates have been steadily falling for all offenders apart from those serving short prison sentences and they, to date, have had no contact with the probation service anyway. The trusts’ performance has generally been rated by the Ministry of Justice as good or excellent. The Merseyside Trust was last year the first public sector winner of the British Quality Foundation’s UK Excellence Award. All this has been achieved within a falling budget. It is therefore unsurprising that there is some bewilderment among the probation services as to why they need such reorganisation at all.
Against that background, I turn to my first question on the retention of existing probation officers. We currently have a highly professional, skilled and committed body of probation officers who are an asset of great value, impossible to price but once lost very difficult to replace. My concern is how far the new owners of the CRCs will in the medium and long term retain the staff they take over. Will they be required by their contracts to involve qualified probation officers in the delivery of their services?
My second question concerning the standards, morale and ethos of the probation service is closely linked. My concern is not for the new NPS. Indeed, as a national service, the NPS may develop more influence within the criminal justice system than could the individual probation trusts. However, how far will standards be safe under the umbrella of the new providers? Who are they likely to be? What mix will there be between commercial and voluntary sectors? What role will there be for mutuals? How will performance be monitored, and will that monitoring be effective?
My third question concerned recruitment and training. In relation to all these questions so far, one hopeful development is the proposed establishment by the Probation Association and the Probation Chiefs Association, with government approval, of an institute to be known as the “Probation Institute”. Such an institute could offer accreditation of courses and qualifications. It could maintain a register of qualified probation officers, and could ultimately take on the role of monitoring and enforcing professional performance standards. That would assist providers when recruiting, and probation officers when seeking new employment. The institute could also act as an information exchange on innovation and best practice and would be a valuable resource if it did so. The proposed institute might one day apply for charter status, and would establish probation officers as a strong and independent profession. In a world of diverse new providers, this would be a significant benefit.
My fourth question concerned the delivery of the new services. How confident are the Government that satisfactory bidders will commit to supplying through-the-gate resettlement and the extra supervision, within the same overall price package as we pay for current services? If the bidders do not emerge, the CRCs will stay with the Ministry of Justice and the reorganisation will have failed to achieve its object.
My fifth question was on diversity of provision. Will we genuinely secure more voluntary sector involvement—more local partnerships between smaller local organisations and the main contractors? Will we secure the special arrangements we need and which have been promised for women and young offenders? Finally, will payment by results lead to improved reoffending rates? Was the Social Market Foundation right or wrong to conclude, as it did in its report this summer, that the extra payments would not make it worth while for providers to pay the extra money to improve the service? Will the payment by results provisions affect the prospect of more partnerships, even if main contractors cannot pass on the risk—as they should not be able to do—to their smaller providers?
I am not opposed to these reforms in principle. If they go well, they could lead to more diversity, to more imaginative and effective rehabilitation, to the provision of the new services, to lower reoffending rates, and to the prospect of fewer people in prison, with improved lives and substantial savings of public funds. However, I am concerned that there are many pitfalls on the road to these desirable outcomes. Perhaps some further time might be desirable for the transfer to private ownership. I look forward to hearing other contributions to this debate and to the response from my noble friend the Minister.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, deserves to be congratulated, not only on having secured the debate this evening but on the masterful way in which he introduced the subject. I found myself in great sympathy with the points he made.
I confess to the House that I feel very sad. If I was asked to pick an exemplary area of effective public service in British social history, I would pick the probation service. It has dedicated people of quality; people of education, training and practical experience. They do not just run a system or prove themselves as efficient in economic terms, but they have a mission to relate to the individuals, the young men, women and children —and not only young—who are their responsibility, and to work with them as individuals, trying to enable them to become productive. Rehabilitation is a sort of artificial word—it does not get to the human centre of all this. They enable these people to become constructive members of society, to feel that they belong to society, and to grow in confidence. I see that all that is in jeopardy because of a preoccupation with change—as far as I can see, almost for the sake of change.
Look at what has happened in recent years. We have seen reoffending down and the 35 probation trusts in England and Wales have been described as being good or exceptional. Why change a situation that is going so well? We have also seen—this is crucial—that reoffending has been coming down. The latest set of statistics published by the Ministry of Justice shows that for everyone under probation supervision, the probation service will reduce reoffending by 5%. The fall in reoffending has been even higher: when the figures for those serving community sentences are separated from those released from custody, there has been a 6% reduction for those serving community sentences. This is positive; it is not dramatic but is steady progress, which matters in this area. It is about working with people as people, not dramatic schemes against artificial targets.
I am sure that all of us commend the work of the Howard League. I was very struck by a paper it prepared for this debate which posed certain questions that we ought to take very seriously. The league says that in the context of this being a huge change to our justice system:
“Risk is key to the Transforming Rehabilitation proposals—who will supervise people under sentence will be determined by their risk level, with high risk cases remaining in the public sector and all low and medium risk cases (the vast majority) being transferred to private providers. Despite the central importance of risk levels to the proposals a risk assessment … is yet to be published, or possibly even developed. Furthermore”—
and the noble Lord referred to this—
“probation officers are currently being asked whether they would prefer to stay in the public sector or move to one of the 21 ‘Crime reduction companies’ … but they are not being provided with any information with which to make this decision. Probation officers do not know who their employers will be … what they will carry out or what the terms and conditions … will be. It is unacceptable to put forward radical plans that are central to public safety with so little detail about how it will work and how it will affect the people involved”.
I have another concern which I will share with the House. I have spent a great deal of my life in the voluntary sector. I was a director of Oxfam, which is quite a significant organisation. I am sure that if these proposals go ahead, a lot of voluntary organisations will have a great contribution to make. They will bring a great deal of sensitivity and commitment. However, I am anxious. Why? The real centre of purpose in the voluntary sector should be experimentation. It should be about becoming a catalyst for society as a whole, about vision and new approaches. Increasingly, the voluntary sector is being asked to become an extension of the public sector—subcontracting to get the work done more cheaply than it would be done under existing arrangements is usually a governing factor. That is the objective; rather like privatisation, we shall have to wait and see whether it will work out like that.
I am concerned that all this may be affecting the historical culture and ethos of the voluntary sector. It may be becoming a subcontracting culture as distinct from an innovative, imaginative, visionary, sensitive, dynamic purpose-challenging society with new experiences. I think of a very practical example. I have referred to my experience at Oxfam and other organisations in the voluntary sector, and I had for nine years the joy of being national president of YMCA England and Wales. I became particularly struck by the work the YMCA was doing with young offenders. I remember going to a young offender institution where it had won a contract to work. This, of course, was under the previous Government; I am not disguising that reality—it is a fact. The contract was to get young people into jobs—into work. It was judged by the Home Office in terms of how successful it was in getting those results against targets. What the team was discovering, as sensitive, imaginative people, was that some of those with whom it worked were not ready to go into a job straight away. They needed a lot more support and preparation for making a success of their life. To get them into a job straight away might be a recipe for disaster.
The YMCA therefore began to do more work on this area because it thought that it was its responsibility. It was told in no uncertain terms to stop doing that because, if it did not meet the targets on getting people into jobs, it would lose the contract to somebody else. This is the sort of problem I see ahead. These are the practical problems of the front line. I would like to hear much more reassurance from the Government on this.
I finish as I started: I think it is a word that can be used too loosely, but I genuinely feel we are at a tragic stage. We are about to tear up and remove something with a tremendous sense of purpose, of loyalty and of contribution to society, but above all of contribution to the individuals with whom they are working, for a system unproven with so many questions still unresolved. I do not understand why we are making this leap into something which is far from proven as a sensible way forward.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity this debate gives us to look at the work of the probation service today and examine its value in the context of the changes the Government want to make, the implications for its future and, equally important, the future of its clients.
I declare an interest that I was a patron of the Probation Boards Association in 2005, when I joined the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and I have had connections with the service for many years.
Since its origins more than 100 years ago, the probation service has developed into the national provision for people in trouble with the law at the interface between offenders and the courts, prison, community provision and the public. It represents the bedrock of the system by which we manage offenders in this country in conjunction with the myriad agencies—statutory, voluntary and private—which work to keep our society safe. It is a highly professional service with a hinterland of skills, knowledge and experience which is second to none and on which we all depend when dealing with offender management.
All the performance indicators show that the service is doing well. The MoJ rating system shows that targets have been reached with performance ratings of “good” or “excellent”, and just two years ago the service became the first public sector organisation to be awarded the British Quality Foundation’s Gold Medal for Excellence in recognition of
“outstanding and continued commitment to sustained excellence over a number of years”,
an achievement of which they—and we—should be proud.
We know that the cost of the service is considerable, as one would expect of a national public service. Indeed, the MoJ budget is second only to the costs of the Prison Service, and cuts are inevitably constantly sought by the Government, particularly in these times of recession. Savings of 20% have been found between 2008-9 and 2012-13, while the budget also fell by 19%, but costs are a persistent issue as they are in all the social services. What also matters, however, is the quality and professionalism of the service, which is dealing, in the community, with some of the most damaged, difficult, vulnerable and often dangerous members of our society. This requires skill and experience that comes only with time. It also depends on relationships with the police and on “integrated offender management” with a host of other colleagues in the social services world, health, education, employment and so on.
It is worth reminding the House that, in the recent past, prison numbers have been dropping. Last year there was a 5% decrease in those being sentenced on the year before, and the prison population itself fell in the past 12 months for the first time since 1999. Recorded levels of crime are at their lowest for 30 years, and youth crime is down 47%. This illustrates the effectiveness and significance of probation in helping to keep people out of prison, by managing them in the community, where they are less likely to reoffend, at a fraction of the cost of imprisonment. Where the figures go the other way relates to those 50,000 minor, persistent offenders, of whom 57% reoffend, serving a year or less in prison. Until now this group has never had any statutory probation support; hence the high reoffending rate which the Minister now wants to include.
In the light of the probation service’s performance and background, it beggars belief that the Minister, Chris Grayling, should be contemplating handing over 80% of the probation service’s work to an almost untried and untested system of payment by results, which is still being assessed, to be administered by 21 crime reduction companies (CRCs) with no earthly idea of what the outcomes are likely to be. Probation officers will still have a guaranteed job for the first year up to 1 April 2015, when the scheme goes live, when their jobs will be “sold to the market”. There is no indication of what the workforce will consist of, except possibly most of those redundant probation officers. Their task will be to manage the 150,000 offenders that probation currently manages in the community each year—excluding the high-risk offenders —and at the same time to provide a year’s support to the 50,000 additional group of low-level offenders that the Minister now wants to be supervised for the first time. It is of course an admirable aim to have additional support for this group, and it could be of great benefit to offenders and public alike, but only if there is the skilled supervision available in appropriate numbers. The Minister’s solution of handing over the whole task to the new private sector, divided into 21 community rehabilitation companies, in contract package areas and overseen by six divisional heads, is what is being announced. Beyond this there is absolutely no indication where the staff on the ground are going to come from, who they will be, let alone what experience and skill sets these newcomers will have. I understand that this information comes under the heading of “commercial confidentiality”.
We know, however, that the 20% of current probation service staff who will be left will be required to manage all the high-risk, most challenging offenders, who will be assigned to them. Here their skills are recognised. This is very important and welcome. They will also have responsibility for bringing back all breach cases to the courts for review and sentence.
Risk management is part of probation’s professional work. It is a delicate skill, and the assessment and allocation of risk is inevitably subject to change. Of course, with professional help, people come off the risk register, but they can also fluctuate, which raises the question of whether each time offenders become low risk they will be transferred to a CRC and will then have to be reassigned again if circumstances change once more—as well they might. This is another “detail” of some significance, because continuity of offender management, as anybody in the business knows, is of extreme importance. However, how these issues will be expected to be dealt with remains unclear—as does whether people will be shifted between CRCs and probation depending on their assessed level of risk. What is clear is that the division of management between low and medium-risk, and high-risk, offenders means that the service will inevitably be fragmented, thus compromising accountability and effective community support. 1 would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on this.
The additional cohort of 50,000 offenders will be required to remain on supervision for a whole year, regardless of the length of the short sentence served or the nature of the offence. For example, it could be a two or three-month sentence for a driving offence. How appropriate is a year’s supervision for that?
Apart from issues of staff training and experience, there are considerable risks in the management of a whole year’s supervision. Offenders and professionals are likely to find a year disproportionate, which will make compliance very difficult and almost inevitably will increase the risk of breach by this group.
It is estimated by the Government that around 13,000 offenders each year will be recalled or will breach their conditions and end up in prison again, because for many a year is inappropriate and too long. It is not clear how the CRCs will manage this potentially enormous addition to their workload, and it will increase the prison population by an estimated 600 people. This in turn will impact on current prison management, which is simultaneously dealing with unprecedented cuts on the one hand and the reorganisation of resettlement prisons on the other. Resettlement is another big issue because it has already resulted, inevitably, in the mixing of young people, who are often vulnerable, with adults. This is highly undesirable and destabilising to the normal allocation of prisoners, which is an important part of prison life. It has already led to increased violence and drug use in HMP/YOI Portland, as reported by the IMB, and to a 50% increase in self-harm among young people within a year of mixing with adult prisoners.
I regret that the Government have not wanted to take more time and have not tried out the ideas in some pilot areas, for example. Instead, everyone in the service is now working to ever-tighter deadlines as the goal posts shift. Probation trust chairs are finding the time for transition impossibly short to plan for proper delivery of services, which will be damaging to both future performance and public protection.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for pointing out that there is a time limit of 10 minutes for each speaker, and that we have a speaker in the gap.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
I am sorry; I will wind up. I have had letters from professionals who are really worried about this. There is a blank wall of information about how they are to plan and budget beyond next April.
It is surely important to get this right and to reach greater levels of clarity. It is too big a project to be allowed to fail, when excellence should be the goal. The focus of our exercise should be the most vulnerable and difficult in our community.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak in the gap. I will make one central point and ask the Minister two questions.
When we were dealing with the Offender Rehabilitation Bill, I visited a number of very senior professionals in the probation service. From a management point of view, they made one central point to me. It is a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, made, but I think that it is worth expanding on it after what they said to me. Currently, the probation trusts arrange their management in multi-expert groups of different levels of experience and expertise. The reason is that they can provide continuity of access to, and supervision of, the offenders they are now looking after. The point that was made very forcefully to me by senior probation trust managers was that they experience problems when offenders move between different institutions. Whether the move is from prison into the community or from one place in the community to a different address that is under the supervision of a different probation trust, there is always a dropout of people breaching conditions or not maintaining contact with probation officers.
The point that was made to me—which the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, made—is that built into the proposed new system is the certainty that there will be more changes between institutions. You will be moving from the National Probation Service, which will make the initial assessment, to a private provider that will then run the supervision for whatever the period is. Then, if there is a breach or a change in circumstances—for example, if the offender starts taking drugs again—they will go back to the National Probation Service for a reassessment. Perhaps there will be a reassignment or perhaps they will go back to court. The point that the managers made to me was that with every transfer you get dropout, which builds inefficiency into the system. Therefore, my first question to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, is: has this point been addressed in the contracts that are being bid for? It is the central point that was made to me by senior probation trust managers.
My second question is about the Through the Gates pilots that I understand are currently being run. When will the results of these pilots be available? From what I have heard in unofficial gossip, if one may put it like that, a number of these pilots have been inadequately resourced and inadequately managed. Therefore, the results may be worse than the Government had hoped for. If this is the case, it would be a shame, because I for one think that the model of providing through-the-gate provision, perhaps with somebody who has experience of coming out of prison helping with supervision, is a good one. However, it needs to be properly supported and funded for it to work.
I close by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for tabling this debate. It is an important one. I cannot resist saying to both noble Lords opposite that there were plenty of opportunities to vote against the provisions of the Offender Rehabilitation Bill, and I am only sorry that they did not take advantage of them.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships would wish to join me in wishing the Minister a happy Eid. I daresay that it would be happier if he did not have to take his place in the Chamber tonight and answer for the Government in this debate.
It is customary to thank the Member who secured a debate of this kind, and I do so willingly. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, followed me to my Oxford college some eight years after I graduated. Unfortunately, as my noble friend has pointed out, he did not follow me into the Lobbies when we debated the future of the probation service and voted on the amendments to the Offender Rehabilitation Bill tabled and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who cannot be in his place tonight, and by me. Had we not taken that step this would have been the first time that the House had an opportunity to discuss the massive changes that the Government seek to impose on a crucial and, as we have heard, high-performing public service. Members will recall that the Bill contained no reference to probation, and that the leaked risk assessment on the Bill disgracefully declared it had been,
“kept slim to minimise the dependence of the reforms on the passing of the legislation”.
Your Lordships’ House passed a crucial amendment to the Bill requiring proposals to reorganise the probation service to be subject to parliamentary approval. The Government have yet to indicate even when the Bill will receive its Second Reading in the House of Commons. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us as to when that is likely to occur. In the mean time, the Government have displayed their contempt for the views of this House by embarking on yet another bout of pre-emption, or as I have described it in respect of other matters, pre-legislative implementation of the kind roundly criticised by the Constitution Committee, by pressing ahead with arrangements to dismember the service and put 70% of its work out to contract, for which incidentally the existing service will not be allowed to tender. OJEC procedures have been initiated and a strange document entitled, Target Operating Manual—its initials presumably being derived from the noble Lord, Lord McNally—has been published.
This document sets out a complex structure analogous to the confusing and expensive shambles that was imposed on the National Health Service. Local probation trusts disappear to be replaced by a national service responsible for high-risk offenders while private companies supervise medium and low-risk offenders, including those released after serving sentences of 12 months or less. Yet the paper continues to be vague about the system of payment by results saying only that,
“a proportion of their payment will be at risk and dependent on their performance”,
while failing to establish the basis on which that will be measured, or indeed what proportion might be involved.
There are serious concerns about the largely undefined categories of risk between which some 25% to 30% of offenders move. The National Probation Service is supposed to assume responsibility for those moving from the lower categories to high risk. The document states this will follow the deployment of an “actuarial tool” combined with a “clinical judgment of risk”. Can the Minister explain what those terms actually mean? It goes on to establish a hierarchy of officers—a responsible officer, a supervising officer and a supervisor, all with different roles, piling complexity upon confusion and fragmentation. The model refers to the involvement of police and crime commissioners in the new arrangements, but not local authorities, clinical commissioning groups or NHS England, which has responsibility for commissioning primary care and mental health services, both highly relevant to the issue.
There will be £450 million worth of contracts offered to, among others, the likes of Group 4 and Serco, who gave us the Olympics fiasco, the tagging scandal, Oakwood prison and, as we have heard in the past few days, the transport to prison of male and female prisoners in the same van—but then this is the Secretary of State responsible for the lamentable failure of the Work Programme. No doubt he would be happy to see such organisations take over the entire system from policing to the court service, and from probation to prisons. As Caliban might have said:
“Oh brave new world that has such providers in it”.
The Government claim that the programmes will involve no extra expenditure despite estimating that it will result in some 200,000 coming under its auspices, 60,000 of whom are likely to be recalled into custody and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, pointed out, on the Government’s own figures 13,000 will receive short sentences as a result of the reforms who would not otherwise have done so. What is the basis for this improbable assertion in relation to overall costs? Payment by results has not been piloted—or at least not properly piloted, since the Government terminated the relevant pilots prematurely. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, admitted in debate on Report that formal evaluations were not available because the pilots were discontinued, but claimed that the Government had,
“learnt from the process of designing the pilots”—
I emphasise the word “designing” and were,
“applying that learning process to the design of the new system”.—[Official Report, 25/6/13; col.681.]
Can the Minister tell us precisely what was learnt from the process of designing, but also, importantly, how the Government propose to implement the design that emerged from the short-lived pilots? For that matter can he explain the logic of including in the new regime offenders who may have served as little as one day of a custodial sentence? I repeat some of the questions that I raised on Report, to which no answer was given. In relation to payment by results, what performance indicators will be used to measure service delivery? How will the Ministry of Justice decide to deduct—and on what basis—a proportion of the fee for underperformance? What weight will be given to the nature of any reoffending? Will a motoring offence count the same as a burglary or crime of violence? How long is the period in which reoffending occurs to be measured? The Minister’s letter on the subject suggested 12 months—surely too short.
What of the questions raised by the Chief Inspector of Probation, which also went unanswered in the debate? Was she right to suggest that,
“only a small part of the contract price can be genuinely dependent on a reoffending measure”,
or that,
“victim contact services should remain within the public sector probation service”?
What does the Minister say to her charge that the,
“current proposals for the management of risk cannot be judged as workable”?
Have they been modified; if so how, and with whom have they been discussed?
How do the Government respond to the chief inspector’s concerns that more full pre-sentence reports will be needed where cases are to be referred to contractors, that small local voluntary organisations will be squeezed out once they have been discarded as bid candy, and that national commissioning,
“could be at the expense of the local perspective and the good working relations at the moment between probation trusts and local partners”?
Does the Minister stand by the airy dismissal of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, of the leaked risk assessment which estimates a 51% to 80% risk that predicted cost savings will not be met? Finally, what is the Minister’s estimate of the number of probation officers who will lose their jobs as 70% of their work is transferred? Does he agree that the figure of 18,000 which has been mentioned is about right? If staff do transfer to contractors, will TUPE provisions apply?
The Government’s objective—the reduction of reoffending—is right. Their proposals, however, are complex, confusing, uncosted and potentially risky. They should be properly piloted with probation trusts being allowed to tender for the work for which they have a deservedly high reputation, as we have heard tonight. I thank all those who have contributed to this debate. If the Government railroad through their ill thought-out plans—in a sort of HS2 of the criminal justice world—it will be because they put ideology before criminology in an area where public safety should be paramount.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first, I return the greeting from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, who wished me a happy Eid. It is traditional to say khair mubarak to all. Indeed, my Eid celebrations are, of course, reaching a culmination in being with your Lordships this evening.
I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Marks for giving the House the opportunity to debate this important subject. I know that both he and my noble friend Lady Linklater recently discussed the reforms with senior officials responsible for the rehabilitation programme, and I am grateful for their continued interest in the reforms. I also take this opportunity to thank all other noble Lords who have contributed, including the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Beecham. I was somewhat surprised when I saw the initial list and the omission of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I am glad that he resumed his place here. His thoughtful contributions are always welcome to a debate of this importance. The debate is of course a timely opportunity for your Lordships to reflect again on the Government’s reforms.
On 19 September, we published details of how the new model for supervision of offenders will work, alongside the launch of the competition to find future providers of rehabilitation services. Questions have been raised, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked the obvious question of “why?”. The Government’s position is that these reforms are vital if we are to break the depressing cycle of reoffending. At the moment, nearly half of all offenders released from our prisons offend again within a year. I will look at a couple of reoffending figures—my noble friend Lady Linklater referred to one of them—almost 60% of prisoners released from under 12 months of custody go on to reoffend. That is a statistic that we cannot ignore. Equally, there is the cost of reoffending. The National Audit Office, back in 2010, estimated that the crimes committed by recent ex-prisoners cost anything between £9.5 billion and £13 billion to the economy. Notwithstanding some of the information about the probation service and its success, which I will come to in a moment or two, these provide valid reasons why it is important we also address the issue of reoffending, particularly among those serving sentences of under a year, which has not yet been addressed.
Legislating to provide that virtually all offenders released from custody will be subject to supervision is just one important aspect and benefit of our overall package of Transforming Rehabilitation reforms. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked why we need to change when probation trusts are performing so well. Under the current system, the most prolific group of reoffenders are those released form short custodial sentences. They receive no statutory rehabilitation support. Trusts currently do not have the opportunity to work with them, and we believe that our reforms will go towards addressing that particular issue. We need to stop offenders passing through the system again and again, creating more victims and damaging communities, and we need to have a system that is sustainable given our current financial constraints. That is, in essence, what is behind our reforms.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, mentioned Through the Gate. In response, I will start with the impact of the reforms. First, there is the support that prisoners will get through the gate from custody into the community. This is an important reform. Providers will offer a resettlement service for all offenders in custody before their release. That may include support in finding accommodation, family support, mentoring and financial advice. I share the sentiment expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. We want to ensure that every citizen of this country, if they commit a crime, is given an opportunity to reform but also to then become a productive citizen and contribute to the economy of our country. The services in custody will be underpinned by changes to the way the prison estate is organised. Through new resettlement prisons, in most cases, the same offender manager will work with offenders in custody and continue their rehabilitation work in the community. That continuity is very important.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, talked about particular pilots and issues that have been raised about them. I suggest that we could have a further discussion, either through a meeting, or by correspondence, which I will of course share with other noble Lords.
I turn to the voluntary sector. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, raised this particularly important point. Its expertise is part and parcel of what we are seeking to integrate into the reforms. We are creating a much greater level of opportunity for voluntary and community sector organisations to play a role in rehabilitating offenders. I do not quite share the sentiment that they are there just for experimentation—they are there for their expertise. They are often best placed to tackle the issues that lead offenders back to crime, whether that is substance misuse, homelessness or a lack of training and education. They are often best placed to work with particular groups with complex needs; for example, many female offenders. I have seen during visits to different prisons—I have often cited Peterborough prison —where voluntary organisations such as the St Giles Trust play a vital role in the rehabilitation of prisoners.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the market is not simply cornered by the big players. In July, the Ministry of Justice awarded £150,000 to ACEVO to deliver a series of skills and information workshops aimed at supporting the voluntary sector and mutuals to compete for contracts and deliver services to cut reoffending. As part of the rehabilitation competition, we are also running a registration process for smaller providers in order to maximise, as far as possible, the opportunities for them to be involved. We want to draw on the best services that can be offered by practitioners across the public, private and voluntary sectors. I say that to underline the driving force behind these reforms. They are about improving the support we give to offenders to turn away from crime. We will be judging potential bidders on the quality of the service they offer, not just on price.
I turn to probation professionals and staff. All noble Lords, I believe, referred to this, including my noble friend Lord Marks in his opening remarks. The Government’s position remains that we cannot deliver these improvements unless we retain the skills and expertise of probation professionals as we move into the new system. Their excellence is not something to be ignored. I have the very greatest respect and admiration for the work that our probation officers do and am sure that the sentiment echoes across the Chamber. They play a fundamental role in protecting the public and helping offenders reintegrate into society. We do not want to lose their expertise. That is why the national framework for the transfer of staff to the new system gives an absolute commitment to fair processes and protection for staff within the system, including: a guarantee of employment for all probation staff employed by a probation trust on 31 March 2014, in either the appropriate community rehabilitation company or the National Probation Service; protection of current terms and conditions at the point of transfer; and no compulsory redundancies.
My noble friend Lady Linklater talked about 20% of probation staff going to the NPS. The proportion of staff who will actually move to the National Probation Service, or community rehabilitation companies, is still being finalised. There is certainly no set target of 20%. It will be the proportion needed to effectively manage the appropriate service. Alongside that, we will place contractual requirements on community rehabilitation companies to have and maintain a workforce with appropriate levels of training and competence throughout the life of their contracts.
I turn to some of the other questions. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked about the disruption caused by offenders moving. There will be 21 CRCs, which will cover larger areas. The Bill also makes sure that offenders subject to community orders do not move residence where such a move will hinder the offender’s rehabilitation. That is a very important point.
My noble friend Lord Marks also mentioned the idea of some kind of chartered institute of probation officers. I assure all noble Lords that this is an idea that the Government are taking forward and looking at seriously. We are working with interested parties across the board to develop a proposal for a Probation Institute that would promote the development of innovation and the sharing of good practice in the new system.
Payment by results and performance management were mentioned by several noble Lords. Community rehabilitation companies will be incentivised, through payment by results, to strive to reduce reoffending. In May this year, we published a detailed “straw man” proposal for the payment mechanism. We want to ensure that providers are incentivised to work with all offenders, including the most prolific, and have proposed important safeguards. We continue to test and refine this particular model. We will also put in place a clear performance framework to ensure that community rehabilitation companies meet the standards required of them in managing their cases and delivering the sentences of the courts. The system will be regulated through a combination of robust contract management, audit and independent inspections by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation.
I turn to risk and public protection, which were raised by the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Beecham, and by my noble friend Lady Linklater. Public protection is absolutely at the heart of these reforms, and the National Probation Service will have a crucial role to play in this. It will risk assess every offender at the outset and retain the management of offenders who pose a high risk of serious harm to the public and who have committed more serious offences. Community rehabilitation companies will be contractually obliged to work with the National Probation Service to manage those offenders at risk of causing serious harm. Any offender whose risk level escalates to “high” during their sentence will be transferred back to the National Probation Service.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked various questions about the ultimate responsibility for managing the risk of harm posed by offenders. The public sector has overall responsibility for public protection and the MoJ will ensure the effective management of risk of serious harms.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to the much greater influence the National Probation Service will give probation within government. The directors of probation for England and for Wales will both sit on the NOMS board and will be able to advise Ministers directly on policy and operational matters. That is a significant improvement on the current system, in which probation is very much the junior partner to the Prison Service.
My noble friend Lady Linklater talked about transfer from the National Probation Service back to the CRC if the risk decreases. This will not happen: if an offender is transferred to the NPS they will remain with the NPS for the duration of their supervision.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said that continuity of management and supervision is essential. He comes at this subject with great expertise and I agree with him. Each offender will continue to be managed by the same organisation—NPS or CRC—unless his or her risk escalates to high. For someone managed by the CRC, the NPS will have a role in dealing with a breach and in the risk assessment at the outset but the offender manager itself will not change.
To conclude, as I said at the start of my speech, we have now launched the competition to find providers of rehabilitation services. The Ministry of Justice is working closely with probation trusts to prepare for the implementation. We have also published detailed plans of how we see the new system working and we continue to seek views on key aspects such as the payment mechanism. I welcome the opportunity that this debate has given the House to discuss these details. I assure all noble Lords that the Government are committed to continuing to engage with noble Lords in these reforms as they progress.
I will end with what is at stake here: the extension of support and supervision through the gate for short-sentence offenders and the possibility of a sustained reduction in reoffending rates. In respect of what has been said today, I know that that is a global aim shared by all noble Lords across the House. These reforms will allow us to do just that and will bring significant benefits, most importantly, for both victims and communities.
Care Bill [HL]
(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel of Bradford
Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 136A and 136B seek to ensure that people in prison and those residing in approved premises have equivalence of care when it comes to safeguarding inquiries by local authorities. Noble Lords may remember that I raised this issue in Committee but I was a little concerned by the response I received from the Minister on that occasion. I am grateful to Jenny Talbot and her team at the Prison Reform Trust for all the support and guidance they have provided throughout.
I welcome the Government’s commitment in this Bill to place responsibility for the social care of adult prisoners with the local authority in whose area the prison is located. The Bill outlines the responsibilities of local authorities towards people in prison who have care and support needs and would ensure that people in prisons are able to access care and support on a similar basis to those in the community. However, having made such a significant and welcome commitment to the social care of prisoners, there is an anomaly in the Bill, which states that people in prison and people residing in approved premises are not to receive equivalence of care when it comes to safeguarding inquiries by local authorities. Surely denying people in prison and people residing in approved premises the benefit of an inquiry by the local authority when safeguarding concerns are raised places an already vulnerable group of individuals at even greater risk.
Of course, I understand that prisons have a whole range of safeguarding measures in place. However, when there is a real problem that a prison has not resolved, why can a local authority not have an inquiry for a person who is vulnerable and at risk? Moreover, I cannot understand why people in approved premises—in other words, people who have been released from prison and are living in the community; for example, in a probation hostel—should be excluded from local authority safeguarding inquiries. If the local authority is not responsible for safeguarding vulnerable adults in approved premises in the community, who is?
When I raised this issue in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, stated,
“if local authorities must also conduct inquiries in prisons and approved premises, we run the risk of duplicating inquiries. Prison governors and directors have the primary responsibility for preventing abuse or neglect of prisoners with care and support needs. Prison governors already have a duty to care for and safeguard prisoners. If we duplicate this responsibility, we run the risk that the lack of clarity will mean that safeguarding concerns fall between agencies”.—[Official Report, 29/7/13; col. 1585.]
I have a number of concerns about this response, two in particular. First, with regard to people in prison, the noble Baroness talked about the duplication of effort and lack of clarity. I suggest that this is simply not the case. My amendment would not limit the responsibility that prisons already have. On the contrary, their involvement on safeguarding adults boards would help to ensure shared learning and expertise, including, where necessary, the option for a safeguarding inquiry should safeguarding concerns not be resolved by the individual prison.
In fact, inquiries by local authorities should be viewed as another tool to help ensure our prisons are safe for both vulnerable prisoners and the staff who work with them. I am not suggesting that local authorities need to be directly involved in all interventions in prisons or that local safeguarding teams would need to be called upon to intervene in every safeguarding concern raised. However, directors of adult services need to be confident that their standards are consistent with those set out in the report No Secrets and any exceptions are explicit and jointly agreed. Therefore, I believe that an inquiry by a local authority will not duplicate the excellent work undertaken by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, or by the prison itself. It will complement and enhance it, and could potentially help save lives.
Secondly, the noble Baroness did not provide an answer as to who would be responsible for the safeguarding of people in approved premises, if it is not the local authority. For the sake of clarity, I will ask the question again. As I understand it, approved premises are the responsibility of the probation service and not of the prison service. Any responsibilities that prison governors have for safeguarding adult offenders end once that person is released and physically leaves the premises. As the Bill currently stands, people living in approved premises will not be the responsibility of local authorities as is everybody else who lives in the community. So if someone is living in approved premises, such as a probation hostel, and is part of the community, as is anybody else, and that person has been abused or neglected or is at serious risk, who will have the obligation to carry out a safeguarding inquiry?
In terms of safeguarding inquiries by the local authority, not providing people in prison or who reside in approved premises with the same equivalence of care as for other people in the community makes little sense. The Bill establishes that equivalence of care applies to prisoners, and this should extend to safeguarding and to how safeguarding concerns are dealt with. Local authority adult safeguarding procedures are well established within local communities and the safeguarding of people in prisons and of those residing in approved premises should not be excluded from this body of expertise.
Of course, prisons and approved premises, such as hospitals and care homes, should have their own internal safeguarding arrangements and responses to safeguarding concerns. However, by excluding prisons and approved premises from safeguarding inquiries by the local authority, prisoners and people residing in approved premises will be denied the equivalent protections afforded to other vulnerable adults. Further, the opportunity for constructive dialogue and shared learning, which some prisons and local authorities currently enjoy, may also be lost. As the Bill stands, this is a serious gap which places a very vulnerable group at risk. Therefore, I hope the Minister can provide some clarification, reassurance or, better still, accept my amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, I hope that the Minister will take note of the very serious points which the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, has made to your Lordships tonight.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, these two amendments deal with changes to Clause 72 to impose a duty on local authorities to make safeguarding inquiries in prisons and approved premises. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for tabling these amendments. We strongly agree that a person with care and support needs should be protected against abuse or neglect wherever they live.
Prison governors and directors, and the probation trust in the case of approved premises, are responsible for safeguarding prisoners and for protecting them from abuse and neglect. They have in place procedures to follow in response to allegations of abuse or neglect, and they must provide assurance on this to the National Offender Management Service. The UK operates a comprehensive level of monitoring and scrutiny within prisons to ensure that prisoners are kept safe and secure and that governors and directors are accountable for taking steps to improve matters if necessary.
We have in place a fully independent prison inspectorate that carries out a rigorous programme of scrutiny; more than 1,700 volunteers on prison independent monitoring boards who monitor the treatment of adult prisoners; and a Prisons and Probation Ombudsman who investigates both the complaints of those in prison and all deaths that occur among prisoners. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Prison and Probation Ombudsman require assurance that safeguarding procedures are in place and their implementation provides equivalent protection to that available in the community. Investigations by the Ombudsman will provide learning to improve effectiveness. The important thing is not to impose a duty on another body to conduct inquiries in prisons and approved premises, but to ensure that the procedures within the prisons and approved premises are informed by best practice and local expertise.
The Ministry of Justice and the National Offender Management Service have acknowledged that there is a need for improved directions on safeguarding to the Prison Service and probation trusts. They will be working with officials from my department and stakeholders to develop instructions and guidance that will give improved clarity about the roles and responsibilities of the Prison Service and probation trusts in safeguarding adults in their care. The Ministry of Justice encourages prison staff to be involved with local safeguarding adults boards, but the nature of that involvement is best determined at local level.
The Ministry of Justice and the National Offender Management Service will be producing guidance for prison staff on safeguarding in conjunction with their partners. This will be consistent with the broader advice and guidance on safeguarding adults in the community and will ensure that the importance of active engagements with SABs is routinely reiterated to prison staff. Any particular safeguarding considerations for older prisoners and those with dementia will be part of this operational policy. The guidance will set out clear instructions on the need for structured relationships with local safeguarding boards; for example, the model being employed by Surrey, where a memorandum of understanding sets out how prison staff will benefit from the expertise of social services and local authority safeguarding teams. It will also set out how and in what instances referrals to SABs will be made.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, that the existing position makes clear the responsibility and accountability for the safeguarding and protection of prisoners, and that further guidance to prisons and approved premises will bring about the improvement and joint working that we all want to see. The proposed amendments to Clause 72 are therefore not necessary and I would respectfully ask him to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Patel of Bradford
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that informative response and I take on board completely the fact that prisons and the MoJ have developed some good safeguarding measures. I am pleased that further guidance is to be issued to encourage governors and directors to attend local authority safeguarding adults board meetings. I am fairly happy about prisons, prisoner safeguarding and liaison with local authorities. However, for clarification, if someone is living in approved premises, my understanding is that that has nothing to do with the prison governor or the prison because they are in the community living in, say, a bail hostel. Who has responsibility for any serious issue of neglect? I do not think that the probation service undertakes safeguarding inquiries. It would be the local authority, but this clause seems to suggest that it would not be; rather, that it would be the prison governor. That does not make sense to me, although perhaps I do not understand it completely. Of course, one assumes that the local authority would have responsibility for someone in the community, but this provision clearly states that it does not.
Lord Patel of Bradford
For the record, because no one on the outside seems to have been able to give me an answer, someone would have to report to the probation trust that a person is being neglected or abused and it would carry out a safeguarding inquiry. It would not be the local authority or the prison.
Lord Patel of Bradford
If that is the case and it is correct, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) The Secretary of State must have regard to the general duty of local authorities under section 1(1) (promotion of individual well-being)—
(a) in issuing guidance for the purposes of subsection (1);(b) in making regulations under this Part.”
Lord Low of Dalston
“( ) In exercising any function to which an authorisation under this section relates, the person authorised is subject to the same legal obligations as the local authority.”
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, are Amendments 138A and 138B consequential and therefore to be moved formally?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Low, wished to move these amendments. He did of course move his earlier amendment which the House decided upon, but I think that he indicated he was satisfied with my reply on these amendments. I do not want to mislead the House at all, but I believe that that is right.
Baroness Barker
“Older Persons’ Commissioner
(1) In the Health and Social Care Act 2008, after section 128 insert—
“Part 2AOlder Persons’ Commissioner128A Establishment of an office of the Older Persons’ Commissioner
(1) There shall be an office of the Older Persons’ Commissioner.
(2) Schedule (The Older Persons’ Commissioner) shall have effect with respect to the Older Persons’ Commissioner.
128B Functions of the office of the Older Persons’ Commissioner
(1) The Older Persons’ Commissioner has the function under this Part of promoting the wellbeing, dignity and respect of older people and safeguarding and promoting their rights and welfare.
(2) In fulfilling their duties under subsection (1), the Older Persons’ Commissioner may review, and monitor the operation of, arrangements falling within subsection (2), (3) or (4) for the purpose of ascertaining whether, and to what extent, the arrangements are effective in promoting the wellbeing, dignity and respect, and safeguarding and promoting the rights and welfare of older people.
(3) The arrangements falling within this subsection are the arrangements made by the providers of regulated services in England, or by the Secretary of State, for dealing with complaints or representations in respect of such services made by or on behalf of older people.
(4) The arrangements falling within this subsection are arrangements made by the providers of regulated services in England, or by the Secretary of State, for ensuring that proper action is taken in response to any disclosure of information which may tend to show that, in the course of, or in connection with, the provision of regulated services to older people—
(a) that a criminal offence has been committed;(b) that a person has failed to comply with any legal obligation to which he is subject;(c) that the health and safety of any person has been endangered; or(d) that information tending to show that any matter falling within one of the preceding paragraphs has been deliberately concealed.(5) The arrangements falling within this subsection are arrangements made (whether by providers of regulated services in England, by the Secretary of State or by any other person) for making persons available—
(a) to represent the views and wishes of older people to whom this Part applies; or(b) to ensure the adequate provision to older people of advice and support of any prescribed kind. (6) The Secretary of State may, by regulations confer power on the Older Persons’ Commissioner to require prescribed persons to provide any information which the Older Persons’ Commissioner considers it necessary or expedient to have for the purposes of his functions under this section.
(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
128C Examination of cases by the Older Persons’ Commissioner
(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision for the examination by the Older Persons’ Commissioner of the cases of particular older people.
(2) The regulations may include provision about—
(a) the types of case which may be examined;(b) the circumstances in which an examination may be made;(c) the procedure for conducting an examination, including provision about the representation of parties;(d) the publication of reports following an examination.(3) The regulations may, for the purposes of enabling the Older Persons’ Commissioner to examine or determine whether any recommendation made in a report following an examination has been complied with, make provision for—
(a) requiring persons to provide the Older Persons’ Commissioner with information; or(b) requiring persons who hold or are accountable for information to provide the Older Persons’ Commissioner with explanations or other assistance,for the purpose of an examination or for the purposes of determining whether any recommendation made in a report following an examination has been complied with.(4) For the purposes mentioned in subsection (3), the Older Persons’ Commissioner shall have the same powers as the High Court in respect of—
(a) the attendance and examination of witnesses (including the administration of oaths and affirmations and the examination of witnesses abroad); and(b) the provision of information.(5) No person shall be compelled for the purposes mentioned in subsection (3) to give any evidence or provide information which he could not be compelled to give or provide in civil proceedings before the High Court.
(6) The regulations may make provision for the payment by the Older Persons’ Commissioner of sums in respect of expenses or allowances to persons who attend or provide information for the purposes mentioned in subsection (3).
(7) A statutory instrument containing the first regulations made under subsection (1), (2) or (3) is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(8) A statutory instrument that contains regulations made under subsection (6) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
128D Obstruction
(1) The Older Persons’ Commissioner may certify an offence to the High Court where—
(a) a person, without lawful excuse, obstructs him or any member of his staff in the exercise of any of his functions under regulations made under section 128B(5) or 128C; or(b) a person is guilty of any act or omission in relation to an examination under regulations made by under section 128C which, if that examination were proceedings in the High Court, would constitute contempt of court.(2) Where an offence is so certified the High Court may inquire into the matter; and after hearing—
(a) any witnesses who may be produced against or on behalf of the person charged with the offence; and(b) any statement that may be offered in defence,the High Court may deal with the person charged with the offence in any manner in which it could deal with him if he had committed the same offence in relation to the High Court.128E Further functions
(1) The Older Persons’ Commissioner may, in connection with his functions under this Part give advice and information to any person.
(2) Regulations may confer power on the Older Persons’ Commissioner to assist an older person—
(a) in making a complaint or representation to or in respect of a provider of regulated services in England; or(b) in any prescribed proceedings.(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), assistance includes—
(a) financial assistance; and(b) arranging for representation, or the giving of advice or assistance, by any person.(4) Regulations under subsection (2) may also provide for assistance to be given on conditions, including (in the case of financial assistance) conditions requiring repayment in specified circumstances.
(5) Regulations may, in connection with the Older Persons’ Commissioner’s functions under this Part, confer further functions on the Commissioner.
(6) Regulations may, in particular, include provision about the making of reports on any matter connected with any of his functions.
(7) Apart from identifying any person investigated, a report by the Older Persons’ Commissioner shall not—
(a) mention the name of any person, or(b) include any particulars which, in the opinion of the Older Persons’ Commissioner, are likely to identify any person and can be omitted without impairing the effectiveness of the report,unless, after taking account of the public interest (as well as the interests of any person who made a complaint and other persons), the Older Persons’ Commissioner considers it necessary for the report to mention his name or include such particulars.(8) For the purposes of the law of defamation, the publication of any matter by the Older Persons’ Commissioner in a report is absolutely privileged.
(9) In subsection (1) of this section “proceedings” includes a procedure of any kind and any prospective proceedings.
(10) A statutory instrument containing the regulations under this section is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
128F Restrictions
(1) This Part does not authorise the Older Persons’ Commissioner to enquire into or report on any matter so far as it is the subject of legal proceedings before, or has been determined by, a court or tribunal.
(2) This Part does not authorise the Commissioner to exercise any function which by virtue of an enactment is also exercisable by the prescribed person.
128G Interpretation
(1) For the purposes of this Part “regulated services” has the same definition as “regulated activity” in section 8 of this Act as they relate to older people.
(2) This Part applies to any older person normally domiciled in England.”
(2) After Schedule 5, insert the following new Schedule—
Schedule 5AThe Older Persons’ CommissionerStatus1 (1) The Older Persons’ Commissioner is to be a corporation sole.
(2) The Older Persons’ Commissioner is not to be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown; and the Older Persons’ Commissioner’s property is not to be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown.
Appointment and tenure of office2 Regulations may make provision—
(a) as to the appointment of the Older Persons’ Commissioner (including any conditions to be fulfilled for appointment);(b) as to the filling of vacancies in the office of Commissioner;(c) as to the tenure of office of the Older Persons’ Commissioner (including the circumstances in which he ceases to hold office or may be removed or suspended from office).Remuneration3 The Secretary of State shall—
(a) pay the Commissioner such remuneration and allowances; and(b) pay, or make provision for the payment of, such pension or gratuities to or in respect of him, as may be provided for under the terms of his appointment.Staff4 (1) The Commissioner may appoint any staff he considers necessary for assisting him in the exercise of his functions, one of whom shall be appointed as deputy Commissioner.
(2) During any vacancy in the office of Commissioner or at any time when the Commissioner is for any reason unable to act, the deputy Commissioner shall exercise his functions (and any property or rights vested in the Commissioner may accordingly be dealt with by the deputy as if vested in him).
(3) Without prejudice to sub-paragraph (2), any member of the Commissioner’s staff may, so far as authorised by him, exercise any of his functions.
General powers5 (1) Subject to any directions given by the Secretary of State, the Commissioner may do anything which appears to him to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the exercise of his functions.
(2) That includes, in particular—
(a) co-operating with other public authorities in the United Kingdom;(b) acquiring and disposing of land and other property; and(c) entering into contracts.Reports6 Regulations may provide for the Commissioner to make periodic or other reports to the Secretary of State relating to the exercise of his functions and may require the reports to be published in the manner required by the regulations.
Accounts7 (1) The Older Persons’ Commissioner must keep accounts in such form as the Secretary of State may determine.
(2) The Older Persons’ Commissioner must prepare annual accounts in respect of each financial year in such form as the Secretary of State may determine.
(3) The Older Persons’ Commissioner must send copies of the annual accounts to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General within such period after the end of the financial year to which the accounts relate as the Secretary of State may determine.
(4) The Comptroller and Auditor General must examine, certify and report on the annual accounts and must lay copies of the accounts and of his report before Parliament.
(5) In this paragraph “financial year”, in relation to the Older Persons’ Commissioner, means—
(a) the period beginning with the date on which the Older Persons’ Commissioner is established and ending with the next 31st March following that date; and(b) each successive period of twelve months ending with 31st March.Payments8 The Secretary of State may make payments to the Older Persons’ Commissioner of such amounts, at such times and on such conditions (if any) as he considers appropriate.
General9 In the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, in Part III of Schedule 1 (certain disqualifying offices), the following entries are inserted at the appropriate places—
“Older Persons’ Commissioner.”“Member of the staff of the Older Persons’ Commissioner.”10 In the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975, the same entries as are set out in paragraph 9 are inserted at the appropriate places in Part III of Schedule 1.
11 (1) Regulations may provide that the office of Older Persons’ Commissioner shall be added to the list of “Offices” in Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Act 1972 (offices etc. to which section 1 of that Act applies).
(2) The Secretary of State shall pay to the Minister for the Civil Service, at such times as he may direct, such sums as he may determine in respect of any increase attributable to provision made under sub-paragraph (1) in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under the Superannuation Act 1972.””
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, given the hour I do not intend to detain the House for long, but I want to return to the subject of an older person’s commissioner, an issue raised so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, at an earlier stage in our deliberations. I do so for the same reason that many noble Lords have raised issues in connection with this Bill. The issues remain the same, but the legislative landscape is changing quite considerably, and the practical nature of services for people who will be affected by the Bill is also changing radically. Given these immense changes, coupled with the demographic developments that we know about, it is important to remind ourselves that there are still some gaps in the representation and protection of vulnerable groups in our society that need to be addressed.
I have not been involved in the Children and Families Bill, which I regret somewhat, and particularly today because the Grand Committee has been talking about the establishment of a children’s commissioner for England. Earlier on I looked at the proposal in some detail. It seeks the establishment of a person who is not a Crown employee and whose job will be to promote and protect the rights of children, and to have regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Their primary job is to involve children who are living away from home or are in social care and to make known their views about their care. They do that by taking a systematic and thematic view of what is happening, and their job is to speak to government with the overall aim of improvement.
There is nothing there which is not needed by older people. I am going to talk about the fact that there is a raft of other bodies which have statutory duties in relation to older people, but there is a raft of bodies which have responsibilities in relation to care of children—not least of which is Ofsted. Despite children’s rights being perhaps more strongly enshrined in law, as they have been since the Children Act, we still need a Children’s Commissioner. The fact remains that we need an older person’s commissioner, too. We need somebody to be an advocate, to include older people and to talk to government. I do not want to pre-empt anything that might happen in your Lordships’ House tomorrow, but the report of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, is being debated. It sets out in fairly stark terms how ill prepared government is for the implications of an ageing society.
Had another group of amendments before us on Report been dealt with in a different way, I might have rowed back. Your Lordships’ House decided the other day not to give powers of entry in cases where there is good reason to suspect that older people are being abused. I believe as firmly and as strongly as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that that is absolutely wrong. If we are not going to give powers of entry in cases of abuse, then there is a case for there being an older person’s commissioner to raise those issues and gather evidence. Let us be in no doubt there will be further, tragic cases of elder abuse, and in the wake of them there will be calls for something to be done. Well, I think that something can be done now in the form of this proposal.
When we next convene to discuss this Bill on Report, we will turn our attention to some amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on behalf of the Government about the appointment of the chief inspectors. The appointment of chief inspectors as officers within the CQC is welcome. It is welcome that there is going to be a Chief Inspector of Hospitals; it is a good thing that there is going to be Chief Inspector of Adult Social Care—I imagine that we have begun to receive information from the Chief Inspector of Adult Social Care, who took up her position this week. But let us be in no doubt that, however independent, experienced and formidable are the individuals, their role is limited. The CQC investigates merely licensed providers; it does not even investigate pathways of care. We know that the majority of care and help in the future will take place in the community—that is where the bulk of older people will be. Those chief inspectors will have but a very limited role, however welcome is their appointment.
If I were in the Minister’s shoes, I imagine that I would question whether the cost of setting up a commissioner makes it a valid thing to do. I sincerely hope that we will very soon be able to gather evidence from the commissioners, particularly the Older People’s Commissioner, in Wales. I know it has not been set up with this particularly in mind but I hope that somebody, somewhere, begins to research the economic benefit of having an older persons’ commissioner. We are going to have to look at the whole economics of ageing in a completely different way. The post of a commissioner could be very important and it would help if we started to move Government along to seeing older people as potentially economic assets in our country as well as people who need services. With that in mind, I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
I rise to support this amendment as I think the House would expect me to because I put forward a similar amendment during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill.
So here we are again. Time rolls on. I want to refer to the annual report I wrote in 2008-09 about the job I had as the Voice of Older People. I wrote that the job had proved a bombshell. Within hours of the announcement being made responses began. Letters, encounters, meetings and seminars showed me the range of cares particular to older people. At that time equality was my agenda and the issues were about the promotion of things such as equality in retirement, pensions and equal pay. However, concerns rapidly expanded. In no time at all I was being inundated with dilemmas about care homes, housing, rent levels and public loos. Expatriates were writing to me about claiming their pensions. End-of-life treatment was on the agenda again.
This agenda has not gone away. It is growing and it will go on doing so. We will hear tomorrow about the implications of the demographic and right now we are awaiting the ramifications of the Dilnot report. There is a campaign to get older people online, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. There are concerns about fuel prices. I have recently read that E.ON, with which I have a special deal for a limited price because I am old, is withdrawing that favour from older people. Why? Breast cancer is very much on the agenda for older people. The risk improves the older you get but it does not reduce after 70 or 75. It goes on being a killer and becomes more seriously so.
Which Bill that will come before the House can encompass this vast agenda of the entire population that is growing old? This is a very difficult problem for the matter of law. We need a commissioner who can embrace housing, pensions, health, welfare and money. We need someone who can listen. The main thing about a commissioner is that they are not the spokesman for the established government—they are about us. They speak to government about what it is we want, what it is we would like, and on what we need guidance. The agenda is huge.
I am well aware that there is a multitude of charitable organisations that deal with all sorts of this fragmented agenda. I pay particular tribute to Age UK which is very, very strong in dealing with these issues, but what we need is for our complaints to be funnelled through an individual who belongs on the side of the old, who addresses the rest of the community about all these issues. I know that the Minister knows that the agenda is a wide one. What we need to know is where we can place this need—on which Bill and in which House? I support the amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
I rise very briefly to explain why I added my name to this amendment. I feel strongly that older people need their own advocate and it needs to be someone with real clout and real powers. The experience of the children’s commissioner to which my noble friend Lady Barker has already referred is very relevant here. I was a civil servant in Whitehall for a long time. There were many different departments dealing with different aspects of children’s policy but no one was joining it all up. When the children’s commissioner came on the scene, the commissioner became a strong advocate of the cause of children and young people across the UK and caused Whitehall and government to respond in a different, more joined-up way.
I had the honour to be a member of the Select Committee that produced the Ready for Ageing? report. I very much look forward to the debate on that tomorrow. During its production, I learnt so much about the contribution that older people are making to society. To cite three quick figures: one in three working mothers relies on grandparents for childcare; 65% of older people support their older neighbours; the value of informal care provided by older people has been assessed to be £34 billion, and so many volunteers are older people. We do not hear about that. What do we hear about in the press? We hear about older people who are a terrible burden because they are consuming so much of scarce national resources. We hear about the graph of doom. It all sounds like a looming catastrophe. We do not hear about the incredibly valuable contribution that older people are making.
That is why I believe that older people need an advocate. Yes, it is to champion the great needs of an ageing society in public policy-making in central and local government; but it is also someone who can represent them, who understands their needs and can celebrate their values and achievements and, I hope, turn around the whole narrative that we have in this country about older people.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, we are very sympathetic to what the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Tyler, and my noble friend Lady Bakewell want to achieve through the amendment in promoting the well-being, dignity, rights and welfare of older people. My noble friend Lady Bakewell, in particular, has campaigned long and hard for an older person’s commissioner and, as the Voice of Older People under the Labour Government, speaks first-hand about the job that needs to be done in government to join up policies on health, social care, housing, transport, welfare, work and pensions to address the economic and social challenges presented by an ageing society.
The importance of a cross-government overview and strategy on older people is why Labour has a shadow Cabinet Minister for Care and Older People. Liz Kendall has a vital role in ensuring joined-up policies across the range of services that must be changed and adapted to meet older people’s growing and changing needs. The importance of developing a coherent strategy and vision for our old age was recently underlined by the excellent report of the Select Committee on Public Services and Demographic Change, referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Tyler. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is entirely right to say that in Ready for Ageing? the committee described the UK and its society as being “woefully underprepared”. It pointed out that the implications of an ageing society had not been assessed holistically and that it had been left to government departments,
“who have looked, in varying degrees, at the implications for their own policies and costs”.
The committee called on the Government to look at ageing from the point of view of the public and to consider how,
“policies may need to change to equip people better to address longer lives”.
When we consider that important report tomorrow, the role of an older person’s commissioner in helping to face the future and meet the challenges so graphically set out by the committee and today will be a key part of that debate
A considerable amount of work and thought has gone into the drafting of Amendment 139, but the main emphasis seems to be on rights and redress, rather than the all encompassing and unique role envisaged by my noble friend Lady Bakewell in her Second Reading speech and earlier today. That would give the commissioner effective access to planning across different government departments.
We would prefer that broad approach, and, of course, we also need to learn from the experience of the older person’s commissioners in Wales and Northern Ireland. We understand that the advocacy role has worked particularly well in Wales in promoting the rights and interests of older people and challenging discrimination.
Inevitably, costs are an important consideration. The older person’s commissioner’s salary, operational support and accountability costs would be significant. I would be interested to learn from the noble Earl whether the Government have undertaken any costing and impact work on that, as promised to my noble friend when she first raised this issue, as she said, under the Health and Social Care Bill.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this extremely well crafted amendment, which proposes the establishment of an older persons’ commissioner. Our ambition is to make this country one of the best places to grow old in and I begin by saying that I have some sympathy with the intention behind the amendment; to ensure that older people receive the high-quality care they need and also to support them to use the complaints system effectively when things go wrong. However, disappointingly for the noble Baronesses, I cannot subscribe to the solution that is proposed in the amendment. The main reason for this is that the provisions contained in the amendment are, by and large, covered by work already being undertaken elsewhere. The interests of service users are already protected through a number of routes.
I begin by citing the role of the CQC. The Care Quality Commission’s role is to ensure providers of regulated activities in England provide people with safe, effective, compassionate and high-quality care. The new chief inspectors for hospitals, adult social care and general practice will champion the views of patients and service users and judge the quality of care. Then, separate from the CQC, the new chief social worker will ensure that social work practice is directly inputting into policy development and we now have Healthwatch, whose function it is to represent service users’ views. If noble Lords look at what we are doing in the Bill, new statutory obligations are being introduced, such as the duties to establish safeguarding adults boards and to undertake safeguarding inquiries and/or reviews. We also have the government amendment to require independent advocacy in certain cases.
Looking beyond the Bill, the vulnerable older people’s plan is working towards having an accountable clinician to ensure proactive care planning for older people and those with the most complex needs. Furthermore, we want older people to have a major voice in issues that affect them. The Minister for Care and Support and the Pensions Minister take part in the UK Advisory Forum on Ageing. This group gives Ministers the opportunity to engage with and hear directly from older people on the key issues affecting them. I suggest that all these steps, taken together, go a considerable way towards addressing the concerns at which the amendment is aimed, but I need to be clear that, to minimise the impact on the public purse, we would not envisage setting up a new public authority alongside those functions.
My noble friend Lady Barker asked why we should not have an older persons’ commissioner since there is a children’s commissioner? If an older persons’ commissioner were established, the supporting structure would potentially be very large and would cost significantly more than the children’s commissioner. This is not only because of the comparatively larger number of older people who receive services compared to children, but also because the amendment confers a wider range of functions on the older persons’ commissioner than the children’s commissioner.
Michelle Mitchell, former director-general of Age UK said last year:
“For us it’s not just about having a commissioner; it’s about ensuring that older people’s issues are central to the mainstream – not only the government agenda, but business and the public sector as a whole”.
I support that view. What matters, surely, is what is actually happening and whether the system is pulling together to make it happen. We want to ensure, quite simply, that issues affecting older people are at the heart of government business. I am happy to explore ways to further enhance the voice of older people, although without creating additional costly bureaucracies. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baronesses will feel somewhat comforted that there is a lot going on to protect the interests of older people and that my noble friend will therefore feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his characteristically comprehensive response and I am in complete agreement with him: there is a great deal going on, much of which is valuable and effective. I return to the central issue: I am not convinced that there is coherence, either within government, across government or in government interactions with the private and voluntary sectors and with local government. That is the issue to which I will return, and it is a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has made so eloquently.
I accept that this amendment is not perfect; it was crafted in order to bring the older persons’ commissioner within the scope of the Bill but it is not ideal. I thank the Minister for his response. We will continue to work away at this issue, I have no doubt. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Duty of candour
In section 20 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (regulation of regulated activities), after subsection (5) insert—“(5A) Regulations under this section must make provision as to the provision of information in a case where an incident of a specified description affecting a person’s safety occurs in the course of the person being provided with a service.””
Earl Howe
My Lords, this amendment concerns the new statutory duty of candour. This will place a requirement on registered providers of health and adult social care to be open with patients and service users about failings in care. The Francis report made a clear recommendation that there should be a statutory obligation to observe a duty of candour on providers of healthcare who believe that treatment or care provided by them to a patient has caused death or serious injury. This would require the provider to inform the patient of that fact. This amendment is a major step towards implementing that key recommendation of the Francis report.
The Government’s approach is to introduce this duty as a requirement for registration with the CQC. In Committee, noble Lords tabled amendments that sought to place the duty of candour in the Bill. The amendment that I am presenting today seeks to strike a balance; I make no apology for that, since it allows us to have the best of both worlds. The amendment tabled in my name makes it clear that the Government must introduce such a regulation. It does not present the Government with a choice; rather, it imposes a crystal clear obligation on the Government to put such a regulation in place. I hope that it will be welcome to noble Lords for those reasons. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, the duty of candour means honesty and straightforwardness. We desperately need an open, honest, transparent and compassionate health service, and I hope that Amendments 140 and 152 will help to achieve that.
Something has gone desperately wrong with the care in some hospitals and care homes. We now live in a litigious society, and I feel that that has been increased by cover-ups when something has gone wrong and gagging people who try to speak out. People will go to any lengths to find out what happened to their loved ones if they are not told and given an apology. Good medical personnel will explain and apologise if something adverse happens. So often, that is all that is needed.
Patients know that there are risks, if they are explained when they sign a consent form. When they go wrong, lessons should be learnt so that they do not happen again. That is one of the reasons why openness is so important. Have lessons been learnt after the horrific situation of the Mid Staffordshire hospital? Recently I heard of a former police superintendent who had had a brain injury due to an accident, and was a patient in a well known central London hospital. When his wife and young son went to visit him, they smelt him before they saw him. They found him facing the wall in bed, unable to move and lying in soiled sheets and wearing a filthy gown. His wife was so upset that she told a nurse, who just said that they were overworked. The next time the wife visited she found him sitting alone, facing a curtain, looking miserable and wearing a pad that had not been changed. She said to her children, “We are taking Daddy home”, and smuggled him out of the hospital.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the Opposition strongly support the thrust of the Francis report in its determination that the NHS be honest with patients who have been harmed. I very much echo the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in describing why we need an open culture. I welcome government Amendment 140. It is very important; we welcome the duty of candour being placed in the Bill. The amendment is less detailed than my own and will rely on regulations, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has said. The important thing is to get this in the Bill.
I have a couple of questions for the noble Earl. First, can he confirm that the regulations will be affirmative? Secondly, in considering the regulations, will he look at the issue of the threshold? For instance, the regulations might restrict the statutory duty of candour to cases that could be described as of severe harm or fatal; or it might go wider. In his report, Robert Francis used the word “serious”. Clearly, there is a distinction between severe harm and seriousness, but most patients and their relatives, or anyone involved in anything that could be described as a serious case, would wish the organisation in the health service to be as open as possible about what had happened.
These are not easy issues; but it is noticeable that the being open guidance is clear that cases of moderate harm and above must be disclosed. The NHS constitution does not put any limit on the level of harm that would be disclosed. I do not expect the noble Earl to respond to the detail of those questions tonight, but in drafting the regulations it would be reassuring to know, first, that consultation will take place with patient groups on the contents of those regulations before they are published and, secondly, that the question of the threshold by which the seriousness of the case would come within the regulations will be given very great consideration.
I should—at the end of the day rather than the start—declare my interest. I remind noble Lords of the interest I declared two days ago.
Baroness Barker
I have a quick follow-up to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. Sir Robert Francis’s recommendations were clear that the duty of candour should apply where death or serious harm “may have been caused” or were believed or suspected to have been caused. That is an important distinction; it is not merely playing with words. When the Minister comes to respond, perhaps in writing, will he say whether that point will be covered in regulations?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am sure that we are all aiming for the same effect and that there is little difference in the approach that we are taking. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is drafted as a stand-alone duty: it would place a duty of candour on providers, but it would operate outside of the CQC registration system. As such, it is not clear who would enforce the duty of candour or what would be the consequences for a provider who did not observe the duty.
Introducing the duty as a requirement for registration with the CQC comes with a ready-made enforcement vehicle, including the power to prosecute providers who do not meet the duty. In Committee, we explained why this is our preferred approach. It would give the flexibility to develop the duty in consultation with service users and carers. I can indeed confirm that patient groups will be included. The duty itself will have the same legal power in secondary legislation as it would in primary legislation.
We are making real progress in taking this forward. In the summer, the CQC consulted on plans to introduce a duty of candour set through its registration requirements. The CQC is due to publish the findings from the consultation shortly. The department plans to consult on a draft regulation later in the autumn. I assure noble Lords that both I and my officials would be pleased to discuss the content of the draft duty of candour regulation with them in detail as we develop the final regulation. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that these will be affirmative regulations.
On the threshold, both the Francis and the Berwick reports recommended that the statutory duty of candour for CQC-registered providers should apply in instances of death or serious injury/incident. There is a balance to be struck. We accept the Berwick report finding that an automatic duty of candour covering every single error could lead to defensive documentation and large bureaucratic overheads that would distract from care.
I hope that my amendment reassures noble Lords of our strong commitment to introducing a duty of candour and that they will feel able—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Can I take it that, if that is the Government’s position, which will be set out in regulations, guidance to the providers of services regulated by the CQC would none the less make it clear that the principle of candour would apply to all such cases? I can see the distinction with regard to the seriousness of the incident in relation to the action that can be taken. The risk would be that a statutory duty of candour within the regulations might be taken the wrong way for cases which were not classified at such a serious level.
Earl Howe
I certainly take the noble Lord’s point. There is an issue of interpretation which we will want to clarify through guidance. That is what we intend to do. I look forward to discussing this with him and other interested noble Lords in due course. I hope that that will be sufficient to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, not to press his amendment when we get to it.