House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
1. What steps she is taking to ensure that any future regulator of the press will be better equipped than the Press Complaints Commission to tackle allegations of discrimination during election campaigns.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)
The royal charter, which sets out a framework for the press to establish a self-regulatory body, was granted by the Privy Council on 30 October. It protects freedom of the press while offering real redress if mistakes are made. The Government have no role to judge any proposed self-regulator.
Natascha Engel
During our inquiry into electoral conduct, we found that if people from a particular group, such as Christian, Muslim, Jewish or gay, felt that they had been discriminated against in print, they could argue it only under the heading of “inaccuracy” with the Press Complaints Commission. Will the Secretary of State use her influence, while the new code of conduct is being drafted, to ensure that those who feel discriminated against have proper redress in the future?
Maria Miller
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and commend her for that report. My officials are talking to the Equality and Human Rights Commission about the findings of the report, but I would say that the Government have no influence on the code. I am sure, however, that others who are listening will take note of her comments.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
2. What steps she is taking to prevent the resale of 2015 rugby world cup tickets by touts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)
We are in regular contact with the England rugby 2015 organising committee. We have provided advice on a range of options to manage the risk of ticket touting.
Nick Smith
Will the Minister look again at making the rugby world cup an event of national significance like the Olympics, which would mean that fans would be able to buy tickets at face value? If the Minister reconsiders, Labour would help to deliver the necessary legislation in the new year so that real fans do not get ripped off by ticket touts.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
If fans from New Zealand and Australia buy tickets for the world cup final in the expectation that their team will get there and one or both are knocked out in the semi-final, we will need a mechanism to allow supporters from those countries to sell them on to the supporters of the countries that are in the final. Does the Minister therefore not accept that the resale of tickets for the rugby world cup is not only inevitable, but desirable?
Mrs Grant
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. At the end of the day, we want people to be able to watch a fantastic rugby tournament. The Government do not believe that legislation is necessary to control tickets; we believe that organisers, promoters and ticket agents should be looking at what they can do to protect customers and to make events accessible.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
Tickets for the rugby world cup final are already on sale on viagogo for more than 10 times face value, and that is before tickets have even gone on sale to the general public. Is that not another example of why the Rugby Football Union is so keen for tickets to be protected so that ordinary fans can enjoy the sport? Why will the Government not take the action necessary to protect ordinary fans?
Mrs Grant
Fans are going to enjoy the tournament and fans are going to enjoy this sport. As I have set out, we believe it is right for organisers, promoters and ticket agents to deal with access to events and tickets. Successive Governments have concluded that regulation should be the last resort.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
14. Does the Minister agree that the Government are absolutely right to be focusing on encouraging as many young people as possible to take up this wonderful sport, and that the best advice we could give to anyone who feels that they are about to be ripped off by ticket touts is simply to shun them?
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
The House will have heard the powerful points put by my hon. Friends. Next year, 2.3 million tickets will go on sale for rugby union world cup matches in this country. It is the third-largest sporting tournament in the world. As the Minister knows, the organisers want to protect rugby fans from ticket touts and are asking for us to do the same as we did in the Olympics and ban the secondary ticketing market. So far, she is refusing to do this. We would help with the legislation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) rightly said. Will she think again so that the 2015 rugby union world cup can be enjoyed by rugby supporters, not exploited by ticket touts?
Mrs Grant
The event will be enjoyed by rugby supporters and not exploited by ticket touts. I met England rugby 2015 recently and am aware of its concerns. I will always listen, but I am confident that mechanisms are in place to ensure that this event is enjoyed and not spoiled. There are many different mechanisms that can be put in place, including barcoding, named tickets and staggered releases, and I am delighted that 500,000 tickets will go on sale through the RFU’s members next May.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
3. What plans her Department has to commemorate the beginning of the first world war.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)
The Government will mark the centenary of the first world war with a programme of national events, cultural activities, educational initiatives and community projects from 4 August next year through to Armistice day in 2018. We will deliver a centenary that will mark, with the most profound respect, this seminal moment in our modern history for the benefit of all parts of the community.
Mike Freer
The first soldier to be killed on the western front in the first world war lived in Finchley and Golders Green. What plans are there for descendant families to be included in the commemorations?
Maria Miller
I recently took my family to St Symphorien and had the privilege of seeing John Parr’s grave—it was a moving moment for us all. We are working with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to trace families of other men buried at St Symphorien, and we very much hope that a number of the families will be able to attend the event. We would welcome any help in tracing the families involved.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
My grandfather Harry Hanson’s first taste of combat in the first world war was in March 1915 at Neuve Chapelle, where he fought alongside thousands of Indian troops who to this day remain buried in France. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that we will celebrate the role of Commonwealth troops, particularly Indian troops, during this first world war celebration?
Maria Miller
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the significant Commonwealth dimension to our commemoration of the first world war. It is most fitting that the first event, which will follow shortly after the Commonwealth games in Edinburgh next August, will involve Commonwealth leaders.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the £1.5 million grant from the National Heritage Memorial Fund to save Stow Maries aerodrome in my constituency, which is the last remaining, intact first world war airfield? Does she agree that Stow Maries, from which pilots flew to defend us against zeppelin attacks, would be a fitting place to start the commemorations that her Department is planning?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is right to point out that there are not that many structures remaining for us to look at as part of our commemorations around the first world war centenary. I am sure that that airfield could play an important role in bringing this to life for new generations.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
Springwell Dene school in my constituency already does excellent work in taking students to visit world war one battlefield sites, but it is concerned that because of its children’s special educational needs, it might not be able to take part in the Government’s scheme. Will a Minister from the Department meet me to discuss this matter and how we can ensure that all children in our communities can join in this commemoration and understand our history?
Maria Miller
The hon. Lady is right that the Government have invested considerably in ensuring that schoolchildren can visit battlefields, and of course that programme should be open to all children, although it is for schools to decide who exactly is involved. I am sure we would be interested to know more about the problems experienced and to try and resolve them, working with our colleagues in the Department for Education.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Will the Minister consider providing resources to expand or continue the sort of work that occurred at Pheasant Wood near Fromelles in France in order to locate and identify the war dead?
Maria Miller
I know that there is continuing work, particularly in the north of France, to identify individuals who might not even to date be buried in recognised graves. I am sure that that will continue until there is no longer a need for it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On 1 July 1916 at the battle of the Somme, the 36th Ulster Division fought alongside the 16th Irish Division, showing great courage and heroism in that much commemorated battle. Will the Secretary of State outline what discussions she has had with the Republic of Ireland Government to commemorate the battle of the Somme and other battles where the two nations fought together?
Maria Miller
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that considerable conversations are taking place between ourselves—and not just my Department, but others—and our colleagues in the Irish Republic. This is an important part of Irish history and it is important to recognise it in the work we are doing. If the hon. Gentleman had a look at the full list of events being undertaken, I think he would be pleasantly surprised and happy about what we have done.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
With the decision not to repatriate the fallen in the first world war, the legacy for our nation is that almost every village, town or city in the land has either a simple or a magnificent war memorial. What plans are in place to ensure that all of these are spick and span to commemorate the start of the first world war?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there are very few communities in our country that do not possess a memorial to those who fell in the first world war, although there are, of course, a few thankful villages that had no need for one and might commemorate the event in different ways. We already have a good funding level for the restoration of memorials, but this is something that we continue to look at. If there is an indication that further support is needed, we will of course look at it further.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
4. What assessment she has made of the potential effect of a greater focus on competitive sport on the number of women aged between 14 and 25 participating in the Sportivate programme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)
Sportivate is not a competitive sports programme. It offers young people the chance to try a new sport for the very first time. Nearly 300,000 14 to 25-year-olds have completed the Sportivate course in the last two years, including 4,250 young people from the hon. Lady’s constituency. Around half of the 300,000 participating are women, 80% of whom have gone on to play sport on a regular basis.
Pat Glass
The Minister will doubtless be aware that the Education Select Committee recently published a report looking at the legacy of the Olympics, which has been somewhat disappointing. Has she had any discussions with the Department for Education about the restoration of school sport partnerships, the abolition of which has done so much harm to young people’s participation in sporting activities and their long-term health?
Mrs Grant
I disagree completely with the hon. Lady about that. Funding of some £1 billion is being put into youth and community sport by this Government. We have also committed £450 million over the next three years to primary school sport. We are running the school games in which 16,000 schools are participating, to encourage children to engage in competitive sport. More people are doing sport than ever before. The school sport partnerships were very expensive, very bureaucratic and, sadly, failed, with only two out of five pupils competing in sport on a regular basis.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
May I welcome my hon. Friend’s focus on participation in sport for women between those ages? I think too much focus on competitiveness can put them off from engaging. Will she confirm that all sports are involved, including swimming, which I learned at that age, and it is something that I continue to pursue in my advanced years?
Mrs Grant
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am pleased that she still enjoys swimming—and may she continue to enjoy it for many years to come. She made an important point about competition. Competition can be great, but not everyone likes it. We want people to be active and to enjoy sport, which is why changes have been made to the national curriculum to provide a broad range of team and individual activities such as dance that will appeal to those who may be a little less competitive.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
5. What recent assessment she has made of the value of tourism to the British economy.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
7. What recent assessment she has made of the value of tourism to the British economy.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)
Tourism is at the heart of the Government’s growth agenda. It is one of the largest export industries in the UK. It helps to rebalance our economy, generates investment and creates jobs, and it is at the centre of the country’s economic recovery.
Pauline Latham
Derwent Valley Mills is a world heritage site that extends throughout my constituency and beyond, but families currently have nowhere to take their children so that they can cycle safely between the mills. I have set up a cycling group, which is considering the possibility of putting a cycling track well away from the traffic to make it safe. How can the Secretary of State help me to ensure—in conjunction with the Olympic legacy—that children are encouraged to keep active, while also being able to enjoy a piece of history?
Maria Miller
Through that excellent local initiative, my hon. Friend has demonstrated that culture and sport are never too far apart, and I commend her for the work she has done. The integrated transport block grant that local authorities receive for small transport improvement schemes, including cycling schemes, is potentially an important source of funding for the project in her constituency, as it enables local authorities to come up with the solutions that are most suitable for their areas and for projects of that kind.
Chris White
Next year, 2014, will mark the 1,100th anniversary of the great town of Warwick. It will be a year of celebrations. You will, of course, be very welcome to attend those celebrations, Mr Speaker, and I am sure that many other people will want to visit the town. Will the Secretary of State—who will also be very welcome—tell us what policies are being drawn up to support towns such as Warwick, where tourism plays such an important part in our local economy?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is right. Warwick castle is a great attraction in the area, and, having visited the town as a child and, more recently, with my own children, I know that it is a great place to visit.
Our tourism figures are strong at the moment, and the Government are continuing to invest in both VisitBritain and VisitEngland. We want to ensure that people from outside the country not only come to London, but travel beyond the capital to places such as Warwick. We are also encouraging more people in this country to spend holidays at home, and VisitEngland is doing well in that respect too.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
As a woman of taste and refinement, does the Secretary of State agree that Huddersfield is the jewel in the crown of God’s own county of Yorkshire, not least because its university has been named university of the year? Does she agree that it is about time Huddersfield, Yorkshire and the north of England in general benefited from a fair share of tourism activity, especially as we shall be on the Tour de France route?
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are linking the various parts of our departmental brief, because sport can be a great way of increasing tourism. The Tour de France, and the Government’s investment in it, will ensure that more people are able to experience the joys of Yorkshire, and can visit places such as the Yorkshire sculpture park while they are there.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
One of the major tourist attractions next year in the United Kingdom will be the Commonwealth games. The games will take place in Glasgow, but there will be further events in Edinburgh and other parts of Scotland. Although nearly all the tickets have been sold, I am sure that the atmosphere in Glasgow, Edinburgh and elsewhere will be as exciting as the atmosphere in London during the 2012 Olympics. What are the Government doing to encourage people in the rest of the United Kingdom to visit Scotland during the games, so that everyone can benefit from that wonderful experience?
Maria Miller
As the hon. Gentleman says, the Commonwealth games will serve as a great hook to encourage more people to visit Scotland. However, there will also be the golf and festivals to encourage people to get additional value out of their visits. During November alone there were nearly 3 million visits to the UK, 10% more than in the same month last year. We are doing important work through VisitBritain, the Scottish Government and VisitScotland to encourage more people to visit not just London but the United Kingdom as a whole, and I think we shall see great success in the months and years to come.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
8. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Education on children’s participation in the arts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I frequently meet the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), because the DCMS and the Department for Education now have a joint music and cultural education board. We now have a national music plan and a national cultural education plan, and we work very closely together on this.
Ian Mearns
In 2011 the Secretary of State for Education abandoned the creative partnerships programme for schools. PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that that programme generated £15.30 in economic and social benefits for every £1 of investment. Since then nearly a third of museums have seen a decrease in visits by schools and over 2,000 schools and hundreds of thousands of pupils no longer benefit from this culturally enriching programme. Does the Minister think his colleague at the DFE got that decision right?
Mr Vaizey
The latest figures show that 99% of 11 to 15-year-olds visited and experienced culture in the last year, and I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Education extended the In Harmony programme; ring-fenced money for music; helped us to create heritage schools; set up the first ever national youth dance company; and put in place the first ever national music and cultural education plans.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
I recently had the fantastic opportunity to go to see a mini-opera at Chester cathedral put on by Cheshire fire and rescue service, Manchester Camerata and three local primary schools. The idea of the opera was to teach children about fire safety. Does my hon. Friend agree that the arts and culture have got a huge role to play in encouraging young people to get involved in education?
Mr Vaizey
I have frequent engagement with Manchester Camerata and I commend its imaginative approach in engaging other parts of local services, particularly the fire and rescue service and the health service. The arts can not only engage young people and children in education, they can also help to engage adults in a whole range of other local services.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
This is a very convoluted question, so I hope the Minister will bear with me. I just wonder whether he has had an opportunity to see the National Youth Theatre production of “Tory Boyz”, which I am told is about a lot of homosexual Conservatives. They, among many others, might want to ask the Government why they are taking such a long time to allow the upgrade of civil partnerships to full same-sex marriages. He is having plenty of time to ask the Secretary of State now. Will he bring it forward a bit faster?
Mr Speaker
That question suffers from the disadvantage of having nothing to do with children’s participation in the arts.
Mr Speaker
Well, I thought it was not orderly, but the Minister can offer a very brief reply, which I feel sure he will do with skill and alacrity.
Mr Speaker
I am sure the Minister couples that with admiration for the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
In fact, the creative industries is one of the few areas of the British economy that is currently growing, but despite what the Minister said, Ofsted has criticised the effectiveness of music hubs and one school in six is cutting arts subjects. If DCMS Ministers cannot persuade their colleagues at the Department for Education to take a broader view, our young people will be permanently disadvantaged. Is the problem that the Minister is not sufficiently persuasive or that the Secretary of State for Education is too narrow-minded?
Mr Vaizey
I would never accuse the Secretary of State for Education of being narrow-minded. I take on board the hon. Lady’s praise for my Secretary of State who is leading the growth in the creative industries. We in DCMS are led by a Secretary of State who is leading a Department for growth. That is very good news indeed, and I repeat what I said: there is a huge input from the Secretary of State for Education.
I really would not take too much from an Ofsted report that looks at music hubs four months after they have been created and condemns them. The hon. Lady should speak to her friends in the Musicians Union, who are furious about that report.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
9. What steps she is taking to reduce differences in Arts Council funding spent in London and the regions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
Arts Council England makes its funding decisions independently of Government, but it must take care to ensure all areas of the country have access to its funding. We have discussed this with the Arts Council and continue to do so, and the Arts Council has indicated that a priority in its forthcoming investment round will be to achieve a better balance from public funding and lottery investment across the country.
David Mowat
The Minister might be aware of the recent report, “Rebalancing Our Cultural Capital”, which stated that in 2012-13, £69 per head was spent in London while £4.60 per head was spent in the English regions. That represents a ratio of 15:1, which does not exist anywhere else in the world. How long will it take to get this fixed?
Mr Vaizey
Well, the balance in lottery funding between the regions and London was 60:40 under the previous Government, and it has now gone up to 70:30. The Arts Council chairman is well aware of the issue and wants to go further. The Arts Council has set up the strategic touring programme and the creative people and places fund to help to rebalance arts funding in the regions, and our brilliant Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced proposals to support touring theatre with tax relief.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
When this matter was last raised here, the Secretary of State seemed to imply that the answer was for London-based companies to do more touring, and the Minister has said that again. Do they not recognise that Londoners deserve to have the benefit of our great arts companies, such as Northern Stage, the Live Theatre and the Northern Sinfonia? If more touring by London companies is not the answer, what is?
Mr Vaizey
As always, the hon. Lady makes a fantastically brilliant point. It is important to strike a balance. This is not just a matter of London organisations going out to “the regions”. I am very excited about more co-productions between, for example, the National Theatre and the regional theatres, to enable productions created in regional theatres to come to London so that we can get some of the fantastic benefits of the brilliant arts going on outside London.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
10. When she last met representatives of the Football Association and the Football League to discuss their stewardship of professional football.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)
I have regular meetings with the English football authorities to discuss a range of issues, including the stewardship of professional football.
Sir Bob Russell
I think there is general agreement that professional football in this country is rotten to the core, not least as a result of parasitic agents taking millions of pounds a year out of the game and of football wasting its riches in the same way as successive Governments wasted the North sea oil revenues. The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport has done a good job with its report and recommendations, but does the Minister agree that what we need now is a royal commission on professional football in order to clean up the game?
Mrs Grant
I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The football authorities introduced reforms in August, including smaller boards and a new licensing system, to deal with ownership and financial matters and to improve relations with supporters. That is certainly a start, but more definitely needs to be done. If it is not done, there is always the option of legislation.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
Will the sports Minister convene a meeting between the football authorities and the betting industry? We are seeing an increase in cheating, in the form of match-fixing and spot-betting, and we need to start a discussion on what constitutes an appropriate bet. Betting on the number of corners or of red and yellow cards, for example, is inappropriate. Does she agree that there should be a discussion about that?
Mrs Grant
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I know that he has considerable knowledge of these issues. We had a meeting a couple of days ago—it was reported in the papers—with the main governing bodies and the Gambling Commission to discuss the very issues that he raises: match-fixing and spot-fixing. The integrity of the sport is absolutely paramount, and we must keep sport clean. It is obvious that a multi-agency approach is needed to deal with these issues, and we also need to continue to ensure that player education is developed and that information sharing happens. We also need to share best practice.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
16. Will the Minister tell us what the Government have been doing to encourage the development of co-operative ownership models for football clubs, including with the supporters of Manchester United?
Mrs Grant
We have regular meetings with various organisations. The ownership of clubs is obviously an interesting matter, and there is a place for all different types of ownership. I am going to meet some of the supporters groups in the new year, and I am sure that they will raise the issue of ownership with me. I remain open-minded about this. I know that clubs that are owned by supporters work very well indeed, and that the supporters have the best interests of the game at heart.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The 2009 Parry report on sports betting recommended strengthening the law on cheating, as defined in the Gambling Act 2005. Jacques Rogge has described cheating in gambling as being
“as dangerous as doping for the credibility of sport.”
The Secretary of State called a summit this week, presumably to explain to sports governing bodies why the Government alone have failed to meet the recommendations of the Parry report. She rejected all our amendments to the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill on match-fixing. Following the recent allegations in football, will she now reconsider her position?
Mrs Grant
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but the law is working. It is in place, and we have seen recent arrests and the good work of the National Crime Agency. We have criminal offences of bribery, corruption and fraud, and there is an offence under section 42 of the 2005 Act. The law is in place and it is being used. Of course, we must keep it under review, and I will do that.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
12. How her Department measures the success of steps taken to reduce the number of nuisance telephone calls.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
The issue of nuisance telephone calls is a priority for the Department, and we will be publishing our action plan shortly. We would like to see more effective enforcement by the Information Commissioner’s Office and Ofcom, through use of their substantial fining powers. Also, we are keen for them to more easily share information with each other.
Nic Dakin
A 90-year-old constituent of mine who has signed up for the telephone preference service continues to be plagued by nuisance calls. There is not enough urgency from the Government on this matter. Will the Minister commit, as a starting point, at least to implement all the recommendations made by the all-party group on nuisance calls? That would be a start.
Mr Vaizey
I reject the accusation of a lack of urgency. I have worked closely with a number of stakeholders over many months. We are publishing our action plan in the new year because we want to take account of the excellent reports by the all-party group and the Select Committee.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I am glad that the Minister wants the Information Commissioner’s Office to be able to take more enforcement action to tackle this menace. Will he therefore lower the legal threshold above which the Information Commissioner is able to take enforcement action?
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)
We recently launched our £100 million super-connected cities broadband voucher scheme, providing qualifying small and medium-sized enterprises with up to £3,000 of funding to access superfast broadband. As part of the autumn statement, further support measures were announced for the film industry, sport, and regional arts and culture, and there was an announcement of a new £10 million competitive fund to market test innovative solutions to deliver superfast broadband to reach some of the UK’s most remote communities.
Diana Johnson
I thank the Secretary of State for announcing Hull as the city of culture for 2017 on 20 November, and for immediately getting on a train to visit the city—we very much appreciated that. In line with the original thinking on the city of culture status, will she help the city by making sure that some of our great cultural prizes, such as the Turner prize, the Booker prize and the Brit awards, come to Hull in 2017?
Maria Miller
The city of culture programme is a great way to showcase our great cultural assets outside London and around the country. I was delighted to meet so many of the people who were crucial in putting Hull’s bid together. I would also like to commiserate with those that did not make it to that final accolade, as the semi-finalists were also extremely strong. I will do all I can to make sure that being city of culture in 2017 is as successful for Hull as being city of culture has been for Derry/Londonderry.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
T2. I recently raised with the Minister the case of a constituent in Gloucester who has been plagued by nuisance calls even after she had changed her telephone number and registered with the telephone preference service. Sadly, as all hon. Members will know, that is not an isolated case. I was grateful for his reply, in which he said that what we need is more enforcement, not more law. Will he outline what specific action he intends to take to make that happen?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
We intend to publish our action plan early in the new year. As well as looking at the issue of the threshold, it is important that we bring the two regulators closer together. It is also important to note that Ofcom is undertaking a review of the telephone preference service to check what changes can be made to make it more effective.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Active People survey figures that were published as we walked into the Chamber this morning show that they were down on last year. When the last set of figures was published, the Government blamed the weather. Will they do so again today? The time for excuses has passed. Even more damning, the figures for 16 to 25-year-olds are down by 51,000. There was no better golden legacy left to this Government than the one in sport. Just what will the Government do about this terrible situation?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)
I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman is being so negative. I have seen that report. More people, including women and people with disabilities, are participating in sport in this country than ever before, which should be celebrated. Of course there is more to do, and we will do it. We are focusing action on 14 to 25-year-olds, who have competing demands on their time. We expect the sports bodies to focus on this. If they do not, there will be consequences. They receive a large amount of public money, and if they cannot produce the goods, we will get other people involved.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Ind)
T3. If the Secretary of State came to Lancashire and had a selfie done with me and was enthusiastic to show it to the wider public, she would find that uploading it would be a bit hit and miss, because in Lancashire only 55% have access to superfast broadband, compared with 65% nationally. Will she ensure that, rather than being left in the digital dinosaur age, Lancashire will have superfast broadband rolled out as quickly as possible, and that 100% will get access to it?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is right to say that every corner of the country needs to be in our targets when it comes to rolling out superfast broadband. I am delighted to tell him that that is exactly why the Government are investing more than £1 billion of public money in rolling out rural superfast broadband. We are making rapid progress in his area. As of the end of last month, more than 11,000 premises had been passed, and Ofcom data now show that Lancashire county council has more than 67% availability of superfast broadband. We are making progress, but we need to ensure that that continues.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
T4. I listened carefully to the Minister’s earlier response on ticket touting. I remind her that it is some years since the Government and the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport looked at the issue. Operation Podium, which policed the Olympics, reported earlier this year that ticket touting is rife with criminality and money laundering and said that now was the time for regulation. Why will the Minister not act now to protect rugby fans from that criminality?
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
T5. As part of the Government’s commitment to preserving our heritage for current and future generations, will Ministers support Bury farm, a unique medieval farm in my constituency, and give it protection from development?
Mr Vaizey
It is very important that this wonderful grade 2 listed farm is protected from development as far as possible, and any development around it should be as sympathetic as possible. English Heritage runs a fantastic heritage protection service in this country, which will only be enhanced by the new model that we have just announced.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
T6. In South Shields, more than £2.8 million has been lost on high stakes, fixed-odds betting terminals. Those machines allow players to gamble as much as £100 every 20 seconds and have already been banned by a number of countries. Will the Minister take action to tackle the damage that the machines do and back Labour’s call to limit the maximum stake on these machines to £2?
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
T8. Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) on arts disparities, may I raise a further complication? When the Arts Council for London, or the English Arts Council—London based—finds itself in the north-west it never usually goes much further than Manchester and Liverpool.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
T7. Given that Hull has won the prestigious title of city of culture for 2017, will the Secretary of State join me in pressing colleagues in the Treasury and Department for Transport to ensure that we have proper, good-quality transport links, including electrification of the railway line to Hull and improvements and upgrades to the A63?
Maria Miller
I know that my hon. Friends at the Department for Transport already have a significant plan for Hull. I am sure that the fact that it will be the 2017 city of culture will only add focus to their work.
Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD)
The Secretary of State referred to the 10% who are most difficult to reach with superfast broadband. Does she recognise that in areas such as mine that number is far bigger than 10%, and that the rural economy is dependent on small micro-businesses and on much higher than average levels of home working? Will she get on with allocating the £250 million that has been set aside for that 10%, and will she not make it match funded by already broke rural authorities?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is right that making superfast broadband a priority infrastructure project for this country was the right decision for the Government. The plans we inherited from Labour were lamentable. He will know that we have already allocated £250 million and will be announcing shortly how that will be used. He will also have noted in the autumn statement an additional £10 million for the hardest-to-reach areas where we need innovative solutions.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
T9. According to the charity Scope, disabled people are warning that the positive effect of the Paralympics on public attitudes is being undermined by widespread “scrounger” rhetoric. What conversations is the Secretary of State having with media organisations to challenge that pervasive and unpleasant narrative?
Maria Miller
The hon. Lady will know that we are working hard on the legacy for disabled people of London 2012. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who is the Minister for disabled people, is at the heart of our legacy programme. We are ensuring that the media have the opportunity to showcase, particularly through sports, the incredible contribution of disabled people to our society. Through that positive imagery, we can challenge the rhetoric that the hon. Lady is talking about.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Minister has already spoken of the benefits to tourism of major sporting events, particularly the rugby world cup 2015. Now that the locations have been set, does she agree that there is a big opportunity for places such as Brighton, Exeter, Milton Keynes, Leeds and Newcastle to attract new visitors, and that my constituency, as the birthplace of the game, will get a particular economic benefit?
Mr Speaker
Topical questions, and the answers, are supposed to be brief and they just continue as though they are an extension of the main session. After a number of years in the House, people really ought to know that by now.
Mrs Grant
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Major sporting events bring huge benefits economically, in tourism, and most of all in inspiring people to get involved in sport. As the birthplace of rugby, my hon. Friend’s wonderful constituency has an opportunity to increase its profile both nationally and internationally.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
T10. Under Labour’s universal broadband pledge, everyone would now have enjoyed a year of full access to decent broadband instead of the ongoing delay and controversy. Will the Minister be sending out e-Christmas cards this year and, if so, does he take responsibility for all the problems that so many people will still have receiving them?
Mr Speaker
I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues, but I am afraid they will have to blame those who took too long to ask their questions or to give the answers.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
1. What steps she is taking to reduce the gender pay gap.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
6. What steps she is taking to reduce the gender pay gap.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)
This Government are committed to reducing the gender pay gap. Women have had the legal right to equal pay for nearly 40 years, but there is still a long way to go before we achieve equality in the workplace. The Government’s focus is on driving the necessary culture change in business, in particular through improving transparency.
Diana Johnson
Forty-three years on from Barbara Castle’s landmark Equal Pay Act 1970, will the right hon. Lady be pleased to be remembered as the Minister who brought in a fee of £1,200 for a pregnant sacked woman to take a case to an employment tribunal on grounds of discrimination and her right to equal pay?
Maria Miller
I am disappointed that the hon. Lady continues to follow this line of questioning, as she is at risk of scaremongering with her reference to the £1,200. She will know that the vast majority of individuals who want to bring a tribunal claim will pay a far lower fee and that our remissions scheme will protect those who cannot pay. I hope she will ensure that she is not scaremongering in this regard because pregnant women will want to know the facts about the support available to them.
Ann McKechin
We will not tackle the gender pay gap until we tackle gender segregation in apprenticeships. May I suggest that the Minister re-examine the conclusions of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee in its “Women in the Workplace” report, and introduce a clear target and reporting strategy so that we can tackle that gender gap?
Maria Miller
The hon. Lady is right that we want to ensure that more women see apprenticeships as an opportunity to get into different fields, particularly STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—related occupations. We know that the gender pay gap has a significant link to the career choices that women make, and apprenticeships have a good role to play.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Is it not slightly embarrassing for this Government and Labour to be lecturing about equal pay when the Equality and Human Rights Commission, under the previous Government and still today, pays white people more than it pays ethnic minority staff, pays disabled staff less than its non-disabled staff, and pays women less than it pays its male staff?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is right to ensure that we are transparent about the reality within public organisations, such as that to which he refers. My Department publishes its pay so that everybody can see how it treats individuals, and I am pleased to say that the gender pay gap in my Department has disappeared. I hope that by ensuring that transparency of salary information we will continue to see more Departments in the same position.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The biggest source of the gender pay gap is the difficulty that working women have in finding well-paid employment that is flexible enough to cope with their child care requirements. What more can the Government do to increase flexibility in the workplace?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is right that, rather than introducing yet more legislation, the Government have been ensuring that we modernise the workplace and that in doing so we modernise the culture around flexible working in particular. It is a shame that the Labour party in government was unable to put in place flexible working. We have set great store by flexible working for all, and ensuring that everybody, regardless of their care responsibilities, has that option available to them.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Under Labour the gender pay gap fell. This morning’s official figures show that it is now on the increase. What are the Government going to do about it?
Maria Miller
The hon. Lady will know that under this Government more women are in work than ever before, that the figures show that salaries are rising, and that we are tackling the long-term issue of the gender pay gap by changing the culture in business. Her party failed to do that by not ensuring that flexible working was available for all. We are making sure that a workplace that was designed by men for men is now designed to accommodate women too.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
2. What assessment she has made of the effect on women of changes in the cost of living.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
5. What assessment she has made of the effect on women of changes in the cost of living.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)
We recognise that these are tough times when both women and men need help with the cost of living. As last week’s autumn statement shows, the Government are providing that help—on income tax, fuel bills and council tax bills—to ensure that hard-working people can make ends meet. Critically, we are also taking the necessary steps to rebuild our economy following the financial crisis.
Karl Turner
I have conducted research in my constituency, where 83% of women told me that they are much worse off now than they were in 2010. They said that was down to increasing energy bills and the cost of food. Does the Minister accept that there is a cost of living crisis now and that women are bearing the brunt?
Jo Swinson
I absolutely accept that people up and down the country are facing significant challenges with the cost of living, which is why the Government are taking action to help them. While we are talking about accepting things, I think that the hon. Gentleman needs to start to accept that one reason why families up and down the country are facing such challenges is the financial mess that his party got our country into.
Yvonne Fovargue
According to analysis from the House of Commons Library and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the married couples tax break of less than £4 a week announced by the Chancellor in the autumn statement will be paid to men in five out of six cases. Does the Minister believe that is the best way to support women facing a cost of living crisis?
Jo Swinson
The hon. Lady and others will be well aware of the differences within the coalition over that policy, as set out in the coalition agreement in 2010. What the Government are doing that will help women hugely is cutting income tax bills for 25 million people—six out of 10 of whom will be women—up and down the country, putting £700 back in their pockets.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that one of the costs faced by the record number of women now in work is the cost of government, which they pay for through their taxes? Will she therefore welcome the fact that 1 million women have seen a 100% reduction in the cost of their income tax?
Jo Swinson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that taking women out of income tax will help significantly. It is important that we cut people’s tax bills and ensure that the Government deliver value for money. That is what this Government are doing, because the last thing that will help women, or indeed men, is leaving this mess for the next generation to clear up.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend remember, as I do, a time when women cleaners in the City paid tax at a higher rate than their millionaire bosses and when women pensioners were offered a derisory increase of 75p in their pensions? She has already mentioned the tax thresholds, and we now have the triple lock on pensions. Is that not really good news for many women across the country?
Jo Swinson
My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that the £650 a year increase in the state pension resulting from the triple lock will hugely help women and men up and down the country with the cost of living—that is a wide range of people, from newly retired pensioners to those like my wonderful grandmother, who celebrates her 100th birthday today.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
When it comes to the pay gap and the cost of living, the people who are often under the most pressure are women between the age of 30 and retirement age, where the pay gap is biggest. What is the Minister doing to help older middle-aged women to carry those burdens?
Jo Swinson
I will not be drawn into giving exact descriptions of women at different stages of life, but I think that the hon. Lady is right to highlight the fact that there is a particular issue for women in that age group. Opportunity Now has recently been undertaking Project 28-40 to research the barriers that those women, in particular, face in the workplace—if Members want to contribute to the survey, I understand that it is open until Sunday. Obviously, the changes we are making for shared parental leave and flexible working will be particularly helpful for those women.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
We all send our love and congratulations to the Minister’s grandma today. Will my hon. Friend assure us that there are rigorous equality impact assessments of all Government policies for women in general, and for black and minority ethnic women and women with disabilities in particular?
Jo Swinson
My right hon. Friend makes the important point that all policies need to take into account the impact they will have on equality. Every Department has a responsibility to ensure that that is taken into account when it brings forward a policy, and not just as some kind of afterthought when it is going through a checklist at the end, but to embed that right through the policy-making process so that those things are considered at the beginning.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
Office for National Statistics figures show that women working full-time have seen almost £2,500 wiped off their real earnings since the election. Does the Minister accept that this shows that her Government’s cost of living crisis is hitting women particularly hard; and why, then, are Ministers continuing with economic policies that hit women three times harder than men?
Jo Swinson
The statistics that the hon. Lady uses are entirely partial. They do not take into account, for example, the changes to the taxation system that disproportionately help women through the income tax cut that we have made. The point that she really needs to understand is that the best way to tackle the cost of living crisis is to ensure that we get on with building a stronger economy that will support jobs and growth. That is what this Government are doing, whereas Labour’s plans just rely on ever more debt that the next generation will have to clear up and pay back.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
3. What progress the Government have made in reducing violence against women since May 2010.
The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)
The coalition Government is strongly committed to tackling violence against women and girls. Some £40 million of funding has been ring-fenced between 2011 and 2015 for specialist domestic and sexual violence services. We have created two new offences of stalking, introduced legislation to criminalise forced marriage, and re-launched our successful national “This is Abuse” campaign. On 25 November, we also announced the roll-out of domestic violence protection orders and Clare’s law to provide greater protection for victims.
Gavin Shuker
A clear majority of women in prostitution experience serious violence in an exploitative trade that promotes wider gender inequality. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the European Union’s draft report on sexual exploitation, which makes it clear that the burden of criminality should shift from seller to buyer, and write to me with his reflections?
Norman Baker
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of vulnerable women involved in prostitution. The Government is particularly concerned about women who have been trafficked who end up in that situation, and that is the primary concern that we are taking forward.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Last year 1.2 million women were victims of domestic violence. It is well known that the police do not prioritise dealing with these crimes, so what more can be done to encourage them to take them seriously and deal with them properly?
Norman Baker
I assure my hon. Friend that we have made our concerns known to the police and to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and we are taking matters forward with them. Yesterday the Home Secretary and I met the DPP and the national policing lead to try to make sure that we understand why there has been a drop in referrals. However, it is also worth pointing out that the number of successful prosecutions for domestic violence has risen to 73%—the highest ever.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
8. The recent report by the Children’s Commissioner into child sexual exploitation found really shocking levels of sexual assault and rape among children, and that young people had a very limited understanding of consent. I listened to the Minister’s response, but he said nothing about how we inform the next generation. Why are the Government refusing to implement the Children’s Commissioner’s recommendation and make sex and relationship education compulsory in all our schools?
Norman Baker
It is a bit unfair to say that I did not mention such matters, because I referred to the re-launch of the “This is Abuse” campaign, which has already been very successful, with 85,000 visits to the website since it was launched last week and 19,000 plays of the “Hollyoaks” TV advert. We are getting through to young people through that campaign. I agree with the hon. Lady that child sexual exploitation is a very serious issue indeed, and I congratulate the deputy Children’s Commissioner on the work she has undertaken, which we are taking forward in conjunction with her.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Female genital mutilation is a particularly pernicious form of violence against women. Why has nobody in this country yet been convicted of being a party to this appalling practice?
Norman Baker
That is a question I have asked the Director of Public Prosecutions, because the legislation has been on the statute book for 28 years and throughout that time there has been no successful prosecution. I think that that partly relates to the reluctance of children to give evidence against parents. I assure my hon. Friend that we are considering the matter. The DPP is looking at existing cases and reviewing whether we can reopen some of them, and I am hopeful that there will be prosecutions in the near future.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
4. What assessment she has made of the effect of the economic climate on people in black, Asian and minority ethnic communities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)
The Government’s policy is to help disadvantaged communities and disadvantaged areas. It does not prioritise any particular race or ethnic background.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
On Monday, Members from across the House spoke passionately about what Nelson Mandela had done to make the world a fairer place, but those words are meaningless if they are not followed up by deeds. It is unacceptable in 21st-century Britain that black men are more likely to be unemployed than white men, and that women from black, Asian and minority ethnic groups are twice as likely to be unemployed as the national average. Why is there not a comprehensive racial equality strategy to address these issues?
Mrs Grant
The hon. Lady makes important points, but I must tell her that there are more ethnic minority people in work in the UK—3.1 million—than ever before. More, of course, needs to be done, which is why the Government have in place a range of tailored support through Jobcentre Plus, the Work programme, the youth contract and our Get Britain Working measures.
Petition
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
I have in my hand a petition which has been signed by more than 2,000 of my constituents. It calls for a parliamentary debate to be held in the House of Commons on the situation in Kashmir. The people who organised the petition said:
“We hope you are fully aware of the ling lingering Kashmir dispute which is a threat to regional and global peace and is causing insecurity, instability and human rights violations. The dispute needs to be solved in accordance with the aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The UK being a friend of both India and Pakistan could facilitate a negotiated settlement as per international commitments and United Nations resolutions.”
My constituents firmly believe that were we to debate this issue in the House of Commons, we could deal with the human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir, and, by doing so, progress the right of self-determination for Kashmiris and prevent daily human rights abuses. I hope that the House will accept the petition, in which the petitioners
request that the House of Commons debate this matter on the floor of the House and further requests that the House urges the Government to facilitate a negotiated settlement.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the ongoing Kashmir dispute is a threat to regional and global peace; further that the dispute is causing insecurity, instability and human rights violations; and further that the State of Jammu and Kashmir should be given the right to self-determination.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons debate this matter on the floor of the House and further requests that the House urges the Government to facilitate a negotiated settlement.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001312]
Business of the House
(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 16 December—Second Reading of the Care Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 17 December—Remaining stages of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill [Lords] followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords Amendments.
Wednesday 18 December—Opposition Day [15th allotted day]. There will be a debate on accident and emergency services, followed by a debate on food banks.
Both debates will arise on an official Opposition motion.
Thursday 19 December—Select Committee statement on the publication of the Ninth Report from the Transport Committee entitled “High Speed Rail: On Track?” followed by matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment as selected by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 20 December—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 6 January 2014 will include:
Monday 6 January—Remaining stages of the Water Bill.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 19 December and 9 January 2014 will be:
Thursday 19 December—A debate on immigration from Bulgaria and Romania.
Thursday 9 January—A debate on the Fifth Report of the Transport Select Committee on access to transport for disabled people, followed by a debate on the First Report of the International Development Select Committee on global food security.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. May I take this opportunity to wish him a happy birthday for yesterday?
I also thank the Leader of the House and you, Mr Speaker, for the chance the House had on Monday to pay tribute to Nelson Mandela. Will the Leader of the House confirm when he plans to reschedule the business that we had to move to accommodate what was an entirely appropriate and solemn occasion?
Today the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority released its recommendations on MPs’ pay and pensions. Does the Leader of the House agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister that those suffering a cost of living crisis will not understand a pay rise many times the rate of inflation? Does he agree that, notwithstanding IPSA’s independence, a joint meeting should take place today to ask it to reconsider the package?
Given that the autumn statement has, in effect, turned into the winter statement, does the Leader of the House agree that it is crucial for the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to make a statement on the provisional local government finance settlement for England before the House rises next week? Local authorities are already struggling with huge cuts and they need as much time as possible to deal with the unpalatable decisions this Government have left them with.
More than 50 hon. and right hon. Members attended yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), on the future of the badger cull. It is becoming increasingly clear that the cull is an expensive disaster for farmers, wildlife and all taxpayers. Since the extensions to the cull were announced, hundreds of thousands of people have signed petitions and many experts have demanded that the Government rethink their approach. Some hon. Members who were in favour of the cull are changing their minds, but all the Environment Secretary does is ignore the facts, hide behind written ministerial statements and assert his personal belief that it is working. Does the Leader of the House agree with the swelling numbers on his own Back Benches who recognise that this cull is a travesty? Will he arrange for the Secretary of State to emerge from his sett and come to the House for an urgent debate in Government time on the future of the 40 further culls that are currently scheduled to take place?
Last week’s autumn statement confirmed one central fact: working people are worse off under this Government. The Chancellor made the desperate claim that
“real household disposable income is rising”.—[Official Report, 5 December 2013; Vol. 571, c. 1101.]
We know, however, that the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies was right when he said that household income is
“almost certainly significantly lower now than it was in 2010.”
Does the Leader of the House think that the Chancellor was right to include the incomes of charities, universities and pension contributions in his calculations as if they were household income? Does he agree with the Office for Budget Responsibility that it is “inconceivable” that household incomes are rising?
The Government began by insisting that they did not enjoy making spending cuts, but the mask slipped a few weeks ago when the Prime Minister donned his white tie and tails and told an audience in the City that public spending cuts are not just for now but for ever. As the Office for Budget Responsibility has said, by 2017-18 Government spending on public services and administration
“will shrink to its smallest share of national income at least since 1948, when comparable National Accounts data are first available”.
This Government’s stated aim is pre-1948 levels of spending, but with double the number of retired people to care for and far more expensive health needs. Despite the hollow protestations of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury today, the fact is that the Liberal Democrats signed up only last week to creating this pre-war vision of an unnaturally shrunken and feeble state.
The Chancellor can throw as much mud as he likes at the previous Labour Government, but the British people will see straight through him to the cold, stark reality of this baleful vision of a country with no social justice and no safety net—a country in which people sink or swim. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate in Government time on this Government’s Hobbesian vision of the future?
The fiasco at the Department for Work and Pensions continued this week, with the Secretary of State being dragged kicking and screaming to the House after trying to sneak out a major delay to his flagship universal credit programme two hours before the autumn statement. Despite wasting many millions of pounds on useless IT and admitting that he will fail to meet his already extended deadline, he farcically claimed in the House that the entire programme was “essentially…on time”. On that definition, living standards are essentially soaring, the badger cull is essentially a success and England is essentially winning the Ashes.
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, especially for her birthday greetings. I heard the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), tell us about her grandmother’s 100th birthday today, and it is great that I have a way to go. I am encouraged by that thought; I am of course now more than halfway there.
The hon. Lady asked about the business that was on Monday’s Order Paper. I am very glad that we could rearrange the business on Monday to have the tribute debate, which was one of those occasions when the House demonstrated its capacity to capture the nation’s mood and speak on its behalf. Of those items of business, the Secretary of State for Defence made a statement on defence reform on Tuesday that he would have made on Monday, and we dealt with the statutory instrument relating to terrorism on Tuesday that would otherwise have been debated on Monday. I hope to be able to announce a date for the Intellectual Property Bill when I announce future business in the new year.
The shadow Leader of the House asked about the IPSA report that has been published this morning. Like other hon. Members, she will have heard what the Prime Minister and, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, and I hope that IPSA very clearly hears exactly what the party leaders have said. It is incumbent on hon. Members across the House who disagree with its judgment to make that very clear to IPSA. I have done so on behalf of the Government, making it clear that IPSA should take into account the public sector pay environment; our conclusion is that IPSA has not done that and should reconsider. The report is not a final determination, in the sense that IPSA must have a statutory review after the election, and it has made it clear that it will do so. I hope that such points will be made forcefully, so that IPSA arrives at such a reconsideration on that basis.
The hon. Lady asked about the badger cull. There was of course a debate yesterday, and the farming Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), responded to it. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues will continue with the pilots—I stress that they are pilots and give us an enormous amount of information about the mechanisms by which a badger cull can be pursued. Colleagues in the House and people outside need to be aware of the enormous cost and the tens of thousands of cattle that have been slaughtered as a consequence of the failure to tackle bovine TB previously. That has to be tackled, and the question is how we can do it most effectively. The pilots will give us the information that we need.
I was pleased that the hon. Lady said that there was a need to follow up on the autumn statement. Although time is tight, any opportunity that we have to follow up on the autumn statement will be welcomed by Government Members. It will give us an opportunity to debate the improvement in the growth forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility; the progress that we are making on cutting the deficit; the freeze on fuel duty all the way through to 2015, which will mean that the price of fuel will be 20p per litre lower by the end of the Parliament than under Labour’s plans; and the reduction in the burden of business rates. Like many colleagues in the House, I spoke to small businesses on Saturday who expressed their support for the reduction in business rates that the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement.
Such a debate would also give us the opportunity to talk about how we can raise living standards. That can be achieved only with a stronger economy. It comes ill from any representative of the Labour party who stands at that Dispatch Box to follow the example of the shadow Chancellor and fail to recognise—indeed, to be in complete denial of—the simple fact that the reason why living standards in this country have suffered is that the economy shrank under Labour, in the worst recession for a century, owing to a 7.2% reduction in national output. The only way in which we will be able to raise people’s living standards is by strengthening the economy, which the coalition Government are doing.
Finally, it was a bit rich of the hon. Lady to speak of a “fiasco” at the Department for Work and Pensions on a day when the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions could not decide whether the state pension would be inside or outside the welfare cap. She replied as she did because Labour has it in mind to curb increases in the state pension in order to raise benefits. That is not a judgment that the Government will make.
Finally, I recall that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—
Mr Lansley
Yes, two finallys for the price of one.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said yesterday that the shadow Secretary of State could not tell the difference between a write-off and a write-down—between a write-off and a depreciation. The Labour party is lecturing us about useless Government IT schemes after what it left! In the Department of Health, I had to take £2 billion out of the contract costs for an NHS IT scheme that was not delivering. Even after I had taken £2 billion out, we were still left with virtually £5 billion of committed contractual costs. The last Government could not run an IT scheme in a brewery!
Mr Speaker
Order. As usual, a great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I remind the House that there is a statement by the Chair of the Liaison Committee to follow and then two debates to take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. There is, therefore, heavy pressure on time and pithiness from Back and Front Benchers alike is imperative.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Does the Leader of the House agree that, as usual, the shadow Leader of the House was talking this country down? It was outrageous of her to suggest that we will not win the Ashes.
Mr Lansley
I think that the shadow Leader of the House was intending to make a joke, but to make a joke at the expense of our team in the Ashes test series shows very poor judgment.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
This morning we heard about cuts to the mental health budget. We are supposed to have a national health service that treats mentally ill people, young and old, in a respectful way. That requires resources. What will the Leader of the House do about the Government policy to cut those vital services?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman will remember that it was this Government who in 2012 for the first time introduced a requirement—a duty—in the NHS that mental health issues should have parity with physical health issues, and that must of course be reflected in the way that clinical commissioning groups commission services. There is a structural issue, however, that I experienced when I was Health Secretary and that I fear continues. Many of the services that are commissioned and paid for from NHS providers are paid for under a tariff. Therefore, if somebody requires treatment, the provider gets paid for that, but as a consequence, the clinical commissioning group—mental health services are substantially not on tariff—gets a block grant. After the tariff expenditure has been calculated by the commissioners, the amount available for the block grant is often being squeezed. That is why mental health providers wanted a tariff basis, although they have not yet got it consistently. I hope the commissioners, NHS England and Monitor will continue to make progress on that.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Although there are large companies in my constituency, Mid Derbyshire has a wide range of small and medium-sized businesses. George’s Tradition, a local chain of award-winning fish and chip shops, employs a large number of young people. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the abolition of national insurance contributions for under-21s?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and delighted that after the autumn statement last Thursday, on Tuesday we were able to table a new clause to the National Insurance Contributions Bill that will bring into law the opportunity to reduce national insurance contributions for those under 21 who earn less than £813 a week. As John Cridland of the CBI said:
“Abolishing a jobs tax on employing young people under 21 will make a real difference and help tackle the scourge of youth unemployment.”
That will be the second time in this Parliament that we have been able to abolish a jobs tax.
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind the House that Members’ questions should bear some relation to next week’s business. That is the essence of business questions. I know we will be led along the path of virtue on that matter by Mr Kelvin Hopkins.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Last week it was reported that one in five hospital admissions are a result of alcohol abuse, and thousands of babies are still born every year damaged by alcohol consumed during the mother’s pregnancy. May I ask the Leader of the House for a debate on the Floor of the House in Government time on our serious and growing alcohol problems, and what the Government propose to do about them?
Mr Lansley
I share the hon. Gentleman’s continuing concern about the abuse of alcohol. The issue is not the overall consumption of alcohol in this country, but the extent to which there is abusive use of alcohol, and to which young people are accessing alcohol, and the consequences that flow from that. I cannot promise a debate immediately, but following the alcohol strategy that the Home Secretary announced last year, I look forward in the new year to further statements in the House on how we take that strategy forward.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
Yesterday the UK hosted the G8 dementia summit, which had strong international support for the leadership shown by the Secretary of State for Health and the Prime Minister in putting dementia at the front of the G8, and the international challenge and fight against disease. May we have a statement or debate in the House to allow all parties to discuss how we can do more to change the way we think about dementia, from its being something that every old person gets to becoming a disease, like cancer or AIDS, that with effort, collective funding and new science and technology we will defeat?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I, like Members across the House, was impressed by the support brought together by this country and the Prime Minister in following the issue up at the G8 summit. Colleagues will recall the G8 summit on HIV/AIDS and how that led to a worldwide acknowledgement of the nature of the problem and the removal of stigma in addressing it, as well as investment in research and treatment. We need all of that and more for dementia, because the scale of the task and the challenge is immense and there is no time to lose. The pace at which an ageing population is leading to rising numbers of people with dementia means that immense costs will be associated with care if we do not make great improvements in research and treatment.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
May we have a debate on the commissioning of the meningitis B vaccine, which is crucial for children? There are several such cases in my constituency and in the rest of Northern Ireland. Can time be made available for a debate?
Mr Lansley
I fear I cannot promise time to the hon. Lady immediately, but I recognise the problem. The Government in England and the devolved Administrations work closely together on the development of the vaccination programme. If I may, I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department of Health to correspond with her, sharing that with the Northern Ireland Health Minister.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Among other things, the purpose of Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is to make the system open, honest and transparent, reduce the cost of politics and help raise the standing of MPs with the public. In the light of IPSA’s announcement this morning of a 9.2% pay raise for MPs, along with a cost-neutral package of reforms, may we have a debate on whether IPSA is fit for purpose? It is totally out of touch with what is going on in the country, has not reduced the cost of politics and does nothing to contribute to raising the standing of MPs with such packages.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will be aware that IPSA’s proposal is not a final determination, as the pay element is subject to a statutory review. We have made progress: in July, there was a package that would have cost more. IPSA has tried, as he will see in today’s publication, not to increase the cost of politics. Since it put the new scheme of costs and expenses in place, the cumulative reduction in total cost in the past three years is £35.8 million, so the cost of politics is being reduced. The Government are doing their bit. The Prime Minister and his colleagues reduced Ministers’ pay by 5%, compared with our predecessors, at the start of this Government, and that has been frozen for the life of this Parliament. There is a particular point relating to IPSA’s judgment on MPs’ pay at a time of continuing pay restraint in the public sector, on which it has to listen to party leaders.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Exactly a week ago, suspected al-Qaeda militants burst into a hospital in Sana’a killing 52 people, including all the doctors, nurses and patients. May we please have a debate next week on the situation in Yemen, and may I ask the Leader of the House not to ask me to raise this issue at Foreign Office questions? That would not help us. We need a debate next week.
Mr Lansley
I am sure Members understand fully the seriousness of the situation to which the right hon. Gentleman rightly refers. I cannot promise time for a debate next week, but I am sure he is aware that there is scope for such matters to be raised before the Adjournment next Thursday under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry into the conduct of the Iraq war started in 2009 and has cost more than £8 million. The report was due to be published in 2012; a year later, there is still no sign of it. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister or the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), to come to the House to make a statement on when the report will be published, or on who or what is delaying publication?
Mr Lansley
Sir John Chilcot wrote to the Prime Minister on 4 November to update him on the inquiry. He reported that continuing discussions on certain classified documents had delayed what is known as the Maxwellisation process, and hence publication of the report. Members and the public can see that correspondence, which is published on the Iraq inquiry website. The Government are committed to giving Sir John as much time as he needs to finish his report. Readers of that correspondence will be aware that the Government continue to act in good faith to enable Sir John Chilcot to complete his inquiry as soon as he may.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I warmly congratulate the Government on announcing that the first same-sex marriages will take place on 29 March, not least because this is Norman Tebbit’s birthday—so that’s one in the eye for the bigots, isn’t it? Will the Government explain next week, however, why they are delaying for so long the introduction of the upgrades to same-sex marriages for those currently in civil partnerships? France managed to do it a week after legislating, so why are we taking 18 months?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for the announcement made by the Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), about the opportunity on 29 March. My recollection is that the legislation includes a requirement for a review of the situation relating to civil partnerships, so I suspect that is one thing that needs to be proceeded with in the first instance.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Ind)
May we have an early debate on school transport? If a youngster passes an entrance exam to Clitheroe Royal grammar school, but lives more than three miles from it and has to go past another school on the way, they get no assistance with school transport costs, which is hugely discriminatory. We should be encouraging youngsters to attend the school of their choice.
Mr Lansley
Like other Members, I am aware of the issue my hon. Friend raises. It is often quite complex: there is not necessarily no help at all, but that help may be limited to those in low-income households. I will ask my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Education to reply to him about those issues and how they see us being able to help promote parental choice in relation to schools.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
In the light of a constituency case, may I ask the Leader of the House to persuade the Secretary of State for Health to come to this House to make a statement on the lack of places available to sectioned juveniles? There appears to be a dearth of units around the country appropriate for that type of care, and commissioners have told me that they find it difficult, in the current health structure, to work out how best to place these young people.
Mr Lansley
I will raise that issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If, as the hon. Lady says, it relates to a constituency case, I am sure she will write to him—if she has not done so already—and I shall encourage him to respond on the particular case and the general point.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
The autumn statement included commitments to investment in several much-needed improvements to roads in England, and the Welsh Government will take similar decisions in Wales. May we have a debate or written statement on the establishment of a process to deal with improvements across the border between England and Wales, which have collapsed as a consequence of devolution?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point that I will talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales about. I know he will share his interest in the issue. Devolution has many merits, but all of us in the devolved Administrations and the UK Government want to work together to deliver the infrastructure improvements we all want.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House indicate when we can have a debate on housing? I have raised this issue before. There are many people in this country who have no prospect of ever being able to afford a property, who have great difficulty accessing council or housing association properties and who therefore have no choice but to enter the unregulated and—in London—incredibly expensive private rented sector. May we have a debate on Government proposals, if there are any, to regulate the private rented sector, including through a cap on rents or at least some kind of fair rents formula?
Mr Lansley
I think I heard the makings of a contribution to the pre-recess Adjournment debate being formulated by the hon. Gentleman even as he asked his question.
Mr Lansley
Yes. I cannot at the moment promise the hon. Gentleman a statement, given the considerable pressure of legislative business, but when we can have one, I personally would welcome a debate on housing. One of the Government’s priorities is to turn around the 400,000-plus reduction in social housing under the last Government. We are setting out to ensure that more social and affordable housing is available, and we are seeing an increase of approximately one third in the number of planning approvals, which will sustain what I hope is now a rising trend from the position we inherited from the last Government on overall house building numbers.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
May we have a debate on nuisance calls? Time and again, my constituents are being plagued by automated and unwarranted nuisance sales calls. These are often via unidentified numbers and can be particularly worrying for isolated people, especially the elderly who live on their own.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes a good point. He will know that tackling unsolicited marketing nuisance calls is being addressed through measures in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport strategy paper published in July, to which I referred in previous business questions, and through an action plan to be published shortly. I know that Members have gone to the Backbench Business Committee to seek a debate in order to influence the content of that action plan. My hon. Friend and others may well have a sympathetic hearing from the Backbench Business Committee.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will be aware that, after two disastrous franchise agreements, rail services on the east coast main line have been publicly and successfully run since November 2009, achieving record levels of passenger satisfaction and returning hundreds of millions of pounds to the Treasury. May we have an early debate on the Government’s imminent plans to re-privatise the east coast main line service—against the best interests of the taxpayer and the passenger, and without full public consultation?
Mr Lansley
I cannot promise a debate immediately but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, a week today, on 19 December, my colleagues from the Department for Transport will be here, and I am sure they will be happy to answer that question if he is here to ask it.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Given the launch of Formula E—an electric car racing championship, much like Formula 1—does the Lord Privy Seal agree that we should have an opportunity to promote a similar contest for aeroplanes made of composite materials and powered by electric batteries, because that is one way of pushing forward innovation in an exciting way, matching up our ambitions in the autumn statement?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. He will know that the Government share his aspiration that by 2050, almost every car and van in the UK fleet will be an ultra-low emission vehicle. The huge UK automotive industry is at the forefront of the design, development and manufacture of such vehicles. The Government published in September their ultra-low emission strategy, “Driving the Future Today”. I have to say, however, that due to the limited capability of battery technology to store sufficient energy even for short flights, there is currently no prospect of which we are aware for commercial electric aircraft. However, I will encourage my colleagues at the Department for Transport to discuss his ambition further with him.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
The Leader of the House obviously heard the shadow Leader of the House talking about yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate on the badger cull. Even the Chief Whip took the time to attend it. There is a demand and a real expectation on both sides of the House for this Chamber to have a lengthy debate on the issue. We all know about the plight of farmers, but we also realise that money is being wasted on this cull.
Mr Lansley
I have taken note of that, and the hon. Gentleman is right that my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary listened carefully to yesterday’s debate. I will not add to what I said earlier, but I am listening.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Leader of the House will be aware that annuities are coming under increasing scrutiny. At a recent meeting of the all-party group on pensions, which I chair, it was made clear that millions of current and future pensioners would benefit considerably from improvements to annuities and from greater transparency, competition and flexibility. Will a Treasury Minister attend next week’s pre-recess debate, so that I can encourage the Treasury to focus on this area?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend raises a point of real importance. Many Members are, like me, aware of the pressure on annuitants buying annuities at times when yields can be relatively low, highlighting the importance of their getting the best possible deal, the best possible information and, frankly, the lowest possible charges. If my hon. Friend raised this issue in the pre-recess Adjournment debate, I cannot promise that a Treasury Minister would be there because my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House is going to respond to it. My hon. Friend could, however, be confident that if he raised the matter, Ministers would be made aware of it and would listen to what he had to say.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The education of 16 to 18-year-olds already receives 22% less funding than the education of those aged between five and 16. May we have an urgent debate on the impact of the 17% cut in funds for the education of 18-year-olds that was announced this week?
Mr Lansley
I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I will ensure that my colleagues at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills respond to the part of the hon. Gentleman’s question that was relevant to further education colleges, and that the Department for Education deals with his point about the overall distribution of education funding.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
A business in my constituency has sadly fallen victim to a scam involving a bogus website, and I fear that such illegal activities are more widespread. Given the impact that cybercrime can have on small businesses, and given the work that the Cabinet Office is undertaking on cybercrime—it is set out in a written ministerial statement today—may we have a debate about this important issue on the Floor of the House?
Mr Lansley
As my hon. Friend knows, cybercrime is often under-reported. Action Fraud is a national reporting service run by the National Fraud Authority, a Home Office agency, to which members of the public and businesses can report fraud and financially motivated cybercrime either online or by telephone. The Government have announced a £4 million campaign to raise awareness of cybercrime among businesses and individuals, including young people, so that they can protect themselves better. It will be launched in January, supported by the private and voluntary sectors. I cannot promise a debate at this stage, but my hon. Friend will have noted that in January, members of the public and businesses will have an opportunity to be better informed.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Energy, perhaps next week? Although the Energy Bill finally received Royal Assent this week, it has become apparent in the last couple of days that the future of Eggborough power station, which accounts for up to 4% of UK capacity, has been placed in jeopardy because of a unilateral, last-minute and unexplained change to the early contract for difference allocation process undertaken by officials at the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
Mr Lansley
I cannot promise a statement but, as the hon. Gentleman has raised an important and specific point, I will ask the Secretary of State for Energy to reply to him directly.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Small business Saturday was a big success in the borough of Kettering last week, when local people came out to support their local traders. Given that the beneficial effects of every £1 spent in the local economy are worth £1.76, I am sure that the Leader of the House, like me, is supporting the campaign by the Federation of Small Businesses to keep trade local. The aim is to encourage people to buy locally from now until Christmas. Will he ensure that, throughout 2014, we have regular opportunities to highlight the good work and endeavour of local small businesses and traders?
Mr Lansley
Yes. I believe that we in South Cambridgeshire shared my hon. Friend’s experience, and I am sure that was the case throughout the country. Of course we want to support local businesses, but so do many consumers who require locally produced, well-differentiated goods. Small businesses are the economic powerhouse of the future. We have 400,000 more of them now, and small business formation is at a record level. That presents a tremendous prospect, as long as we continue to give those businesses the support they require.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The Leader of the House said earlier that he would like the House to have more debates on the economic situation following the autumn statement, and he has just been talking about small businesses. I, too, participated in Small business Saturday, in Blackpool. However, it is a long time since we had a proper debate on the Floor of the House about how the economic climate is affecting seaside and coastal towns such as Blackpool, which have been hit particularly badly by a range of funding cuts—and that includes small businesses. Will the Leader of the House consult his colleagues and arrange for a debate about seaside and coastal towns to take place on the Floor of the House in the near future?
Mr Lansley
I should love to arrange a debate about seaside and coastal towns, which would be very useful. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that one of the differences between this and previous Parliaments is that a significant part of the time that used to be available to Ministers and the Leader of the House for debates that do not relate specifically to the passage of legislation has been transferred to the Backbench Business Committee. In my experience, the Committee has been extremely receptive, on a cross-party basis, to Members who approach it seeking debates.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I was pleased to visit Barnfield primary school in Burnt Oak last week, where I was told in terms how pleased both parents and staff are that the Government have announced free school meals for children from reception to year 2. Therefore, may we have a debate on the nutritional values of free school meals and their effects on early-years learning?
Mr Lansley
We know from the pilots held between 2009 and 2011 that where free school meals are provided to primary pupils, educational attainment has improved, particularly among children from less affluent families. Studies also show that where universal free school meals have been provided, there are social and behavioural benefits to the children and they are more likely to eat healthily during the school day. We also know, of course, the risks associated with poor diet and childhood obesity, so in addition to the measures the Deputy Prime Minister has announced and that the Government will bring in from next September, I was pleased to see the latest figures on the national child measurement programme showing the overall obesity level of children coming into reception classes is down on what it was in the previous year, and lower than in 2006.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
When we discuss the Care Bill on Monday, we will be debating amendment 118, which gives the Secretary of State for Health a kind of Henry VIII power to direct mergers and changes in hospital provision. However, in cases where hospitals actually want to merge, the situation is overcomplicated by the role of the Competition Commission. Will the Leader of the House discuss with the Secretary of State for Health the tabling of an urgent amendment to that Bill to ensure that instead of our money being spent on expensive competition lawyers, it is spent on health provision?
Mr Speaker
I think the hon. Lady seeks a statement, too, or a debate in the House next week. [Interruption.] Indeed.
Mr Lansley
I think the hon. Lady was referring to clause 118 of the Care Bill, which will be the subject of debate on Second Reading as announced, and I am sure she will be able to make those points then. For my part, I will simply say that it is a matter of necessity in any sector of activity for there to be proper competition rules. Monitor is responsible for those competition rules in relation to the health sector, except in relation to mergers, where the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission, or the new Competition and Markets Authority, have wide-ranging expertise across all sectors.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
One of the items that did not make the oral statement on the autumn statement was the welcome news that the pre-1992 trapped annuitants—the most vulnerable victims of the Equitable Life scandal—will receive their compensation before Christmas, so may we have an urgent statement next week from the Minister responsible laying out exactly what the Government have done to compensate the victims of the Equitable Life scandal compared with the Labour party, which did nothing for 13 years?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I recall the past occasions when he has rightly raised this matter both with Treasury Ministers and with me at business questions. I am very pleased that his efforts on behalf of those pre-1992 Equitable Life annuitants have borne such fruit—and early fruit, before Christmas. We will, I hope, next week take the opportunities to make sure the people affected and the wider public are aware of this.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Five weeks ago, on 6 November, I asked wither the Prime Minister thought that Tory councillor Abdul Aziz, whom the Prime Minister invited to a party in October, should return to face justice in Pakistan where there is an outstanding arrest warrant for him in connection with a brutal murder. The Prime Minister promised he would write to me. That was five weeks ago and I have had no response from the Prime Minister. May we urgently have a statement from the Prime Minister on this matter?
Mr Lansley
I recall the Prime Minister saying he would inquire into this matter. Along with the hon. Gentleman, I do not know the outcome of that, but I will inquire into it myself.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating everyone who worked so hard towards agreeing the city deal for Coventry and Warwickshire, including my hon. Friends the Members for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) and for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), who took part in my Adjournment debate earlier this year? May we have a debate on how we can deliver the most for our region through the city deal, which is expected to create over 15,000 new jobs by 2025?
Mr Lansley
I am delighted that the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) has been able to announce the agreement on the Coventry and Warwickshire city deal, along with city deals for the black country and other areas. I cannot promise an immediate debate on the subject, but it will be an encouraging occasion when the city deals collectively can be debated in the House. My hon. Friend’s example is a good one; focusing as it does on advanced manufacturing and engineering, it holds out the prospect of £66 million of investment and 8,000 new jobs in the advanced manufacturing and engineering sector, which will be important for our economic progress.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
May we please have an urgent statement from the Government on segregation in our universities, in order to restate clearly our cross-party commitment to equality, especially in those institutions that are receiving public money?
Mr Lansley
I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but I confess that it was news to me when I heard a discussion about it on Radio 4’s “Today” programme this morning. If I may, I will talk to the Minister for Universities and Science about the matter, to see whether it might be appropriate for him to report to the House.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
May we have a debate to review the pupil premium? I was delighted to learn this week that Avon Valley school in my constituency has had a “good” Ofsted report and that the inspectors found that the head teacher, Don O’Neill, and his staff were using the premium effectively to provide a welcome narrowing of the attainment gap between the students who benefit from the premium and their classmates.
Mr Lansley
We as a coalition Government can take great pride in the way in which the pupil premium is impacting on the most disadvantaged pupils who need additional support, and in the ability of schools to offer that support in a way that allows the leadership of the school to make their own judgment on how the resources should be used. I am pleased to note that Avon Valley school is providing a good education. The chief inspector of Ofsted pointed out only yesterday that good schools require good leaders, and I understand that Avon Valley school’s Ofsted report highlights the strengths in the leadership and the teaching at that school.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the disgraceful, disreputable and frankly immoral conduct of Rothschild’s for its role in giving advice and support on providing mortgage equity release schemes to hundreds of thousands of pensioners in this country who are now facing extreme poverty in their later years instead of compensation from that big finance house? That is a disgrace. Will he help us to find time to debate the matter in the House?
Mr Lansley
I am sorry; I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman was going to raise that issue, and I have not had an opportunity to talk to my hon. Friends at the Treasury about that case. However, he clearly feels strongly about the issue and if he is in his place next Thursday for the pre-recess Adjournment debate, I know that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, would be more than happy to respond on behalf of the Government if he raises it at that time.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) in asking for a debate, or at least a statement, on funding for students aged 18 in further education? My local college received a letter from the Education Funding Agency this week telling it that it will be £800 per student worse off compared with sixth-form colleges, which will be no worse off at all. Will the Leader of the House please arrange for an Education Minister to come to the Chamber to address this issue, by means of either a statement or, preferably, a full debate?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Lady will have heard the response that I gave to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). I will of course discuss this with my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Education to see how they might wish to update the House and perhaps Members individually.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, the UK and the US stopped all non-lethal aid going into northern Syria. This is yet another development that has not been debated in the House. We last had a debate on the matter in August, and the last statement was on 8 October. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Foreign Secretary to provide a statement on the matter before we break for the recess?
Mr Lansley
In the light of these developments, I will of course talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Time for an oral statement is very limited and that could therefore be difficult to arrange, but I will see whether it is possible for a statement to be given to the House before we rise for Christmas.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
In response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) about mental health funding, the Leader of the House implied that he was against NHS resourcing based on activity. So may we have a statement on why previous Health Secretaries and the current one have pushed for NHS resourcing based on activity? Will the right hon. Gentleman not then be supporting proposals that NHS England is considering next week, which emphasise health care resourcing based on activity and not on health care need or health inequalities?
Mr Lansley
If the hon. Lady reads what I said, I think she will find that I was supporting the principle of tariff-based funding, which is an activity-based funding scheme. In that sense, NHS England, independently, is responsible for allocating resources to clinical commissioning groups and the mandate to it is clear: it should do that according to the principle of equal access for equal need.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
City analysts from Liberum Capital have described the Hinkley Point nuclear power station deal as “economically insane” for offering a price for electricity at double the going rate, index linked and guaranteed for 35 years, at the cost of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. Next week, there will be a decision on whether an investigation takes place in Europe—that would delay the power station for at least 18 months. So is it not crucial that next week Parliament decides its view on this astonishing rip-off for taxpayers?
Mr Lansley
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change came to this Dispatch Box and made a statement announcing the Hinkley Point deal. The hon. Gentleman should not construe the fact that the European Commission looks at it as anything to be remarked upon; it was inevitable and a matter of necessity that it would do so. It was always anticipated that that would happen.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
This week, we heard some marvellous tributes paid to Nelson Mandela. Next week, will the Leader of the House, together with the relevant House authorities, look into the possibility of dedicating a room in this place to the memory of the great man?
Mr Lansley
We have not had occasion to remark upon it, but the House will of course be further commemorating and celebrating the life of Nelson Mandela this afternoon in the Great Hall at Westminster, and people will be coming from right across the country to do exactly that. Beyond that, it is probably a matter more for the House of Commons Commission or its Committees to consider the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. If he wishes to put a proposal forward, I am sure it will be considered.
Mr Speaker
I think we will take points of order after the Select Committee statement. That would be seemly, and I am sure that Members will be patient enough to wait for that opportunity.
Liaison Committee Report
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Chair of the Liaison Committee to make the Select Committee statement, it might be helpful to the House if I explained briefly the new procedure, to which it agreed only recently. In essence, the pattern is the same as for a ministerial statement. Sir Alan will speak to his subject for up to 10 minutes—there is no obligation to take all that time —during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members who rise to put questions to Sir Alan on the subject of his statement and call Sir Alan to respond to those in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. These interventions should be questions and should be brief. Front Benchers may take part in the questioning. The Backbench Business Committee does have the power to impose a maximum time limit on a statement and the exchanges that follow, but on this occasion it has chosen not to do so. I call the Chair of the Liaison Committee, Sir Alan Beith, most appropriately, if I may say so, to make the first formal Select Committee statement.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD) (Select Committee Statement)
Mr Speaker, I am delighted that we are able to make the first use of the procedure that you have so helpfully described to the House, and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for enabling us to do so.
The Liaison Committee usually reports on matters of process affecting Select Committees. For example, our 2012 report was on Select Committee effectiveness, resources and powers. This report relates to public policy and is unusual in that respect. It arose because we had shared concerns among Select Committees about how contracts are managed by Government Departments. That was one of the themes of our evidence session with the Prime Minister in September. We questioned him on a range of examples of poor Whitehall contract management, from the electronic monitoring of offenders to rural broadband and the west coast main line. We pressed the Prime Minister on the significant evidence that the civil service is not equipped to support consistent contract management and tends to be driven by short-term pressures rather than by long-term value for money for the taxpayer.
There are of course many examples of civil service success. We point in our report to the successful delivery of the security for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games, despite the contractor’s failure, as a notable example. The Prime Minister told us:
“There are some issues and problems in the civil service as well as that very good performance and we need to deal with them. But I think that we can deal with them with the plans we have in hand”.
We are not convinced that the Government’s civil service reform plan for Whitehall is based on a strategic consideration of the future of the civil service. We are concerned that the reforms proposed by the Government will not be successful in tackling some deep-rooted problems in Whitehall.
The weight of the evidence received by Select Committees across different subject areas led us to conclude that we should collectively report our concerns to the House. It is not enough just to address how best to increase Whitehall’s capacity to manage contracts. There needs to be recognition of the very different role that the civil service is now expected to carry out. It requires different skills and places new demands on the way that Whitehall works, and it is not just about civil servants. The role of Ministers needs to be examined. In our view, that requires a fundamental review of the role of the civil service. The Government have previously signalled that there will be a considerable change in that role. In July 2010, the Prime Minister promised
“to turn government on its head, taking power away from Whitehall and putting it into the hands of people and communities.”
Government Departments have also been required to change the way they work, while doing “more for less” to meet the financial constraints of austerity.
The civil service was shaped by the Northcote-Trevelyan settlement of 1854, and the Haldane doctrine of ministerial accountability. The Haldane model, dating back nearly 100 years, did not anticipate the size of modern Departments or the vast range of public services, whether they are carried out by the civil service or contracted out. There has been no independent examination of the civil service since the Fulton committee’s report of 1968. That committee was expressly excluded from consideration of the relationship between Ministers and officials. The evidence we heard on the state of the civil service clearly demonstrates the need for a reconsideration of the traditional notion of ministerial responsibility, which is hard to apply in modern circumstances.
A report published by the Institute for Government earlier this week described the current system of accountability as
“opaque, out of date and creaking under the pressure of today’s demands.”
Three months, ago the Public Administration Committee published “Truth to Power: how Civil Service reform can succeed”. It was a report of a year-long investigation into the state of the civil service. The Committee concluded that the Government’s proposed reforms to Whitehall do not look strategically at the challenges facing the civil service of the future. The Committee recommended the establishment of a parliamentary commission into the civil service. The aim of the commission would be to ensure that the civil service has the values, philosophy and structure capable of constant regeneration in the face of a faster pace of change.
The Liaison Committee has endorsed that recommendation. We say that the Government should ask Parliament to establish a parliamentary commission into the civil service and that it should be a Joint Committee of both Houses, on the same lines as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. It is right for Parliament to consider the state of the civil service. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 clearly established the principle that responsibility now lies with Parliament rather than being a matter for the royal prerogative. A parliamentary commission could draw on the extensive experience of Government and the civil service in both Houses and its conclusions would enjoy cross-party consensus.
Select Committees themselves benefited enormously from the fact that the Wright Committee had established a programme of reform that took effect immediately after the 2010 election. In the light of that experience, we recommend that the commission on the civil service be established as a matter of urgency and report before the end of this Parliament to enable its findings and recommendations to be implemented after the election. I commend the report to the House.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has had time to see the exchanges in evidence taken by my Committee, the Select Committee on Science and Technology, from Sir Mark Walport and Jon Day, one of the permanent secretaries in the Cabinet Office. Jon Day acknowledges that in his task of horizon-scanning there is a problem of joining up and he specifically talks about the silo mentality. He goes on to say that there are some enthusiastic people who have tried to solve the problem. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that underlines the fact that not only is there the need we have seen but that there is willingness in the civil service to go down this path, so the only obstacle is the Government?
Sir Alan Beith
I have seen the evidence given to the Science and Technology Committee and it referred particularly—these phrases keep recurring—to silos and stovepipes as an analogy for Government Departments. When I talk to Ministers, including one or two who might even be on the Front Bench now, I hear a similar language of concern about the silo mentality. It illustrates that there are fundamental issues that such a commission could properly consider.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend and the Liaison Committee for so emphatically endorsing the “Truth to Power” report produced by my Committee, the Public Administration Committee, and the central conclusion that there should be a commission on the future of the civil service. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is entirely predictable that there should be natural resistance to that conclusion from a Government who wish to concentrate on winning the next election and from a senior civil service that will fight shy of scrutiny of problems and failures in the civil service and the degree of change that needs to be delivered? Should we not invite the Government to set those excuses aside? They have had three and a half years to reform the civil service. It is taking a long time. The inquiry will sit for only a year before it will report. Is that not an effective way of bringing change to Whitehall?
Sir Alan Beith
I welcome my hon. Friend’s work on this as Chairman and that of his whole Committee. Clearly, almost all Governments have an in-built resistance to reform. That is a short-sighted view, however, because Governments need a civil service that can respond to the programmes that they want to carry out. The other problem that his Committee has rightly identified is that it is vital that civil servants tell the truth to power and feel enabled to do so. In our report, we identified examples where we felt that things had gone wrong because Ministers were told what they wanted to hear.
Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on a full and important first report to the House from the Liaison Committee and, with him, endorse the importance of cross-party consensus on civil service reform if we are to ensure more effective government. Does he agree with my Committee, the Public Accounts Committee, based on the evidence we took from private contractors delivering public services, that if the Government want to see more effective and efficient delivery by those private contractors, there should be open-book accounting, the National Audit Office ought to be able to access those contractors as and when it deems it necessary, and freedom of information provision should be relevant and in place when private contractors are using taxpayers’ money to deliver public services?
Sir Alan Beith
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady and, of course, the Public Accounts Committee produced a number of reports that are considered in the report to which I am referring today. My Committee, the Select Committee on Justice, believes that, just as the public pound should be followed wherever it goes, the information to which the public are entitled should remain their entitlement when services are carried out by private contractors, and that contracts should be written in such as way as to ensure that that access to freedom of information is not impaired by any privatisation process.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee for his very powerful report, and for it being commendably brief and very much to the point. Rarely can there have been as damning a sentence in any parliamentary report as
“The Prime Minister’s evidence to us in September did nothing to suggest that the Government has a coherent analysis of why things in Whitehall go wrong.”
The Government have indicated that they want to see changes to the civil service, but is it not a shame that the Liaison Committee, the most powerful Select Committee in this House, has to seek the Government’s permission to set up a parliamentary commission? If the Liaison Committee does not get the answer from the Government that it wants, what will it do?
Sir Alan Beith
That, as Ministers often say, is a hypothetical question that I ought not to answer. What I can say to my hon. Friend—and I thank him for his comments—is that the House could set up such a body, but the point of the exercise is to ensure that Front Benches are committed to the outcome. That is why we want those on both the Government and the Opposition Front Bench, aspiring as they do to be a Government, to recognise that it is in the interests of good government that we equip the civil service and enable it to do the job that it will need to do in the very different circumstances of today.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
The National Audit Office report on the implementation of universal credit said that the Department for Work and Pensions had developed a “good news” culture and a “fortress mentality”. As a result, Ministers were able to claim that they did not know how badly things were going. Who does the right hon. Gentleman blame for this? Is it the civil servants who were too afraid to speak truth to power, or the Ministers who run the Departments in such a macho way that they want to hear only of the solutions, not of the problems?
Sir Alan Beith
In our report it was the first of those two possible explanations that we referred to. For Ministers not to have known for three years into the programme suggests that civil servants did not feel free to tell them what they needed to hear, but rather seemed to be telling them what they wanted to hear. Our primary task was not to look for which individuals to blame, but to look for what was wrong with a system that did not communicate early enough that things were going wrong.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
The civil service is ultimately founded on political power, whereas good business is ultimately founded on voluntary co-operation. Will the Committee accept that this categorical difference could be at the heart of any coherent explanation of the civil service’s failings? Would the right hon. Gentleman consider that this might mean that the civil service is incapable of meeting his high ideals?
Sir Alan Beith
That is a very interesting argument, which I would like to discuss with the hon. Gentleman at greater length some time. Both voluntary co-operation and the exercise of power seem to me to exist in both the public and the private sectors.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I am pleased to endorse what the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said and welcome his statement, and I am pleased to follow the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, of which I am a member. Will there be no prescription in the terms of reference for the inquiry and will it have a broad canvas and be capable of taking views such as mine? I am a traditional supporter of the Northcote-Trevelyan-Haldane civil service. On that broad canvas could we look at the role of special advisers, the potential politicising of civil servants and other issues?
Sir Alan Beith
The hon. Gentleman raises some important issues, which have been discussed in the context of the Government’s own more limited reform, which they have canvassed hitherto. These are certainly issues that need to be looked at by such a commission. If it is the Government’s belief that there needs to be more personalisation of senior appointments in the civil service—I believe that is their view—that raises issues arising out of the traditional role of the civil service that ought to be considered carefully and be embarked upon with the authority of both Houses of Parliament in the kind of context that such a commission could set.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we would be more effective at holding officials to account if we improved our own accountability? For example, the Speaker’s Commission is still unelected and has no one from an intake after 2001, which is more than half the House. Select Committee powers are very opaque. We have parliamentary orders ignored, as in the case of the BBC with pay-offs. We give significant powers to officials on Bill Committees and do not have the expertise of Members with recognised experience in those areas. Should we not be showing a little more and telling a little less, even when it comes to savings and transformational change, which is what we are seeking from Whitehall but not always delivering ourselves?
Sir Alan Beith
The hon. Gentleman leads me into areas covered by other Liaison Committee reports on Select Committee effectiveness, but I think that I can reasonably say that the role and effectiveness of Select Committees have changed significantly over the course of this Parliament, in part as a result of a series of reforms agreed prior to the last general election and then brought into effect. That is the model that has led us to propose the civil service commission in this case.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s statement, which I think is a welcome step forward. Following the previous question, I agree that Select Committees need more definitive powers. I think that they should be able not only to set up commissions, but, if necessary, and in extremis, to introduce their own legislation when the Government refuse to do so. We need to shift the balance of power towards Parliament and away from the Executive as far as we can. Following the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), what consideration has been given to the size, quantity and value of private contractors working on civil service functions, often core functions, and does he believe that that undermines the whole role of the civil service, as a Government-employed service, in giving robust advice to Government, rather than commercially driven advice and running of services?
Sir Alan Beith
The hon. Gentleman is a much-valued member of my Justice Committee and himself provides evidence of the valuable work that can be done in Select Committees. The extent to which services should be either carried out directly by Government or contracted out to the private sector is a matter of legitimate political argument, although Governments of quite different political persuasions have extended the role of the private sector in that regard. One thing that united Select Committee Chairs from different political backgrounds was the point that the civil service must have the necessary equipment for effective contracting when those processes are engaged in and that at every stage it should tell Ministers what they need to hear, not just what they want them to hear.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Last, but certainly not least, Paul Flynn.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Has the Chair of the Committee observed that this Government, possibly more than any other, have followed the traditional practice of blaming all problems on their predecessors, then on the European Union and then on the civil service? The civil service’s overriding weakness is the great ethos of the unimportance of being right, because those who spoke truth to power are the ones whose careers have withered, and those who spoke comforting untruths to power are the ones whose careers have prospered and who have got to the top. Can he give us an assurance that the Committee, in the splendid work it is doing, will follow what other Committees, such as the Public Accounts Committee, have done by saying that we need to respect, value and continue the great contribution that the independence of the civil service has made to this country over many years?
Sir Alan Beith
The hon. Gentleman made some comments on which I would hesitate to give a collective view on behalf of the Liaison Committee, which comprises Members of very different political persuasions, but he is right to emphasise the value of the civil service and the fact that we need a public service. It must be a public service that is capable of not only telling truth to power, but carrying out the decisions that democratically elected Governments make. Getting that balance right exercised the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms and was a consideration in the Haldane reforms. It is time that we looked again at how we can maintain the important and fundamental principles on equipping the civil service for the very different and challenging tasks that we place upon it today.
Points of Order
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I gave you notice earlier this morning of the broad context of this point of order, but I will now present the details. At 17.55 yesterday evening I received an e-mail informing me that the Secretary of State for Wales would be visiting my constituency this morning. I am pleased that he is visiting Ogmore, because he does not do so often—in fact, he never has. I responded immediately, because I was fortunate enough to be at my desk until late in the evening. At 7.4 this morning I received an apology for the late notice but no details of where he was visiting in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), even though I had requested them. At 9.43 this morning, following prompting from my hon. Friend, a subsequent e-mail clarified where the Secretary of State was going in the full itinerary. At 10.30 am the visits began. A less charitable Member might think that there had been an intention to avoid my being there to accompany the Secretary of State. Mr Deputy Speaker, will you clarify what the protocol is for informing hon. Members of visits to their constituencies?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
It is not a matter for the Chair, but it is very good practice, which has happened, that a Member is informed of another MP going into their constituency. It is up to the Minister whether they want to give details of the visit, but it is always good practice to let the MP know, because—who knows?—they may be able to help with it, and I would have thought that it was beneficial to all for the sake of better communications. I am sure that everyone will have taken that on board.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. A unique procedure was followed very recently in this House when the people at the head of the security services gave evidence to a Select Committee. Unfortunately, this was not the elevating experience that it might have been; it was one that was probably demeaning to this House. There are reports that the questions were notified to the witnesses and that they were carefully manicured questions, and there were even allegations of the answers being rehearsed. That is not in the spirit of scrutiny that this House has followed for years. We now hear reports that the same heads of security are not willing to give evidence, or have possibly been advised by Ministers not to do so, to another Select Committee—the Home Affairs Committee —where there would be proper scrutiny without pre-publication of the questions. Is this not a matter for you, as Deputy Speaker, to investigate?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Absolutely not, but I know that the hon. Gentleman has a very good record of using other avenues to pursue matters, and I am sure that he will not give up just because it is not a matter for the Chair. I look forward to him continuing in other ways.
Fishing Industry
(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the fishing industry.
I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), the new fisheries Minister, to his first annual fisheries debate. There was a time when these debates were fairly rowdy affairs, but I think he will find that it is a bit more sedate now. I suppose that is a reflection of the decline of the industry.
However, fishing is still extremely important. The industry is responsible for about 1% of GDP. There are about 6,500 vessels in the fishing fleet throughout the UK. It still employs 12,500 fishermen, nearly 7,000 in England and Wales, 5,000 in Scotland, and 700 in Northern Ireland. It is clearly an industry that benefits the country in a range of ways, not just economically—for example, the health properties of fish are well known. It is important that we keep a vibrant and viable fishing industry.
Of the top 10 ports for landings in the UK, three are in England and seven are in Scotland. That shows the strength of the Scottish fleet. Peterhead, which on last year’s figures landed over 110,000 tonnes of fish, is way ahead of every other port. Given the volume of fish landed in Peterhead, it is no surprise that the Grampian region, where my constituency is, dominates the processing industry, along with Humberside. My own city of Aberdeen was once the No. 1 port, but that was many years ago, and most of the harbour where the fishing boats used to deliver fish is now given over to the oil and gas industry. That is a very significant change.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate. It was once provided in Government time, but for a number of years now the Backbench Business Committee has been the route for us to secure it. It has been traditional to commemorate those who were killed in the industry in the performance of their work. The latest figures I have are for 2012 and they show an improvement. Six deaths and 44 reportable injuries are slightly below the norm for the industry, but that is still a serious number of accidents. I know that efforts are being made, supported by Government, to improve the safety record in the North sea, but it is still a major problem.
I want to focus on two issues that are of major concern to the industry. The first is the serious consequences of the impasse between us, the European Union and Iceland with regard to the way in which Iceland and, to a lesser extent, the Faroes have been exploiting the mackerel and pelagic fish in their area. The Minister will by now be well aware of the processes that take place during the fishing year: surveys are conducted and data collected and analysed, and the results are passed on to scientists, who give us advice on the health of stocks and what tonnages may be fished. The European Commission then presents us with a policy statement of intention and approach, and we go through a few more stages before conducting negotiations with Norway about the common species we share. The Administrations of Iceland and the Faroes are also involved in that.
Those negotiations with Norway have not taken place this year, so it would be helpful if the Minister could give an indication of when they are likely to be held. The industry’s view is that there will be no opportunity for the Commission to discuss the quotas and decide on the total allowable catches until the bilateral discussions with Norway and other countries have taken place.
The likeliest estimate, according to the reports I have read, is that that will happen towards the end of January. That means that our fishing fleet is expected to cope and survive through the difficulties they face for a whole month of the fishing year without knowing what their TACs are for the year. It is important to know exactly when discussions will be held with Norway in particular, and when the TACs will be fixed, so that there can be some certainty. Many boats require refurbishment and maintenance and some fleets even need to acquire new boats, so those figures are crucial for them to be able to get the necessary loans and help from the banks.
This is a major problem for those based onshore. Aberdeen cannot be said to have a fleet anymore—it is virtually non-existent—but it is still a big centre for processing and our processors depend on the stocks that are brought ashore. Given that the fish are among the most popular in sales terms—including cod, haddock, North sea herring, North sea mackerel, whiting, plaice and saithe—a chain of problems and responsibilities needs to be taken into consideration.
The other major issue I want to focus on is reform of the common fisheries policy. Over the past few years, as this process wound its way slowly through all the stages it needed to go through, there was real optimism that progress would be made towards a new type of fishing and a new management and regulation regime in the North sea in particular and right across the waters around the UK and beyond. The industry is, however, becoming more and more aware of the very difficult relationship that now exists between the European Commission and the European Parliament. It is absolutely right to have an element of democracy and to ensure that the Parliament is aware of the issues and is involved. I am not privy to the detail of that relationship, but its consequences have been reported to me by fishing organisations and fishermen, and there are concerns about some of the most important parts of the policy reforms.
The first concern is about regionalisation, on which there seems to be a major impasse. I have had a report from the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations on its serious concerns. It states:
“How cooperation between member states at regional-seas level and close cooperation of regional advisory councils in the formulation of fisheries policy will work in practice are open questions...And the clock is ticking on the deadlines set by the European institutions.”
Will the Minister update us on that?
Another concern relates to landing obligations. Everyone is in favour of a policy to reduce or extinguish discards, but the practicalities of getting it into operation show that real problems need to be addressed.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned discards. I know of a boat on the west coast of Scotland that in September and October sadly dumped about 400 boxes of spurdog, because there was no quota to land that species. I asked the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), what exactly this part of the discards policy means for that particular species, and the answer was to return them to the sea, even though they were dead. Should there not be some sort of quota allocation for by-catch spurdog, because dumping it back into the sea puts pressure on other shark fisheries worldwide? The system is perverse. Some fish are dead already, but that causes other fish to be fished in other places.
Neil Parish
Mr Deputy Speaker is frowning at me, but I will try to be brief. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that over the years the problem of discards has been seen as far too difficult to deal with, but that we must now get stuck into finding a method of ensuring that we can land what is caught? I do not agree with him when he says, “Oh well, this, that or the other”; in the end, we have got to do it.
Mr Doran
I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. I had not quite finished my sentence, but we are all opposed to discards: it is criminal to throw good fish back into the sea. We have a major problem in this country in that the majority of our fisheries are mixed ones, but the European Commission operates on the basis of species and does not take account of mixed fisheries. We have not resolved that problem, but it needs to be worked on, so he is absolutely right.
To return to the issues that should be considered, the NFFO states that, in what is apparently now being formulated, there is a potential problem for
“choke stocks (where the exhaustion of the quota for a minor species prevents vessels from catching their main economic species).”
There is also the potential
“to put into reverse the progress that has been made over the last decade in reducing fishing mortality and achieving high levels of compliance”,
which is a serious issue. Other problems involve:
“Treatment of species with high survival rates”;
and, finally:
“Whether Norway will sanction quota flexibility for North Sea…stocks.”
I will be interested to hear from the Minister about that.
I do not want to sound totally negative, because it is important that we are not, but there are serious concerns. We have always been concerned about EU bureaucracy, but it seems to have reached a different level in relation to the fishing industry because of the involvement of the European Parliament. The prospect of a rejuvenated fishing industry under a sensible new system of regional management that operates properly, in which the TACs are determined at a relatively local level and which takes account of discards and all the rest of it, is being much delayed. It is important that the Minister responds to the points that I have raised, but also that we hear what approach he will take on these issues at the December Council.
Most of the communications that I have received from the fishing industry in my 20-odd years of life as a Member of Parliament representing a fishing city have been pretty depressing. That is part of the strategy that is adopted by the industry. However, in my recent discussions with Barrie Deas of the NFFO, he was good enough to supply some good news stories and I think it is worth reporting those. The NFFO states that
“the general trend in fishing mortality (fishing pressure) right across the North East Atlantic (including the North Sea and Baltic) since the year 2000 has been downwards. In fact a reduction of about 50% across all the main species groups has been observed by ICES.”
It is important to recognise that much of that is to do with the change in culture among the fishermen in the fleet. I am delighted that, under the guidance of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, the Scottish fleet has been in the vanguard of that.
Barrie Deas gave me a few examples of good news stories. The biomass for North sea plaice is
“above anything seen in the historic record.”
Western and North sea hake
“has seen a dramatic resurgence, is seen now in areas where it has not been abundant and justifies a 50% increase in the TAC.”
The Minister can take that information with him. There are similar good news stories about other species of fish.
There is good news on the fisheries science partnership. For years, it has been obvious that there is a big gulf between the fishermen and the scientists who present the evidence to the European Commission that determines the likely outcome for TACs each year. The fact that there is a serious partnership that is supported by Government and by various EU institutions, and that projects are arising from that, is certainly very good news.
I will finish on that point. I simply say to the Minister that this is an important debate for those of us who still have a fishing industry in our communities and it is an important debate for the country. There are many issues in which we might want some involvement during the year, but this is the main debate in which we have an opportunity to focus on the industry. Members of the all-party parliamentary fisheries group had very good relations with his predecessor and were sorry to see him go. If the Minister can keep up to his standards, we will all be grateful.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and others on securing this timely debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the debate to take place in the Chamber so that there can be more contributions than there have been in such debates in Westminster Hall.
I welcome the Minister and the shadow Minister to their new responsibilities. I thank them for the contributions that they made as members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and remind them that they both participated in our excellent report in response to the proposals for the reform of the common fisheries policy.
I join the hon. Member for Aberdeen North in commemorating those who have lost their lives in the fishing industry. Fishing and farming are the two most dangerous industries and they both suffer fatalities and other losses. We should recognise that element of the work that fishermen do in bringing the fish to our plates. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) who, despite the personal loss she suffered, continues to take a great interest in the fisheries industry.
Today’s debate is timely, and I pay tribute to fishing ports across the country. The port of Filey has historically enjoyed coble boats—that is why we have Coble Landing—and when I was first elected, six families still depended on fisheries off the North sea coast from Filey port. Sadly, however, for a number of reasons—not least that they needed a trailer to bring the coble boats on to shore—the cost has been prohibitive, and I understand that they now fish mostly out of Bridlington, which I think is the largest shellfish port in England, if not the UK.
The historic common fisheries policy agreement that was agreed by the European Parliament this week is to be welcomed and paves the way for new reforms to take effect on 1 January 2014. Notwithstanding that, I wish my hon. Friend the Minister well in his overnight negotiations. I hope he will be well equipped with refreshments to keep himself in good order, as he will obviously need to be on top form.
Neil Parish
Does my hon. Friend agree that although it is great that the European system is now grinding into place to ban discards—I wish the Minister well in that—the process must be kept going and indeed sped up? My knowledge of the EU, and I suspect that of my hon. Friend, is that it will take an awfully long time to get to a situation where we can stop discarding healthy fish. We need to speed up the system.
Miss McIntosh
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree with him. The opinion of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on this deal was published in February 2012 and the Government response in July 2012. It has taken three years of difficult negotiations, and I commend the fisheries Minister and his predecessor on the lead we took in securing a significant reform of what was deemed a fundamentally flawed common fisheries policy.
Let me say why the reform is so important. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North mentioned discards, and it is key that we do not replace discards at sea with discards on land. The Committee’s report concluded robustly that we must be imaginative about bringing fish on to land—having been born in Scotland, disappeared, and then returned there, I can say that different fish are eaten in Scotland from those eaten in England. If we can extend the palate and consumer taste to different types of fish and create new markets for existing fish, that would be a great way forward. As the report noted, celebrity chefs and others have a part to play in that by creating a novelty feature for dishes such as pollock, which I am sure would not be so widely eaten had it not been for chefs and others paving the way.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Lady calls for us to be imaginative in dealing with some of the problems that fisheries throw up. Twenty years ago I fished for spurdog as a targeted fish, but things have moved on and, as I said earlier, it is now a non-targeted fish often caught in nets. Spurdog comes in on boats, but under the landing obligation it looks as though it can be neither landed nor discarded. We will certainly need some imagination in dealing with spurdog that we cannot land or discard.
Miss McIntosh
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will join me in tasting some of that to see whether it is edible, and we could look at creating a new market.
As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, the key points of the next stage of reform include a ban on the wasteful practice of discarding at sea perfectly edible fish for which there is no current market, a legally binding commitment to fishing at sustainable levels, and decentralised decision making that allows member states to agree measures appropriate to their fisheries.
One of the most exciting parts of this reform is that for once we are going to focus more on the science—I think we have gone wrong with previous reforms of the commons fisheries policy because we have not done that. I am an avid watcher of “Borgen”, the Danish television programme, and I will include in my remarks one or two references to Denmark. I am half Danish—I am very proud of that—and I studied in Denmark. As part of our report the Committee had the opportunity to visit Denmark and see practices that I hope will transform the regional control aspects. Science is particularly important there because Copenhagen is home to the headquarters of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—ICES—and if we followed more of the scientific base that it spends a long time producing, I believe we would all benefit.
The health of fish stocks is assessed every six months by ICES, and the EU published an overall assessment of its advice in October 2013. It stated—this is from a Library note so it must be true—
“that 39% of EU fish stocks are still over fished,”
but that is down from 86% in 2009. In spite of that reduction in overfished stocks, the assessment goes on to say that trends giving rise to concern include, for instance, the fact that
“the number of stocks under an advice to reduce captures to the lowest possible level… had increased.”
I am sure the Minister will wish to focus on that. Being optimistic, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North concluded, Seafish, the industry body for the UK, has said:
“there is reason for cautious optimism in the industry as we continue to see iconic stocks such as cod in the North Sea move towards recovery.”
We must not rest on our laurels, and it is essential we follow the science. Where I would like the science to lead, and where I believe there is an example we can follow, is regional control, and I have a question for the Minister about that.
I also worked for a number of years in Brussels in legal practice, and we must understand how we can get round the problem of fisheries still being an exclusive competence of the EU. If that situation remains, how shall we achieve regional control in practice? I believe that is a legal problem and not insurmountable. Again, I will turn to Denmark, because Denmark and Sweden have established regional control around Danish and Swedish waters that works extremely well. That is down to the size of the nets and meshing they use, and how they fish particular fisheries—I will not go into too much detail because it is well established. I hope the Minister will confirm that that model will be used. I understand that the new common fisheries policy brings decision making closer to the fishing grounds, clarifies the roles and obligations of each of the players, and ends micro-management from Brussels, and that the Commission will agree with fishing nations in the region about the general framework, principles and standards, overall targets, performance indicators and time frames. Crucially, however, member states within that region will co-operate at a regional level to develop the actual implementing measures. If it can be established, and all member states in the region agree to the recommendations being transposed into rules that will apply to all fishermen in the region, it will be a real game changer.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a superb speech. She mentioned two key elements to reform, but does she agree that there is a third? History might reveal that that third element—a legal requirement to fish sustainably, to fish to maximum sustainable yield—is even more of a game changer. Is that not a key reform that will get our fisheries back on an ecosystem management basis?
Miss McIntosh
I am grateful for that intervention, and it gives me the opportunity to record my thanks to my hon. Friend for the hours he spent on the groundwork to achieve an historic agreement. Sustainability is key, and sustainability will be proved by following the science. We went too far away from the science in the past; we need to hold to it in future.
Mr MacNeil
Does the hon. Lady agree that the idea of regionalisation, as described by the EU, is perhaps one of the tremendous ways that the EU misleads us? The first meeting on the regionalisation of the north-west waters took place in Dublin on 12 November. The group includes the UK, Ireland, France, Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands—a pretty big region. We had thought that regions would be smaller than states, but at EU level they are multi-state organisations. It is better than what we had, but it is by no means local control—it is still a horse-trading arena.
Miss McIntosh
The hon. Gentleman does the House a great service by pointing that out. I had understood that regions would relate to borders contiguous to the sea within which there would be fishing. We cannot get away from the fact that Spain had historical rights to fish in our waters before 1973. That is something the Minister will have heard about, and I am interested to know how Spain manages to muscle in. I pay tribute to my Spanish friends, in case they are reading this or watching it on television—we have an agreement not to discuss fishing, Gibraltar or Las Malvinas.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Is the next logical step to make the regions the traditional fishing waters of each member state?
Miss McIntosh
Much as the hon. Gentleman is my friend, I am always cautious when he tempts me to go in a particular direction. If I may, I think we shall discuss that over a cup of tea.
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend talks about Spain’s access to what, historically, were our waters. One problem is that once there is a common fisheries policy everybody muscles in, nobody more so than Spain. Spain will hoover up fish not only off our shores, but off Africa and anywhere she can find them. She is a menace and I am quite happy to say that in this House.
Miss McIntosh
As some of my best friends are Spanish, I hope they are not following the debate too closely. I am sure Spain would wish reciprocal access rights for our fisherman in its waters. Perhaps we can reach agreement on that basis.
The new laws will allow countries working together regionally—under my definition of regionally, which does not necessarily include Spain—to move away from micro-management to true regionalisation and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) said, to a legally binding commitment to fish at sustainable levels.
Our report was so good that I would like to highlight one or two points. We called for decentralisation, rather than the Commission handing down, and for more research into selective fishing methods, which are important. We called for a cipher mechanism to reallocate fishing rights away from slipper skippers, and we called, again, for a register. My hon. Friend the Minister would not forgive me if I did not mention again our call for a register of who owns the current quotas.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. My understanding is that the register was due to be published before the end of 2013. I am conscious that we are almost halfway through December. Is it still on track?
Miss McIntosh
The Minister and the House will have heard what the hon. Lady says. I await the Minister’s reply with great interest. The House sits for another whole week and I am sure we stand prepared to hear from the Minister on his return not just that he has brokered a good deal for Britain, but that he wishes to publish the register of fisheries.
I am grateful for having had the opportunity to speak. I pay tribute to those who fish our waters and put themselves in harm’s way to bring fish to our plate. I pay tribute, too, to those who called for this debate. I wish the Minister great success in his negotiations on Monday.
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to make what I hope will be a brief contribution to the debate. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and others for securing such an important debate on what is still an important industry. I welcome the new Minister, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), to his role and acknowledge the important work done by his predecessor, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon).
I want to begin by paying tribute to the fishermen, in my constituency and elsewhere, who do a dangerous but important job on our behalf. We are reminded of the dangers facing fishermen by a report in today’s Daily Mail that the remains of 10 people discovered in Russia may be those of fishermen lost when the Gaul sank off Norway in 1974. The Gaul was the Ranger Caster when it sailed out of my constituency from North Shields. In that disaster, which was well documented, 36 men lost their lives. A number of them were from my constituency. In government, we were justified in supporting a survey that provided some of the answers. If this recent news brings further closure for the families—if there can ever be closure in such a situation—then I welcome it. They will be celebrating, if that is the right word, the 40th anniversary of the disaster in February next year. I pay tribute to the families who have worked so hard, not just in my constituency but in the wider area.
Closer to home, I thank those who work every day to keep our fishermen as safe as they can be: the coastguard and, in particular, the volunteers of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution at the inshore boat at Cullercoats and the bigger boat in Tynemouth. We should be proud of our RNLI crews. They are brave and do things that I certainly would not be prepared to do. They play an important part in supporting our industry. I also want to pay tribute to the Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen in North Shields, under the inspired leadership of Peter Dade and Alex Hastie, who do so much to support the wider fishing community. Fishing is a dangerous job and a precarious business. We must not lose sight of the fact that, whatever its traditions and history, it is a business.
I want to raise two points, and I make no apology for being very local as they will allow us to talk about the grand strategy and what the Minister will be about when he gets to Brussels. The first point is, I think, within the Government’s remit to resolve. The second is less of an issue and more of a short story concerning the current situation facing fishermen in North Shields and along other stretches of the north-east coast. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind during his deliberations.
We all claim to have the most important ports in the country in our constituencies, but North Shields truly is the most important fishing port in the north-east. Despite that, it only retains one or two larger boats and a couple of dozen under-10 metre boats. It is a fraction of the size it was even in the relatively recent past. Fishermen there rely on a mixed fishery, and at this time of the year they particularly rely on the prawn fishery, but a few also rely—or did rely—on licences allowing them to use drift nets to catch salmon. In many cases, these licences have been handed down from generation to generation and have been an important part of fishermen’s incomes, yet over the years there has been a concerted effort to get rid of them, particularly—this is not a political point—under the Conservatives. The pressure has come from landowners in Northumberland and south-east Scotland who know they can make a great deal of money from fishing rights along the banks of their rivers, and concerted pressure has been placed on Ministers. Up until recently, the line was held, but the decision was made earlier this year—I am sorry to say—to phase out the licences.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
My constituency shares with the hon. Gentleman’s a significant involvement in this traditional fishery. The river fishery to which he refers is an important part of the economy of the Tweed and other rivers, but does he not agree that it in no way depends on driving out of business a few fishermen in small boats who exercise responsibly traditional and historical licences, and that the decision to close the fishery altogether is wholly unjustified?
Mr Campbell
I agree entirely on both counts with the right hon. Gentleman. Anecdotally, I am told that salmon stocks are relatively healthy and that there are salmon in more and more rivers in Northumberland and—I would imagine—in south-east Scotland as well. The fishermen themselves contribute to the hatchery that puts fish in at Kielder to ensure that stocks are buoyant. I understand that there is some dispute over salmon stocks—
Mr Campbell
I am sure the former Minister is about to tell us the other side of the story.
Richard Benyon
As the person who took that decision, I would like to put it on the record that although I did get pressure from angling interests, they were as nothing compared with the concerns I had about the impression we were giving at the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation. These are mixed-stock fisheries, and we had given a commitment but we had not carried it out. The whole of the UK’s credibility for sustainable management of our fisheries was at question because of the stand we had been taking at NASCO. That was the primary reason for the decision I took.
Mr Campbell
I am sure that is the case from the former Minister’s perspective, but we are talking about 13 licences and a decision that, as far as I can understand, was largely one that we made. We presented this opportunity, his predecessors having withstood the pressure for a considerable period. Of course, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said, we want anglers to have access to good stocks, but the former Minister knows as well as I do that there has always been concerted pressure, not from the anglers themselves who take their rods to the rivers, but from those who see this as an opportunity. Let me tell him this: it might be an opportunity for landowners to make some money, but it is also an opportunity for fishermen in some cases to survive on the back of these licences. This fishery is not an extra, but an important part of what they do.
While we are on the relative buoyancy of stocks, I understand that the Environment Agency takes the same view as fishermen in saying, like the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, that there is enough for both. I still do not understand fully why the decision was made to phase out the licences and the fishery—and made without a debate in Parliament using order-making powers. My point is simple: the drift net salmon fishery in the north-east is a traditional fishery—what some call a heritage fishery. It is, by all accounts, sustainable. It is local and organised so that catches are limited, yet somehow vested interests appear to have won out. If the Minister has some spare time when he returns from Brussels, will he revisit this issue? The fishermen who will lose their licences believe it could be revisited before we pass the point of no return.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman mentions heritage fisheries. About 22 years ago, I worked in Gretna, on the border, on the M74. Working with me were gentlemen from Kirkpatrick Fleming who frequently went “haaf” netting on summer evenings, as they say in the ancient fisheries—“haaf” is apparently the Old Norse word for “ocean”. At a moment when we are looking for plurality and diversity, it would be sad if we took a step that would, as he says, ruin and end a centuries-old practice that people have carried on sustainably in many communities.
Mr Campbell
Not surprisingly, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I have always been careful, in the few fisheries debates I have spoken in, not to take too romantic a view of the past or the industry now. This is a business, and all I ask is that the Government apply to this case the same principles they talk about in wider fisheries policy. If we apply those principles, I cannot see how we arrive at the position the Government arrived at earlier this year. If we are not careful, the danger is that the livelihood of local fishermen will be lost, and without any great gain.
I want to move to my second, broader point about what has happened in the past couple of months off my constituency. As I said, local fishermen rely heavily on the prawn season. Using relatively small boats, they make a living and keep the fish market going and the port working, but this year they have faced increased competition, perhaps as never before. They tell me it comes from larger twin-netted boats. I am told anecdotally that many of the crew are overseas fishermen—that should not be a big point, but it is a point they make. The boats clearly come from elsewhere. At the risk of falling out with my new hon. Friend—the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil)—I am told that many of them come from Scotland, but this is not an anti-Scottish thing, I assure him. The fishermen of North Shields are trying to make a living and stay in business, but the pressure on them has been intense this year. The word they keep using is “displacement”. When fishing restrictions are put in place elsewhere, the pressure goes on those parts of the fishery where stocks are relatively healthy.
Mr MacNeil
I understand exactly the hon. Gentleman’s point about displacement. We have a problem off the west coast of Scotland with boats whose nets are far too big or that have too much horsepower using up the kilowatt days allowed in the fishery, and the resulting payback time and lost days at sea cause great difficulty and angst on the west coast. I fully understand his point, therefore, but would make one point about crews from other countries: they are most welcome. When we see Filipino fishermen, we recognise that we have great seafarers in our midst. I only wish the immigration department would recognise that too and allow men from the Philippines to come here and work and be welcome in our communities.
Mr Campbell
We have not fallen out, as I thought we might earlier, but I certainly take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board, although my fishermen might be less willing to share his view on the role of the immigration department—but that is a slightly different matter.
In the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North said earlier, I worry about what delays in setting the quotas might mean. If there is uncertainty in the system, will it add to displacement and result in even greater pressure while we await the quotas? That is very important. I am told that no rules have been broken. The organisations he referred to, which are normally very officious in applying the rules, have been ominously slow and silent on this matter. As a result, fishermen in my constituency feel under pressure. They feel under pressure when they read about marine conservation zones. They are not anti-environment—they are some of the greatest environmentalists hon. Members would ever want to meet—but they read what has been written and they feel under pressure. When they hear that we are going to have more offshore, rather than onshore, wind farms, they wonder what the effect will be on their industry. They feel the cost of living—as we all do—on their families. As a result, they feel under threat.
My question to the Minister is relatively straightforward. I hope he will be able to say what the reforms to the common fisheries policy that he is doubtless going to outline to us will mean for fishermen. What will regional management, reliance on scientific evidence, giving greater access to the under-10 metre fleet and so forth mean for the fishermen in my constituency? In the light of the problems raised about the implementation—and possible delay—of the new policy, what assurances can the Minister provide for my constituents? They want to know whether next year will be easier or more difficult for them. If the Minister cannot confirm that fishermen can look forward to a better future, I hope he can say that they can look forward to at least a future.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), and I congratulate him on emphasising the importance of safety at sea and on repeating what the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) said in opening the debate about the bravery of those who work so hard in such difficult conditions and who face significant danger to put the fish on the plates of people all around the United Kingdom. We are about to commemorate the 40th year of the tragedy of the Gaul, and in constituencies such as mine, literally scores of fishermen have lost their lives in pursuit of this vital industry.
In opening, I want to pay a significant tribute to the former fisheries Minister, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who achieved a tremendous amount during his period of office—with the exception, I have to add, of his decision on the salmon drift-net fishery in the north-east. That does not impact directly on my constituency, but the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) certainly raised important issues about that.
Having ranged as widely as I intend to, I shall now become extremely parochial for the rest of my speech, as I shall look into the impact of negotiations on common fisheries policy reform on the vitality of the fishing industry in west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. My constituency has a significant port in Newlyn, as my hon. Friend the Minister, who represents Camborne and Redruth, well knows. The amount of fish landed in Newlyn every year is of considerable value, and the fishery, in which the over-10 metre fleet is unique, is an ultra-mixed one. The by-catch of spurdog and porbeagle in the ultra-mixed fishery of Cornwall is particularly significant, and I have raised issues about this on behalf of the industry for the past decade. The problem is nothing new to the fishermen in my area.
I know that the UK Government are engaged with the Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, as is the Cornish fleet with scientific projects and research such as the Neptune project. All this engagement and work will be perceived as pointless if no change to the policy results and no attempt is made to provide a pragmatic solution to this important issue.
Mr MacNeil
Does the hon. Gentleman feel that one problem for politicians is the pressure that comes from non-governmental organisations to restrict this type of fishery? It can lead to the perverse outcomes I mentioned earlier. The supply is reduced but demand remains the same so that shark fishing starts to happen in another part of the world. Meanwhile, the by-catch here is returned to the water dead—a double hit that emanated from probably good intentions, albeit ignorant ones.
Andrew George
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is exactly the point I raised on previous occasions. Although I have every sympathy and agree with the sentiments expressed by the NGOs—we do not want to take action that will have a detrimental impact on, or undermine the viability of, important species such as spurdog—the fact is that we need to engage in trying to find a practical solution to the problem, and simply saying that we are going to ban the landing of these fish does not necessarily mean that a single spurdog will be saved. We need to find more effective methods of achieving the desired outcome. I hope that the NGOs will engage with the Government and, in our case, with the Cornish fishing fleet, the Neptune project and so forth to find a practical solution rather than simply campaigning and saying that what is being done is never good enough.
Another theme running through the debate—one feels that one is repeating oneself from the same hymn sheet—is the arbitrary use of the 20% precautionary element of the quota-setting process, particularly where the science is insufficient for the setting of an effective quota. I hope that the Minister will talk to the industry and come to understand not just the anecdotal evidence, because a lot of work is being undertaken nowadays with scientists going on board many of the vessels and subsequently sharing their data and information.
The reasoning behind some of the annual quota cuts is unjustifiable and, in many cases, counter-productive because no fish are saved. I urge the Minister, rather than to run through the impacts on each fish species of the proposed quota settlements for next year, to look closely at the representation he received last week from Paul Trebilcock on behalf of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation. I think that a cogently argued case has been made, which I hope the Minister will use as a brief. I know that Paul will be available and at hand if the Minister needs any technical assistance in the negotiations.
Another key issue that crops up time and again in the fisheries debate is the perceived conflict between commercial fishermen and sea anglers—something that is played out in our debates and in a lot of the discourse that goes on in Cornwall, for example, in connection with the Cornwall inshore fisheries and conservation authority, and in the Isles of Scilly, where there is a separate IFCA.
One significant pinch point relates to the setting of the bass minimum landing size. I corresponded about that both with the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Newbury, who I see is leaving his place, and the present Minister. At the end of the day, angling contributes £2 billion to the economy and a total of 23,600 jobs. The angling fraternity is keen to ensure that the Government recognise its important role for the UK economy, especially when about 75% of the fish caught by anglers, including those caught at sea, are returned alive to the water.
A number of issues have arisen in Cornwall. For instance, bass do not spawn until they reach a minimum of 42 cm, but the minimum landing size in Cornwall—which is higher than those in the rest of the country—is 37.5 cm, and elsewhere it is 36 cm. We need a healthy bass minimum landing size. Local sea anglers are arguing for the minimum to be raised to 48 cm in order to allow the fish to breed at least twice before there is a chance of their being caught, and I think that that is a justifiable argument.
According to this year’s report from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, bass stocks have fallen by 35% in the last five years. In our area in particular, there has been a significant amount of pair trawling on a seasonal basis. Scottish pair trawlers sometimes come down to the channel to take their slice, but no pair trawlers from our own coasts are involved, and although we see a great many bass longliners, they are very selective in their fishing methods and their impact is therefore relatively small. Fixed-gear gill netting takes place inshore, and I think it important to set an inshore net size that will prevent the catching of juvenile fish. The minimum landing size for mullet, for example, is 20 cm, but they do not spawn until they are 48 cm.
Our local branch of the inshore fisheries and conservation authority has engaged with the industry in trying to find a solution, but the IFCA tells me that the Government must become involved if that is to happen. I recently received a letter from its chief officer and head of service, Edwin Derriman, in which he wrote:
“I am aware that Defra is considering the ICES report”
—that is, the report from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea to which I referred earlier—
“so I have to assume the UK Government will comment in due course. The Government and the EU are the proper authorities for considering that report, as it is for that audience that the ICES reports are written and any concentrated action to protect the species has to come from”
the Government and the European Union. Mr Derriman went on to say
“the Government do not necessarily agree with Cornwall IFCA’s view that a general increase in MLS”
—minimum landing size—
“would or could be beneficial for all stakeholders.”
I hope that the Minister will inform us of the Government’s latest thinking on that issue.
In another letter, Eddie Derriman wrote:
“an unexpected challenge has come about through the forthcoming EU ‘discard ban'.”
It is true that many people did not anticipate that challenge. There has been a campaign for a discard ban, and I have certainly joined the chorus, although I have consistently pointed out that if a logical solution is to be found, it will be important to find a way of distinguishing between what is intended and what is unintended in relation to catch quotas.
Andrew George
Let me first say something about the impact of the discard ban on minimum landing sizes generally, and on those relating to bass in particular.
Eddie Derriman wrote:
“There is a lot of discussion on the principle that if discards are banned, then MLS sizes may be defunct. We cannot second guess the likely outcome to all the discussions, but I would hope that common sense prevails and that ‘robust' fish species could be put back in the water it there is a good or reasonable chance of them surviving.”
While we agree in principle that it is unacceptable for perfectly good and edible dead fish to be thrown back into the water and wasted—a rather offensive image which has, I think, driven the argument for a discard ban—I think that we should think about the potential unintended consequences, one of which is the increased difficulty of implementing a minimum landing size. I should be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that as well.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman said that we needed to establish whether the fishing of endangered stock was targeted or non-targeted. I know that during the autumn at least one boat contained 400 boxes, and I am sure that all the other boats have done the same. That should serve as a guide to civil servants and scientists who are formulating some sort of policy.
The one thing that fishermen do not want to do is go on a fishing trip and load their boats with fish that have zero value. They do not want to steam out, fill their boxes with fish that they did not intend to catch, do not want and cannot sell, and then have to steam back and land them on a pier. That is the worst of all worlds for a fisherman.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We need short interventions. There is a danger of Members’ trying to make speeches by means of interventions, which worries me. Six more Back Benchers and two Front Benchers have yet to speak. I do not want to have to impose a time limit, but it is looking likely.
Andrew George
I accept your strictures, Mr Deputy Speaker. We could, of course, extend the debate to the relative merits of quota and area management, but I will simply say that, in my view, area and seasonal management and a more effective use of closed areas are a better way of controlling and protecting fish stocks than quotas.
Let me end by making a couple of brief points. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that in Cornwall we have drawn attention to the potential risks to our crab fishery, particularly in the over-15 metre sector. One of the problems of the way in which the industry is managed is that requests for significant cuts in the catch are often given at very short notice. Much more planning is needed if we are to avoid shocks of that kind.
I also want to raise the issue of the six and 12-mile limits. I know that my hon. Friend has a reputation, indeed a pedigree, for being strongly anti-European, and I hope that I can draw something out of his anti-European-ness. I am talking about simply batting for Britain. Let us all join forces, and agree that whether we are engaging with Europe positively and constructively or negatively, what we want is the best deal for Britain. It is clear that most of the foreign boats that are taking advantage of access within the 12-mile zone and up to the six-mile zone are new, and were not around at the time of their historic entitlement. I urge my hon. Friend to scrutinise the impact that they are having very close to our coasts. I also ask him to think about the point that we have reached in the negotiations on the setting of marine conservation zones, which lie both within and outside the six to 12-mile zone. We need to ensure that we apply the same rules to both foreign and British vessels.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on securing the debate and welcoming the new Minister to his first annual fisheries debate?
This is an appropriate day to remember those who have lost their lives or been injured at sea. We have to remember that fishing remains an inherently dangerous occupation, and those who take on the risks of harvesting our seas deserve our utmost respect. Today’s debate is also an opportunity to express our gratitude to those who serve in the Royal National Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen. The mission does a tremendous amount of good in our fishing communities, and from speaking recently to the superintendents in Fraserburgh and Peterhead, it is clear that the demands on their welfare provisions are intensifying in these austere times.
We should also pay tribute to our coastguards and the volunteers of the RNLI lifeboats. Earlier this year I joined the crew of the Fraserburgh lifeboat aboard the “Willie and May Gall” for one of its regular training sessions. Luckily for me, it was an usually calm evening off Kinnaird head, but it gave me a fantastic insight into the commitment and courage of the men and women who train all year round so that they are prepared for emergencies when they arise. I want to thank publicly Victor Sutherland and his crew for that opportunity, but above all for the service they give—and, indeed, the service the lifeboat crews in Peterhead, Fraserburgh and Macduff give to the communities I represent and the service provided by all those RNLI volunteers around our coast who give their time and risk their own lives to save others.
This has been a difficult year for the fishing industry in Scotland, particularly in my part of the world. Last December, shortly after our last fisheries debate, the east coast was hit by a massive storm that combined with high seasonal tides and the direction of the wind to cause extensive damage to our ports and sea defences. Our largest ports at Peterhead and Fraserburgh sustained considerable structural damage, as did many of our smaller harbours. One factory in Peterhead was completely destroyed. I saw buildings near the shore in Fraserburgh that had been moved off their foundations. People living near the shore in Peterhead had to be evacuated from homes that had lost their doors and windows, and further damage to processing factories was only averted by swift action to repair sea defences in the immediate aftermath of the storm. It was a sobering reminder of the power of the elements, but its aftermath has also been a testament to the resilience of our fishing communities.
Things are not yet back to normal by any means, but the repairs are well under way, with ports seizing the opportunity not just to repair, but to improve their sea defences and invest in new developments. The further round of emergency grants announced by the Scottish Government this week and European fisheries funding is supporting 45 projects around the Scottish coast and will enable over £11 million of investment in our fishing communities. Businesses in my own constituency have been major beneficiaries, most notably Peterhead port authority.
Yet Scotland only gets £46 million of the UK’s EFF allocation, which fails to reflect the size of our fishing industry and compares very poorly with the levels of funding available to other fishing nations such as Lithuania, and also Denmark which has £100 million a year in EFF funding although it has a population of a very similar size to ours. Overall, Scotland accounts for 7% of the EU’s wild fish catches and 12% of EU aquaculture, yet we get only 1.1% of fisheries funding. By any measure, our fisheries are being short-changed, and disasters like the one last year expose the vulnerability that this creates.
However, the challenges we have faced this year have not just been weather-related. This has also been a particularly difficult year for our nephrops fishermen, given the scarcity of prawns during the first half of the year. That has caused real hardship in parts of the fleet, including in my constituency, and great anxiety because we do not know for sure what caused the problem, as it is a well-managed, sustainably harvested stock. The prawn catches have bounced back more recently, and those most adversely affected have access to hardship funds, but it does bring home the need for flexibility in the common fisheries policy so that parts of the industry are not left high and dry in such situations.
The other challenge, of course, is that the mackerel dispute with Iceland and the Faroes rolls on. The Minister should know that I deeved his predecessor regularly on this issue over the last three years. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North suggested, the impasse has big implications not only for our pelagic sector, but for the white fish fleet and our fish processors. It is also a factor in the hold-up of the talks between the EU and Norway, which should have been taking place this month, but have now been put back until the new year. I am told there is some new momentum towards reaching a deal on mackerel. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to update the House on that, and can I urge him not to accept a deal at any price, and to defend our industry? Mackerel is our most valuable stock, and we must protect access to EU waters and ensure there is equity between EU member states and Norway.
I acknowledge the work that has been done to reform the CFP. Finally, at long last, we have a deal. To my mind, the move towards regionalisation, and the moves to maximum sustainable yield, will pay dividends in the medium to longer term and set the policy on a very different course. This represents progress that is long overdue.
The new landing obligation, or discard ban, has dominated the debate and has been widely hailed as the centrepiece of the reformed CFP. I think everyone without exception wants to see discarding come to an end. Those of us who have campaigned against discards know that it has, without a doubt, been the worst symptom of the structural problems within the CFP. I do not want to rain on anyone’s parade, but we have already heard about some of the contradictions that will be created by that discards ban, and the House needs to acknowledge that we still have some way to go to find a way to make that ban workable in practice.
There is inevitably by-catch in a mixed fishery, and our fishermen are going to need quota to be able to land it. The Scottish Government ran a trial earlier this year with a pair team of vessels on a “land all you catch” basis, with a view to informing the implementation of the discard ban. The trial was supposed to run until December, but it ended in August because the vessels ran out of quota for hake, which is currently abundant in our waters. This problem of “choke species” is not going to go away, and we need to find ways to deal with it. In this case the choke species was hake, but in other waters it will be other species, and therefore in future our fishermen are going to need quota for non-target species and unwanted catches. There are massive financial implications for vessels that need to lease in quota for by-catches, and if we are serious about stopping discards, then we need to secure the extra quota to allow it to happen. I would be interested to know what the Minister thinks about the prospects of the Commission providing fishermen with the additional quota to cover the fish they are currently forced to discard so that we do not end up in the situation outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), where they have got fish on board that they cannot land and cannot discard. Are they going to eat it on board? It is hard to know what fishermen are supposed to do and how they are going to stay within the law.
I know that the talks that start next week will only be addressing stocks that are wholly within EU waters, and the important discussions with Norway on key shared North sea stocks like cod, haddock, whiting and saithe will not be happening until we are into the new year. However, once again the big issue will be cod quotas and the flaws in the cod recovery plan. We know that cod stocks are moving in the right direction, and in fact cod mortality is now at its lowest level since 1963, when assessments started. Fishermen and scientists alike are telling us that cod is more abundant than it has been for 50 years. However, the CRP threatens to derail the progress made in recent years. Last year, common sense prevailed and there was recognition that rigid adherence to the plan would be counter-productive. The same applies this year. If the proposed 9% quota cut goes ahead, it will inevitably lead to an increase in discards, which is exactly what we are trying to prevent. In my view, we need to continue following the science—in this I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh)—and the science indicates that a small increase in the allowable catch for North sea cod will enable the stock to keep growing and keep our long-term outcome of a sustainable fishery on track. I hope the Minister will promote that objective in the forthcoming talks, and I seek his assurance on that today.
I also seek a commitment from the Minister that he will not let days at sea be reduced any further, and that he will support an effort to freeze this at 2012-13 levels. Automatic reductions in days at sea will not give the fleet enough time to catch its quota, and that can only increase risk to our fishermen.
A great deal rides on the forthcoming negotiations. As everyone else looks forward to winding down for Christmas, December is a particularly tense and anxious time of year for fishing communities and everyone who works in the fishing industry. I wish the Minister well for the negotiations, and urge him to defend robustly the interests of our fishing and processing industries at these talks.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
I apologise for the fact that I shall not be present for the wind-ups owing to commitments relating to other Government business. It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), and I should like to thank fellow members of the all-party parliamentary fisheries group for joining me and helping to secure today’s debate through the Backbench Business Committee. I should like to welcome my Cornish neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), to his first annual fisheries debate as the Minister responsible for this industry, which is very close to my heart, as the House knows. I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) and thank him on behalf of the industry for representing it so well over recent years as a shadow Minister and a Minister.
As is traditional, I should like to thank members of all the seafarers charities who provide so much support for our fishermen. In particular, I should like to mention the Fishermen’s Mission and to single out one very special person who has volunteered for the charity over the past few years. He is Ian Murray, the brother of my late husband. I should also like to offer my condolences to all the bereaved families of fishermen and to make a special mention of the Fishwives Choir, which consists of fishermen’s widows who came together to record the song “When the boat comes in/Eternal father”. Hon. Members can download the song from the Fishermen’s Mission website; it would make an excellent Christmas present.
After years of being virtually ignored by the last Government, the fishing industry now has a Government who represent its interests. I want to look at a couple of the things that were achieved during the common fisheries policy negotiations. The discard ban has been a long time coming. I remember protesting in Plymouth city centre many years ago, along with fishermen who were discarding their over-quota plaice in the middle of the road to demonstrate that wasteful practice to the public. The Minister must ensure that this move is accompanied not only by the available quota, which many Members have called for, but by all the available technical measures to allow the small fish to escape before capture. Neil and other Looe fishermen inserted square mesh panels in their trawls many years ago to try to ensure that only marketable-sized fish reached their decks. Looe was a leading port in that initiative.
The Minister must also ensure that in mixed fisheries, particularly in Cornwall, the correct quota balance is available to allow fishermen to earn a consistent living. Many fishermen only have small boats, and do not have the luxury of large modern vessels like the Lunar Bow. I joined the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and many others on a visit to that ship a couple of years ago. It can earn a living by going to sea for just six to eight weeks a year. Most British fishermen do not have that luxury.
I want to turn now to decentralised decision making, and allowing member states to agree locally the measures appropriate to their fisheries. That is a first-class proposal. As Bertie Armstrong of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation mentioned in his briefing, this has not been put in place before because of a systemic defect—namely, the fact that “exclusive competence” for preservation of marine biological resource rests with the EU. Without a treaty change, it is not possible to devolve that responsibility, which we all believe involves control.
Finally, I would like to move on to the six to 12-mile limit derogation. My fellow Cornish coalition partner, my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), has mentioned the fact that the derogation was due to end on 1 January 2013. I raised this matter last year, and I am raising it again today. This matter is still up for negotiation as a result of the extension put in place by the European Commission. Had there been no extension, there could have been a repetition of the Kent Kirk incident.
Let me explain to hon. Members what that incident involved. Kent Kirk is a Danish Member of the European Parliament. Before that, when he was the Danish fisheries Minister, he shot his nets within the British 12-mile limit during the 13 days when that limit was not in place, between 1 January 1983 and the date later in January when the agreement came into force. He went to the European Court of Justice because the British authorities excluded him from those waters, and the Court ruled that the waters within our 12-mile limit were in fact EU waters.
I call on our Minister—as I did last year—to negotiate the six to 12-mile limits in the spirit of the original London convention agreement of 1969. According to the spirit of the agreement, access to the 12-mile limit for other nationals with historical rights was always intended to be temporary. Forty years on, we need to see an end to other nations’ access, because those vessels are probably no longer fishing. That six to 12-mile limit should now be exclusively for British fishermen.
Finally, I would like to put it on record that when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister enters into the next renegotiation of powers to be returned to the sovereignty of this House, the restoration of national control over our 200-mile/median line limit, as described in the Fishery Limits Act 1976, should be at the top of his list. I am pleased that, over the years, this proposal has also had the support of Labour Members. Although he is not present today, I would like to applaud the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), who has been campaigning for that change for longer than I have—and I have been doing so for almost 30 years.
I would like to remind my hon. Friend the Minister that fishermen all over the country, especially in Cornwall and Devon, have been listening to the words of our coalition colleagues who have tried to dress up regionalisation as national control for far too long. That argument simply does not wash any longer. Nothing short of the Conservative manifesto commitment of 2005 is acceptable to me or to the industry that I love so much. It is time for action. In the short term, we need exclusivity for British fishermen over our territorial waters out to 12 miles. In the long term, we need national control over our 200-mile/median line limit.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Unfortunately, I am going to have to put an eight-minute limit on speeches. I do not want to have to bring it down further, but a lot of the time has been taken by others.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I shall not speak for too long, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray). She has lived her life at the heart of the fishing industry, and it is obvious from what she has just been saying, with which I strongly agree, that her heart is still with the industry.
Hon. Members will appreciate that Luton North is not a maritime constituency, and I have to say that the Luton North fishing fleet is not large. Nevertheless, I have spoken many times on fishing policy, and I have strong views on it that I think some Members share. The CFP was a terrible mistake, and it has been a disaster for Britain and for fishing waters around the coasts of the European Union. The reforms come and go, and we have seen some improvement: the movement towards regionalisation is a tacit acceptance that we have to have some local control. The obvious local control should be national local control, which, in effect, means the abolition of the CFP, in time. I have suggested that we ought to give notice—perhaps five years’ notice—that we will withdraw unilaterally from the CFP if we cannot get agreement within the European Union. That should be one of the prime negotiating planks when the Prime Minister is renegotiating our relationship with the EU. The CFP would be my No. 1 policy to dispose of.
Fish stocks have suffered terribly as a result of overfishing, and that has occurred because all member states can plunder other nations’ waters without having any responsibility for what happens. We know that at least one nation has indulged in “black fish” landing in considerable quantities, and if it cannot be trusted to fish in our waters, perhaps it should be restricted to fishing in its own waters, and restoring the 200-mile limit or 50:50 limit would be the sensible way forward.
Britain has large traditional waters; it is one of the largest maritime nations in the European Union in terms of its seas. It is completely daft and unacceptable that a number of land-locked nations in the EU can vote on the common fisheries policy. Many of them will vote slavishly for what the Commission suggests, because that is what they habitually do, so the Commission can always rely on a block vote of land-locked nations and nations that have no interest in fishing to act against what our interests might be.
The first-class example of a nation that manages its fish stocks extremely well is Norway, because it is not a member of the common fisheries policy—it is outside the European Union. Norway monitors every boat and every catch within its waters. I have just seen a quote today from an article in The Guardian of 14 February in which Fiona Harvey talks about a Norwegian trawler skipper, Egil Skarbøvik. She quotes him as saying:
“In Norway we have been able to build up the strongest cod and haddock stock in the Barents Sea ever, thanks to strong regulations including closed areas, sorting grids and a strict coastguard.”
If every nation did that, we would not have a problem with overfishing or with fish stocks diminishing, and we would not need such nonsense as discards, because we would all be managing our fish stocks and our fishing, and we would all benefit.
If all foreign vessels were excluded from British waters, I feel confident that there would be plenty of fish for British fisherman—there would not be a problem. With the existing fishing industry continuing to fish in our waters, we would see the fish stocks recover, because other nations’ fishermen would be outside. Over time, if it became possible, we could do what Norway does, which is to license individual fishing boats from other nations to fish in its waters. We have seen the boundaries of the CFP being pushed by Sweden and Denmark, and we ought to move in that direction, too. They are inching closer and closer to having real control of their own fishing waters, and I say hooray for them. I think we should do the same. They are smaller nations with smaller fishing grounds—nothing like ours—but we would benefit enormously by adopting such an approach. That is not just a nationalist policy; it is about saving fish stocks for everyone. If we had good fish stocks, we would be able to eat fish comfortably, without having to worry about the long-term future viability of our fishing grounds.
I have made my point many times, and I shall no doubt make it again until I win the argument. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who negotiated quite hard on our behalf and did a good job, and I have complimented him at a personal level, too. However, we still have a long way to go. We have regional areas, but a region that covers Britain and Spain is nonsense. Having Spain as one region and the UK as another would make more sense. That would be a step towards the abolition of the CFP and the restoration of the management of fishing to member states, which is the sensible way ahead.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on securing this debate and welcome the new Minister to the Front Bench. I also pay tribute to his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon).
In many respects the outlook for the fishing industry in the United Kingdom is better than it has been for many years. The reforms of the CFP mean that a regime that made it difficult for fishermen to run their businesses successfully, led to the overfishing of stocks and devastated the marine environment is, at last, being cast into the dustbin of history. It will be replaced, I hope, with a more sustainable system, where decisions are taken on a regional basis, rather than in Brussels. There are hurdles to overcome, although fishing stocks are probably in a better place than they have been for some time, with cod mortality in the North sea decreasing, biomass slowly increasing and North sea plaice in a better place than it was 10 years ago. Nevertheless, significant challenges lie ahead. The industry in Lowestoft, in my constituency, is a pale shadow of its former self and I fear that the halcyon days will never return.
There are three aspects of CFP reform: a move towards decentralised decision making, which I welcome; the legally binding commitment to fish sustainably, which, again, is very welcome; and the outlawing of discarding. Although that is to be welcomed, the implementation of the ban presents many challenges. This transition will not be straightforward, and the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has identified four hurdles, which the hon. Member for Aberdeen North has outlined. I would welcome the Minister’s response on those four issues when he sums up.
If there is to be a satisfactory transition to zero discards, fisheries science will play a vital role, so I urge the Government against any cuts to this part of the DEFRA budget. The Fisheries Science Partnership, established in 2003—which includes DEFRA, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, which is based in my constituency in Lowestoft, and the NFFO—has played an important role in bringing a scientific perspective to decision making, and has brought industry and scientists closer together. It is important that we build on that partnership, as that will help the move towards zero discards by 2019.
It is also necessary to build on the catch quota management trials that have taken place to improve nets and gears, thereby helping to avoid unwanted catches. The feedback from the Project 50% trial, on which CEFAS and the Brixham trawl fleet have worked together, is encouraging; overall discards were reduced by 52%, and the most successful boat achieved a 70% reduction. There is also a need to convince consumers to eat less popular types of fish, which would otherwise be thrown away. We need to build on such initiatives as Fishing for the Markets, which seeks to convince consumers that the less popular fish are both edible and tasty. Such a move in consumer demand will not only ensure that the less popular fish are not simply discarded on land, rather than at sea, but will take pressure off more popular fish, such as tuna, prawn, cod and haddock.
The small Lowestoft fleet that exists today is predominantly an under-10 metre one, and the challenges that the inshore fleet has faced in recent years are well documented. These boats comprise 70% of the UK fleet and employ 65% of the fleet’s total work force, yet currently receive only 4% of the total quota available to the UK. It is important that that inequity be addressed. Article 17 in the finalised text of the CFP reform document provides the framework within which justice can be achieved for the under-10 metre fleet. It is important that the Government have its provisions in mind at all times as they set about implementing the reforms. The importance of a strong under-10 metre fleet should not be underestimated. These boats have the least economic impact on the marine environment, and they maximise the social and economic returns to many coastal communities facing significant challenges, such as Lowestoft.
It is important to recognise that the quota problems for the under-10 metre fleet are not localised to the south-east, but are more widespread around the UK coast. I acknowledge the work being done by the NFFO in identifying and dealing with pinch points—the localised problems the fleet faces—but to have a long-term future the under-10 metre fleet cannot rely on handouts from producer organisations, be they annual swaps, gifts or transfers; it is important that it has its own quota. There is a concern that those under-10s whose business model is reliant on access to leased quotas from producer organisations could experience significant difficulties if the cost of quota escalates following the introduction of the discard ban.
Back in July, Mr Justice Cranston handed down one of the most important judgments in recent years regarding the creation of proprietary rights from state licences. In brief, that was a judicial review case brought by the producer organisations against the Secretary of State over the unused allocation of unused fishing quota from the larger to the smaller operators. The larger operators sought to quash the Secretary of State’s decision on three grounds, and the claim was dismissed on all three.
In July, I secured an Adjournment debate to consider the implications of the case. The Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, responded. The judgment provides the Government with an opportunity to secure a more equitable distribution of quota for the under-10s, although I am aware that some experts have described the judgment as contradictory. I would welcome an update from the Minister on the action the Government are taking as a result of the judgment.
Also back in the summer, DEFRA provided an assurance that the publicly accessible register of quota allocations and transactions would be published by the end of 2013. I would welcome an update on when the register will be published. Hopefully, it will dispel a number of urban myths about who actually holds quota.
In future, quota should be held only by active fishermen and not by those who have sold their boats and no longer have any connection with fishing. I would be interested to hear whether the Government share that view. It is the only way we can ensure that in ports such as Lowestoft, the industry will have a future. The glory days will not return, but there is an opportunity to have a financially viable inshore fleet that will help sustain the allied and processing industries, and that can play an important supporting role in the renaissance of coastal Britain.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on setting the scene for this important debate. One thinks of the film “Groundhog Day”, as the debate happens every year and we always seem to come back to it. However, it does not make the debate any less important, as we can see from the Members who are here to make a contribution.
As I have said many times before in this Chamber, fishing is the lifeblood of the village of Portavogie in my constituency, which has both primary and secondary fishing jobs. It has been said in this debate that Northern Ireland has 700 fishing jobs, but the offshore jobs—those involved in further processing—double that figure. It is clear, therefore, how important fishing is to my constituency and to the constituency of the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie).
Just last week, I, along with Diane Dodds MEP and Alan McCulla of the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation, had the opportunity to meet the Minister and to put forward a case for Northern Ireland to set the scene early on. I pay tribute to the former Minister, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who is not in his place, because he took the time to come to the Chamber for the start of the debate. We all recognise his interest and importance in this regard. Things have changed. The responsibility now falls on the shoulders of a new Minister, and I look forward to supporting him as he does his job. Let us make no mistake; there will be a big fight in Europe over this issue.
Members have referred to the number of deaths at sea. Every time I watch the film “Deadliest Catch”, I think of the fishermen from Portavogie who have such experiences every week. The other night, “Perfect Storm” was on TV. We all know that film, but for some of the families in Portavogie, they live that life. We have a memorial in the harbour to those who died doing their job.
I want to focus my remarks on Northern Ireland and the issues of nephrops and prawns. The scientific advice for nephrops was published on 31 October, but we have no indication of what is happening in relation to it. The nephrops industry is critical to the fishing sector in Northern Ireland. If area 7 is cancelled, nephrops will again be our No. 1 priority. I urge the Minister, as we did last week, to underline that important issue. The fishing stock in Northern Ireland could have 100 vessels specifically targeting that species.
In recent years, the UK and Ireland have successfully made the case that the total allowable catches must be uplifted above the “sum of the science” to account for consistent undershoots in the TAC caused by some member states not taking up their allocation of nephrops. I find those undershoots both worrying and annoying; they cause great concern to me and to the industry. Combined with the less favourable scientific advice, they will make achieving a roll-over in the TAC very challenging this year. It must be stressed that the catch landed is important for the fishermen of Northern Ireland and for the shore-based industry. Again, let us make no mistake: the issue is critical for the Northern Ireland fishing sector. Nephrops is Northern Ireland’s No.1 priority, and giving that stock such priority can be easily explained. It is practically the only major stock we have left. The fact remains that fisheries in the Irish sea have been managed into practically depending on this single species.
Europe, through its legislation, bureaucracy and strategies, has pushed the fishing industry towards the one sector of prawns. At a recent North-Western Waters Regional Advisory Council meeting in Paris, the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas agreed that stock was being managed within the maximum sustainable yield targets, which is good news.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) outlined the issue of North sea cod. The situation is similar for us in Northern Ireland. Our one remaining full-time whitefish trawler in the fleet mainly targets haddock, but a recovery plan is in place. The Northern Ireland fisheries division, through the Department for Agriculture and Rural Development, permitted a limited sentinel fishery for cod from 2 to 24 September. It observed the quantity of cod in the sea, and it showed that cod numbers and the size of cod are increasing, which is good news.
I am concerned that the European Commission has proposed a cut in the TAC of 20%, in line with the cod recovery plan. It is clear that we must argue for a simple roll-over in the TAC, but the Fisheries Minister is aware that that is a difficult argument to win, and a potential compromise would be to suggest a by-catch only fishery in 2014 if the Commission would agree to the TAC remaining unchanged. A reduced TAC combined with improved gear selectivity and the forthcoming discard ban will make it all the harder to determine what is happening with Irish sea cod. It should also be noted that any reduction in the TAC will stop the sentinel fishery, which is important and has been running for the past two years.
There are some good points to make about fisheries, which is good because the news is so bleak at this time of the year. The size of haddock and plaice has increased over the past year. The EC has also proposed a 5% increase in herring, which is good news. The industry is on track to secure the Marine Stewardship Council certification, which has been running over the past few years, and that will be a first for an Irish sea fish species.
I am really concerned that the number of days at sea will be reduced if cod stocks fail to recover. Our fishermen will have fewer days at sea, which is incredible and hard to understand.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if there is such a reduction, it would make it very difficult for many boats to have a sustainable future?
Jim Shannon
That is a valuable intervention, which outlines my case very clearly. If there is a reduction, the viability of many boats will come into question. Again, it will be yet another nudge in the direction of not fishing any more.
Other Members have mentioned mackerel, but I am concerned that Iceland and the Faroe Islands might have 12% of the total allowable catch, which is what the EU is moving towards. Thankfully, that has been blocked so far by Norway. It reminds me of a saying that we have in my country—that is, “No surrender.” Norway said “No surrender” to the Faroes and to Iceland. When quota is allocated, it is ridiculous to allocate a percentage when the stock reduces in size. We want to protect the UK allocation, as other hon. Members have said.
I am conscious of regionalisation. Others have mentioned it, but I want to see regionalisation that means that Northern Ireland has some control over the fisheries in the Irish sea. Other regions would like to see that, too. Northern Ireland secured an acceptable amount of money from the European fisheries fund budget and I believe that it can do likewise through the European maritime and fisheries fund.
I urge the Minister, when he goes to Brussels, to ensure that the one thing he keeps in his mind is the fishermen. They want the fish, they want to sustain their jobs and they want to sustain their families. I am aware that I have gone into some detail, but at the same time I tell the Minister that I have every confidence that he goes into battle well armed with knowledge and firm about what he wants to achieve. I ask the House to give him the support he needs to do the job we know he can do well. We wish him well in the next week or two as he fights those battles for Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
I am proud to represent a fishing constituency where vessels operate all along the coastline from Bantham round to Torbay. The value of the catch to Brixham cannot be overestimated. It is the highest-value catch in England in monetary terms and is worth £27 million. The fantastic new Brixham market has a turnover this year of £23 million, which has sadly reduced from £25 million in the previous year. I hope that the Minister will accept an invitation to visit Brixham and many of the other ports along my constituency’s coastline. He would be most welcome.
We have 25 beam trawlers, 40 day boats and a growing leisure fleet contributing to our tourism sector and 375 people are employed locally as a direct result of the fishing industry in Brixham. That translates to 1,200 wider jobs in our local economy. No one can be in any doubt if they have been on board a commercial fishing vessel that fishing is the most dangerous of occupations in Britain. Those people work courageously and very hard in terrible conditions to put food on our plates.
Since the last debate, Torbay has been mourning the loss of Andrew Westaway. I pay tribute to all those who have given their lives at sea to put food our plates and, like many other Members, pay tribute to our coastguard. This year in particular, I am thinking of our maritime rescue co-ordination centre in Brixham, which is sadly due for closure. I also pay tribute to the RNLI, to rescue boats such as Hope Cove, to those in the coast watch and to the Fishermen’s Mission, which does such an extraordinary job providing support to families who have lost loved ones and in supporting fishermen who work in or who have retired from the industry. In particular, I am thinking of the contribution of John Anderson in Brixham.
Our fishermen are making great efforts to reduce the environmental impact of what they do. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for pointing out the work that has been done in Brixham, particularly with Project 50%. I pay tribute to those who have contributed to that. In particular, I am thinking of the extraordinary work of net designers and of those fishermen who have carried out the trials on beam trawlers. They have done extraordinary work and are now extending the use of rollerball technology to reduce the impact of by-catch and the environmental impact on the sea bed.
Our fishermen are under extraordinary pressure. In 2011, 22% of our fishermen’s turnover went on fuel costs. That increased to 27% in 2012. Alongside that, they are under huge pressure from the impact of changes to quota. As the Minister goes into the negotiations—I wish him well—may I ask him to consider the impact of the 75% reduction in the haddock quota? Can he confirm what I am hearing from my local fishermen, which, I gather, is also evidenced on the ICES website—that is, that there has been a significant increase in haddock stocks that is not yet recognised? Although fishermen in my constituency are taking part in the i-logs and completing what they catch while they are on board, they tell me that there is a significant delay in that information being recorded by the Marine Management Organisation. The trouble is that, because it is a mixed fishery, fishermen in my constituency cannot stop catching haddock. As the discard ban is not coming in this year, they will be forced to discard healthy fish for the whole of this year and into the next. I urge the Minister to consider the evidence that the biomass for haddock has never been higher since we started recording it and to argue that we should roll over the existing TAC.
Western channel Dover sole is iconic to Brixham and we must consider the impact on fishermen of a 7% reduction in that catch and a 17% reduction in channel plaice. As the Minister goes into the negotiations, I ask him to consider the most recent evidence on biomass and argue for a roll-over of existing quotas rather than accept a reduction.
The combined efforts with the Brixham fleet have been effective in reversing the decline, but I want to move on now to what we can do to improve the science of recording catches and, in particular, the use of the EFF. Will the Minister confirm that the EFF will be extended into next year and will not now finish in December? When he looks at the EFF, I ask him to recognise that it operates between England and Scotland with the MMO. I have heard that although in Scotland projects can start pending a decision, in England that is not the case. That has had a considerable impact, meaning that the EFF has not been fully spent. Will the Minister confirm how much underspend there has been and what he intends to do to make the EFF easier to access? In particular, what will he do to put more of what the EFF does into supporting the science so that it can be kept up to date when future decisions are being made?
I would also support the use of the EFF for safety equipment, where it has been very valuable. The installation of tipping bars and conveyors on our scalloping fleet has had a significant impact on safety, but there is far more we could do to use the EFF more effectively to support businesses onshore as well as using it on board our vessels and to support sciences.
My final point is about a specific issue for the crabbing fleet. Five crabbing vessels operate in my constituency and they support 30 families. The crabbing fleet is under significant pressures from the effort restrictions and there are historic problems, too. The Minister will know that the French have 2 million kilowatt days whereas the UK has only 545. There is now an increasing threat that that will have to be shared with those who have latent licences. I feel that it is not reasonable to expect the fishermen to negotiate complex swaps with the French. I am grateful that the MMO took that on at the eleventh hour on this occasion, but will the Minister consider specifically whether small groups of families can negotiate such complex agreements? I feel that that is an important role that the MMO should be taking on on their behalf.
As the Minister goes into the negotiations, I hope that he will consider the enormous economic importance of this export industry and do everything he can to support our fishermen as we go forward. I hope that he will come down to visit them in my constituency, where he will have a very warm welcome.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I am delighted to respond to the many excellent speeches that have been made by Members across the Chamber. I, too, would like to begin by paying my respects to all those who have lost their lives over the past year in our fishing communities and in the wider service given on the seas, in the coastguards, other coastal agencies and the maritime fleet. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), who introduced the debate so well, and to the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who served as an excellent fisheries Minister over the past few years and negotiated many important developments in European fisheries during his tenure.
The EU is the world’s largest maritime territory, and marine resource makes a significant contribution to our prosperity and social well-being. The marine environment must therefore be protected to ensure that it is healthy, productive and safeguarded for the use of future generations. We are stewards of a renewable resource, rather than miners of a finite one, and we would do well to remember that. Many of the threats to Europe’s marine resource require co-operation and collective action if they are to be tackled effectively.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) spoke about the need for regional control to lead logically to national control, but unfortunately I do not share his view, because effective co-operation is needed if we are to manage the resource responsibly and through the ecosystem-based approach that the marine stewardship framework directive suggests. Our seas and oceans border many nations and unfortunately fish do not carry passports, so they must be managed on an ecosystem basis.
The marine stewardship framework directive outlines a transparent legislative framework for that ecosystem-based approach. In essence, it states the need for each nation to develop, in co-operation with others, marine strategies to be implemented to protect and conserve the marine environment, to prevent its deterioration and, where practicable, to restore marine ecosystems in areas where they have been adversely affected. Those marine strategies must, in accordance with the directive, contain an initial assessment of the current environmental status of the member state’s marine waters. They must contain a determination of what good environmental status means for those waters.
Many Members have referred to the fact that sound science is often lacking, that there are steps that we might like to take but we do not know whether we have the scientific basis upon which to proceed. That is why it is absolutely critical that those elements of the strategies that the framework directive calls for are implemented. Without that sound science base, it is extremely difficult to see how we can move forward.
I want to talk about what has been referred to as the discard ban, which of course is not yet coming in. The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations—many Members have referred to its briefing document—has highlighted serious concerns about the ban. It mentions recent research published in green policy and fisheries research that shows that the ban, in isolation, will generate little economic incentive to operate more selectively. It has also been suggested that the additional quota provided to enable the landing of by-catch could be too large for certain modern vessels and too small for less technologically advanced vessels. Unfortunately, some people appear to place more emphasis on the need to enlarge quota to deal with the landing obligation and to focus on the measures designed to eliminate by-catch in the first place. We heard some good examples from the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) about selective gear and net mesh size, which can do just that. Also, ultimately, that could be done by trading quota.
The NFFO has focused on the fish species that in some cases have shown significant recovery over the past few years—referred to as the “good news” by some Members. Hake, haddock and herring have all shown some recovery, which is testimony to the technological capability of the industry and its efforts to fish more sustainably when required to do so. I think that it is also a vindication of the role that the quota system has played. The fact that stocks are recovering should not be taken as an excuse to say that the quota system should now be disbanded; they are recovering precisely because the quota system has been effective.
Barry Gardiner
I will happily give way. I must counsel the hon. Gentleman that I am not the Minister, although I am grateful for the accolade.
Jim Shannon
We have great designs for the hon. Gentleman.
Does the shadow Minister not share my concern, and that of many Members of the House, about the difference between the scientific evidence and the claims of those in the fishing industry who say that there are more fish in the sea?
Barry Gardiner
I absolutely share the hon. Gentlemen’s concern about the lack of scientific evidence. Indeed, I opened my remarks by saying that is one of the key problems. If we are going to base our policy on sound science, we need to establish what that science is. I refer him to his own remarks about Irish sea cod. He talked about the need simply to roll over the TAC in relation to Irish sea cod. However, the NFFO guidance on that states:
“A decade of draconian measures which have cut TACs, restricted days-at-sea, imposed tightened landing controls, introduced more selective gear and decommissioned a significant part of the fleet and obliged most fishermen to divert to alternative fisheries, has failed to generate the kind of recovery of cod seen in the North and Celtic seas.”
If it has failed to generate that recovery and the stocks are still in such a low state, it does not make sense to say, “Well, heck. Let’s just proceed anyway” and bust through any attempt to get the stocks back into a reasonable condition.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again—he is being very gracious. The facts are that the sentinel fishery is an experimental fishery for the past two years, and the indications show that last year cod numbers were back in the sea, and this year shows even more evidence of that. That is what the fishermen are seeing and that is what the scientific evidence now shows, but that is not in the report. I wish that it was, because the opinion would be completely different from what the hon. Gentleman has referred to. The report is not up to date.
Barry Gardiner
I would have to rely on the Mandy Rice-Davies defence—“They would say that, wouldn’t they?” The point is that anecdote is not the basis of sound policy. We have to establish the facts. I am as keen to establish them as the hon. Gentleman and, I am sure, the fishermen in his community. Once we have established the facts, we can proceed with certainty.
Mr MacNeil
When politicians talk about science, in reality, as we have just seen with mackerel, the science has followed what is happening. The ICES advice for the increase in TAC in 2014 is a 65% to 79% increase, which in effect is only a 3% increase in what was caught in 2013 owing to fishermen in other states having a certain view of what was happening in the sea. Another issue—this relates to what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said—is that there are other areas where there is a cod recovery plan in operation but where there were no cod anyway. However, because of the catch compositions the cod recovery plan is leading to the dumping of haddock, and as haddock are being dumped and not landed, consumers will have to choose anther fish, and they will choose cod, so the plan will have the opposite effect to the one intended.
Barry Gardiner
It is important to remember that for every hour spent fishing nowadays—in boats bristling with the latest satellite technology to identify the movement of the stocks, with all the modern gear on board—fishers now land just 6% of what they did 120 years ago.
Of course, fishermen always want to maximise their catch, and rightly so—they are business men—but we have to recognise that the loss of our fishing communities up and down the coastline of Britain has happened because of overfishing. There is no getting away from that fact. We have to put in place a regime that can restore biomass and maximum sustainable yield but also ensure that we get to the point where those communities have secure jobs and secure economic benefits because we have enough fish for everyone.
Barry Gardiner
Very briefly, because I do not want to deprive the Minister of time.
Kelvin Hopkins
My hon. Friend has made a very powerful point about the number of fish being caught. Surely excluding from our waters the vessels of other member states that overfish, which we cannot control, has to come first before we start to manage our own fishing industry.
Barry Gardiner
I am afraid that my hon. Friend was out of the Chamber when I responded to that point, which he made earlier. Perhaps if he wants to catch up with that in Hansard we will not delay the proceedings further.
We must take a science-based approach to quota allocation and we must have a clear goal of delivering a diverse and abundant marine environment that can sustain stronger economic growth and deliver more jobs for Britain’s fishing community. It is essential that fishers are able to respond to the changes in the abundance of their quarry. The quota system can clearly create barriers to more sustainable, responsive fishing practices, but I am not persuaded that calls for an increase in total allowable catch and quota are based on adequate evidence or are compatible with the recovery of Britain’s fisheries and the long-term economic health of Britain’s fishing communities.
The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) stated the need for a greater share of the quota for the under-10 metre fleet. He made that case absolutely superbly. Although I have screeds that I would wish to have said about it, he has made the case and I do not need to do so.
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) spoke of the science base. Everything comes back to that: we must follow the science. The difficulty is that often proceeding on the basis of anecdote and surmise is the only thing that we have. There are very few examples of scientific evidence being gathered both pre and post-fishing activity. A happy exception is found in the study, “Long-term changes in deep-water fish populations in the northeast Atlantic”—a paper published in the proceedings of the Royal Society in 2009.
This week, unfortunately, the proposed European ban on deep-sea fishing, which aimed to phase out trawling below 600 metres, was defeated. Trawling below that level is recognised by scientists as being by far the most destructive fishing activity. In line with its work on a more sustainable EU common fisheries policy, this matter has been very much on the European Parliament’s agenda. The Minister may care to explain why his Conservative colleagues in the European Parliament joined forces with other groups to vote down the ban and also voted to delay progress on the draft legislation, meaning that better conservation measures for deep-sea species are unlikely to be taken forward until after the 2014 European elections.
Deep-sea trawlers are catching top predators first and then moving down the food web. Taking away the top predator from an ecosystem risks a significant, possibly irrevocable, destabilisation because it removes species that play a regulatory role affecting the entire food web. The key target species in deep-sea fisheries include round-nosed grenadier, black scabbard and orange ruffy, but for these three, and up to perhaps another seven, target species for deep-sea trawlers, some 78 species are being caught as by-catch. These deep-sea species tend to be longer lived. The orange ruffy lives for up to 100 years and reaches maturity only at the age of 30. Catching these species can completely destabilise the ecosystem.
The science shows that before commercial deep-sea trawling commenced, the abundance of fish per sq km was 25,000 fish, but afterwards it collapsed to 7,225 fish per sq km. Equally of concern is that the decline was not localised in the fished area of 52,000 sq km but extended to 142,000 sq km—an area two and three quarter times that of the area that had been fished by deep-sea trawling. This is a desperately serious problem.
Finally, I want to talk about marine conservation zones, because they have been—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s “Finally” is a brief one, because he has already spoken for 16 minutes. We have another debate and we have not heard the Minister yet, so I do not want an extensive discussion of marine conservation zones.
Barry Gardiner
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In deference to your ruling, and because I too wish the Minister to have the opportunity to respond, I will conclude my remarks. I apologise for taking more time on interventions than perhaps I should have done.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I commend the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and others for bringing this issue to the House and the Backbench Business Committee for supporting it. It has been a very detailed first fisheries debate for me, and it has provided a welcome opportunity to cover a range of important matters.
As the hon. Gentleman said, it is important that we take this opportunity to remember the four fishermen who have lost their lives in this past year in their line of work at sea and in the harbour. This is a stark reminder that fishing remains the most dangerous occupation in this country, as numerous Members have mentioned, including my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) and the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell). I was particularly struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said about Andrew Westaway in her constituency. We must remember the courage and sacrifice of individual fishermen, who put their lives in danger to bring food to our tables, and of their families who support them. I remind people of the plug given to the Fishwives Choir by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray). I know that the House will want to join me in remembering the bravery of our fishermen and the incredibly difficult and dangerous work that they do, and in sending our sincere condolences to all those families and friends who have suffered losses.
Many important points have been raised, and I want to pick up as many of them as I can. First, I want to put on record the sheer importance of this industry to the UK. We have more than 6,400 vessels and nearly 12,500 fishermen, and we produce 627,000 tonnes of fish per year with a value of £770 million. This industry is incredibly important to the UK.
The single biggest development this year has been what I regard as a quite radical reform of the common fisheries policy. I congratulate my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), on his tireless efforts on this front, especially on managing to reform the broken common fisheries policy—a measure that was voted through and agreed by the European Parliament on Tuesday. The reformed CFP, which includes three major UK priorities, has three key elements: first, an end to the wasteful practice of discarding; secondly, an end to the one-size-fits-all approach, with regional decision making; and finally, a commitment to fish at sustainable levels. I want to say a little about each of those important areas in turn.
On discarding, it has been an absolute scandal that we have had these regulatory discards whereby perfectly healthy fish are thrown, usually once dead, back into the sea. A number of Members have raised concerns about the discard ban, but it is important to recognise that to make it work there will be new flexibilities in the quota system. There will be inter-year flexibility so that quota for a species can be moved from one year to the next, and there will be some limited interspecies flexibility so that if a fisherman finds he is catching far more haddock than he expected, he can offset some of that haddock against his cod quota. We also recognise that there is much we can do with improved net gear. Big progress has already been made on this, and organisations such as the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science have done a lot of work on it, but there is certainly further to go.
I have always thought that regional decision making is important, because I am of the view that a small number of member states with a shared interest in a fishery and in seeing it fished sustainably are much more likely to come up with coherent management measures than any haggling among a group of 28 countries. The move to regional co-operation is, therefore, very important. It will make it easier to get agreement and we will end up with more coherent policy making.
A number of Members have raised concerns about how that will work. The fact is that, technically, it will remain a European Union competence. We have seen it work. When I attended the Fisheries Council in October, a similar process took place for the Baltic sea whereby those countries with a direct interest in that water came up with an agreement; they got there in the end. I think that that combination—of individual member states deciding management measures among themselves and the Commission standing behind that process and providing the ultimate check to make sure that they are fishing sustainably—works.
The third point—this is really important, as the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, made clear—is about the legally binding commitment to fish sustainably. This is the essential bit that makes everything else stand up. All these things together represent a radical change in the CFP. This means that we have flexibility to ensure that a discard ban works, a legally binding commitment to fish sustainably, and more local decision making. We have further to go and I am looking forward to the next one to two years, when we can really work on making sure that we implement the measures properly. This has been a very important step forward.
Miss McIntosh
What reassurance is the Minister able to give the House that the Commission accepts that this will now be—dare we say it—a shared competence?
George Eustice
It is important to recognise that the setting of the total allowable catch will remain a European competence, but the management measures will be decided by the member states. On the signing of those management measures, the Commission’s role will be to ensure that we are fishing sustainably. There is an issue—my hon. Friend highlighted this—that, legally, a competence can reside either directly with the Commission or directly with member states. A hybrid system is difficult, but I think our agreement enables us to do that. The Commission can use mechanisms to make agreements between member states legally binding.
George Eustice
I want to press on; otherwise we are going to get a bit tight on time and I want to deal with as many of the points that have been raised as possible.
The UK has been leading the way in Europe in trialling schemes that tackle discards through managing fisheries by what is caught, not what is landed. Catch quota schemes have been very effective in reducing discards, and following the success of those schemes I want to continue to help vessels with the transition to the landings obligation under the reformed CFP.
With the aims of the reformed CFP in mind, we will enter the negotiations at the December Council next week, where fishing opportunities will be decided. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) highlighted, it tends to end up being a late night. In fact, when anybody who has experience of the December Council describes it to me, they do so with a bit of a grin. I am not quite sure what to expect, but I will get some sleep over the weekend.
We aim to negotiate a fair and balanced package of fishing opportunities consistent with our high-level objectives, which are, first, following the best available scientific evidence; secondly, achieving maximum sustainable yield; and thirdly, minimising discards. A range of issues will be UK priorities in the negotiations.
George Eustice
I am going to press on. The hon. Gentleman has intervened quite a lot and, given the steer given by Madam Deputy Speaker, I am conscious of the time.
Our priorities will affect fishermen throughout the UK. They include—a number of Members have mentioned this—seeking a continuation of the freeze in the number of days at sea available for fishermen in the North sea, the Irish sea and west of Scotland, which was agreed last year. We also want to see a moderate increase in the North sea cod TAC, recognising the very welcome recovery of this important stock. We will also argue for an expansion of our catch quota schemes and for outcomes on monkfish, Celtic sea haddock and nephrops in the Irish sea.
I met the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) last week and he has made a very strong case for nephrops, as has the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). I recognise that, because of the cold, late spring, it has been a very bad year for nephrops. The science is challenging and recommends a 24% reduction in the TAC. As a number of Members have pointed out, there has been a tradition in past years for the quota not to be fully fished, which I think gives us some scope to argue that we should not have that proposed reduction. We will do our absolute best for the fishermen in Northern Ireland and Scotland.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes has said, a challenging recommendation has been made to cut the TAC for Celtic sea haddock by 75%. We will argue that, because the TAC reduction for other species in that mixed fishery, such as whiting, are not being reduced by anything like as much, we will need to moderate that proposed reduction; otherwise, discards will be increased, because they are in a mixed fishery. We believe there is some linkage and that needs to be recognised in the negotiations.
Mr MacNeil
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. No real answer has been given on the issue of spurdog discards; fishermen need guidance on what is expected. Another point is that we should recognise the importance of our foreign crew, particularly in my constituency where men come from the Philippines. They are welcomed and wanted. Will the Minister use his office to do what he can with the immigration department to make sure we can get such men in? They are a proud people.
George Eustice
On spurdogs and porbeagles, we recognise that there is a particular challenge whereby there is a zero TAC or a very low TAC. One thing we will argue is that that needs to be loosened. On landings obligations, we cannot have a situation whereby, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said, short of eating the catch on the boat, it would not be possible to do much with it. We believe that that needs to be looked at and we will do so.
A number of Members mentioned the mackerel dispute. I am concerned about the continued lack of an agreement on the management of the north-east Atlantic mackerel stock. It is the UK’s most important single fishery. I continue to hope that we might be able to get an agreement to end this long-running dispute, but we have been clear—I set this out at the October Council—that it will not be a deal at any cost. We do not want new fishing access rights in our waters and we believe that Norway should do its share. Negotiations are ongoing and we hope there will be an outcome. With a 70% increase in the TAC, it is important that this is the best opportunity we will have to get a solution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) mentioned the issue of the under-10 metre fleet. I can confirm that this is an important domestic priority for the Government. I have met members of the under-10 metre fleet, as well as the producer organisations, and we are keen to see a permanent realignment of the quota to help the fleet. I also recognise the uncertainty they face with month-to-month access to quota. There have been some novel schemes whereby they have been able to pull together their resources in, for instance, Ramsgate and have quota allocated over a longer time frame. We are keen to make progress on that.
The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) mentioned monitoring under the marine strategy framework directive whereby we can get good environmental status. I can confirm that we will announce a consultation on that in the new year.
Finally, I will trot through some of the other points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North mentioned the importance of an EU-Norway deal. We absolutely recognise that, particularly the importance of access rights to Norwegian waters for much of the Scottish fleet. This sort of delay is not unusual—it happened last year and it has also happened in previous years—but we will press for the negotiations to begin early in the new year. Of course, there will be a provisional quota allocation to take account of the fact that there is no agreed TAC.
On the survivability element of the landing obligation, I have talked quite a bit about how the landing obligation will work. There will be exemptions for species that have good survivability rates. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives said, it is important that we are able to return those fish that have a good survival rate.
My hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton and for Waveney spoke about the importance of trying to identify new markets for less fashionable fish. I agree that more can be done on that. In my constituency, a firm called Falfish markets pouting to the French, so there are sometimes export markets for some fish species.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives mentioned points made by the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation. I confirm that I met Paul Trebilcock just this week, as well as representatives of the NFFO. My hon. Friend makes a good point about the Neptune project, and the way in which we can get better co-operation between science and fishermen.
My hon. Friend mentioned the minimum landing size for bass. We remain committed to trying to develop that point at European level. One problem at the moment is that most of the bass is taken by the French fleet, so our having a minimum landing size unilaterally would not necessarily help very much. However, that is one measure for which we shall push at European level. We have also called for the closure of some spawning grounds to allow the stock to recover because, as he said, ICES has highlighted a particular problem on that front.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan mentioned the EFF. I look forward to discussions with Scotland and devolved Assemblies elsewhere about the allocation of such funds. Scotland is still getting slightly more than England at the moment, so the situation is not all bad, but we will look at that. To answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes, we shall indeed roll over the EFF for another year during 2014.
My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall highlighted an issue that she has raised many times about the nought to 12-mile zone. It has always been a key priority for the UK to retain such a derogation during reform of the CFP, and that has been achieved. It is, however, important to recognise that the UK also benefits from historical access rights in the six to 12-nautical mile zone in Ireland, Germany, France and the Netherlands. We have to be careful about changing the approach too much, because we sometimes benefit from fishing in the waters of other countries.
My hon. Friend’s more ambitious point about the 200-mile zone, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Luton North, is beyond the scope of what we are now talking about. She may want to submit it to the balance of competences review.
Barry Gardiner
Will the Minister address the point about deep-sea trawling, and the measures he will take?
George Eustice
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I was not avoiding the subject. On deep-sea trawling, we took the view that the European Parliament’s proposal of an outright ban was quite blunt. We recognise that there are issues, and we want to consider changing management measures and a different approach, but we do not believe that an outright ban on deep-sea trawling is the right way to proceed. Contrary to what he has said, the fact that a motion for that has been defeated opens the door to sensible negotiations on the type of management measures we want to see, and we will certainly press for that.
Peter Aldous
A number of hon. Members asked for an update on when the register of quota allocations and transactions will be published.
George Eustice
I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me. I can tell him that that will be next week. Several hon. Members asked that question, and the register will be published, which is proof that DEFRA is capable of multitasking and undertaking complex negotiations, as well as publishing the fixed quota allocation register.
If we are to achieve our goals, there is a lot of hard work ahead and we face some difficult challenges next week. I will do my utmost for all hon. Members who have raised concerns about aspects of the negotiations when I get to Brussels next week.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and other hon. Members for securing the debate, through the good offices of the Backbench Business Committee. I also pay tribute to the former fisheries Minister, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), as well as to the new Minister and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) for raising various issues. We have had nine speeches from Back Benchers this afternoon, plus two from Opposition and Government Front Benchers.
Issues have been raised by all hon. Members about general fisheries matters, and the challenges faced in their dangerous occupation by fishermen right across Britain and Northern Ireland. Hon. Members have paid tribute to fishermen who have lost their lives over the past year, as well as to the many who have lost their lives over the past decade, and they have paid tribute to the central role of coastguards in safeguarding those in fishing and in relation to other issues.
The debate has mainly centred on the common fisheries policy. We are grateful that there has been a conclusion in relation to its reform this week in Brussels, but we and the Minister will now have to concentrate on two areas. The first is the issue of discards, and there is no doubt that it presents many challenges. The second relates to regional advisory councils. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North, I believe that, notwithstanding all the political difficulties, we must remain within the European Union. The EU does have a role, which will obviously come out in the debate and the consultation on the balance of competences. As the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), also emphasised, there is a role for the European Union, and that should be to determine the TAC.
There is also a role for regional advisory councils in managing the quota, dealing with the allocations and ensuring that the totality of fishermen have the best quality of incomes, because that is beneficial. I represent the constituency of South Down, in which there are the two fishing ports of Ardglass and Kilkeel, and I know that both the offshore and the onshore are central to the local economies in terms of job creation and the income that will supply other retailers and be of benefit to families, which is absolutely essential.
Among other issues raised were the roll-out of existing quotas, the whole dilemma in the north-east in relation to mackerel and the debate concerning Iceland and the Faroe Islands. That point was made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). The situation has been going on for several years and requires urgent resolution. Anything that the Minister can bring to that particular debate in his various discussions would be greatly appreciated.
The subject of marine conservation zones has been raised, and we in Northern Ireland have also been confronted with that. Whether in relation to renewables in the Irish sea or anywhere around the British Isles, it is important that marine conservation zones simply help to supplement the fishing industry, and do not contravene or in any way undermine it. The one must supplement the other.
Ms Ritchie
I know that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) wants to intervene, but I have several other points to make, and I have ensured that other hon. Members have had their say so far.
In Northern Ireland we have two particular issues, the first of which relates to nephrops. It is against a positive background, because fishing has been doing well, that we—and particularly the Minister—face next week’s Fisheries Council, which will decide about catch opportunities for 2014. It is traditional, but also frustrating, that those who make a livelihood from fishing expect bad news in respect of the TAC proposals published by the European Commission before the negotiations. What has made fishermen in the Irish sea all the more nervous this time is the failure to communicate the proposed quota for area 7 nephrops to the industry in advance of the Fisheries Council or at least at the same time as the other quota proposals. I know that the new Minister freely acknowledges that. He spoke to me about the issue the other evening.
On the basis of the scientific advice, the industry has, like officials, been able to make a good stab at the numbers. For prawns or nephrops in the Irish sea and the wider area 7, it equates to a proposed TAC reduction in 2014 of almost a quarter compared with 2013. A slightly better comparison shows that the scientific evidence demonstrates an 8% reduction from a year ago. Nevertheless, any reduction in the prawn TAC in area 7 would be unjustified. There are variations in the science year on year, but the same science confirms that the overall picture is stable, with prawns being harvested within the maximum sustainable yield principles. Surely that good news, combined with a recognition of the strides that have been taken by all fishermen in the Irish sea, provides sufficient reason to secure a roll-over of the 2013 TAC into 2014. I ask the Minister to make a special plea on behalf of those who are involved in nephrop fishing in the Irish sea. For us, nephrops are perhaps the only show in town.
The hon. Members for Banff and Buchan and for Strangford mentioned cod. There is an issue with cod in the Irish sea. By value and weight, the cod that are landed from the Irish sea equate to less than 1.5%. However, its iconic status pervades every demersal fishery. It is to be hoped that, come 2014, practical rules will apply that allow haddock and hake fisheries to be developed, while affording the necessary protection to cod. To achieve that, a roll-over of the 2013 quota for haddock in the Irish sea is needed. Against the background of a 17% increase in the stock, that is surely not too tall an order.
After 14 years of failed fisheries targets and recovery measures, Irish sea cod present a dilemma, but they should not be seen as a lost cause. It is regrettable that a huge gulf remains between the science on the stock and what the fishermen believe to be the state of the stock. Unfortunately, that is where I and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North differ on this issue. I am deeply concerned about our local economy and local fishery. A further 20% reduction in the TAC in 2014 will do nothing to address the unknowns or the data deficiencies. The fisheries science partnership and sentinel fishery projects will grind to a standstill with such a reduction.
Fishermen are at a loss to know how they can prove the negative position with regard to that stock. In many ways, they have been a victim of their own success, thanks to the highly selective gears and the much-needed innovation in technology that was pioneered by Anglo-North Irish fish producers in Kilkeel. How can the fishermen prove that there are cod in the Irish sea when they use nets that are designed not to catch cod? More scientific technology is required. The promises to look at ways of addressing the problems, such as identifying the reason for the high level of unknown mortality in Irish sea cod, seem to have evaporated as far as the fishermen can see. However, as part of the new common fisheries policy, fishermen are further encouraged to develop new mixed fisheries and multi-annual plans. How can they do that when cod remains a choke species and so many unknowns remain in respect of that iconic fish?
I now give way to my neighbour, the hon. Member for Strangford.
Jim Shannon
I just wanted to remind the hon. Lady that her time is running out.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Ms Ritchie, I think that the hon. Gentleman was trying to help you by pointing out gently that your 10 minutes have concluded. Perhaps you could sum up your remarks quickly.
Ms Ritchie
I wish the new Minister well in his post and in the negotiations next week on behalf of all Members who have contributed to this debate, Members who represent fishing constituencies in Britain and Northern Ireland and those who sit on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which he was once a member.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the fishing industry.
Ford and Visteon UK Ltd
(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Before I call the mover of the motion, I should inform the House that there is a case awaiting adjudication in the courts on this matter. In view of the length of time for which the case has continued and the distance of the date on which it is next to be heard, Mr Speaker has agreed to waive the sub judice rule to allow reference to be made to the matter. However, I ask Members to make every effort to avoid direct reference in debate to the matters awaiting adjudication and to focus their remarks on the facts of the case and any non-legal remedies that are available. I hope that that is helpful.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House notes that, when Visteon UK Ltd was spun off from the Ford Motor Company, employees transferred from Ford’s pension scheme into the Visteon UK pension fund on the clear understanding that their pension rights would be unaffected; further notes that, when Visteon UK subsequently went into administration, now over four years ago, former Ford employees suffered a substantial reduction in their pension rights; regrets that the resolution of any court action is still some way off; believes that Ford should recognise a duty of care to its former employees and should make good the pension losses suffered by those worst affected without the need for legal action; and calls on the Government to use the power and influence at its disposal to help ensure that Ford recognises its obligations and accepts voluntarily its duty of care to former Visteon UK pensioners.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for inviting me to open the debate. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group in support of Visteon pensioners, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding time in the schedule to allow us to discuss this important national issue.
I do not really want to be standing here, criticising one of Britain’s great institutions and highlighting publicly what I believe to be a scandal, but I must. I owe it to my constituents and to the thousands of former Ford employees who transferred their pensions from Ford to the new entity of Visteon to do so. An injustice has been done and it continues to be done. I therefore stand here more in sadness than in anger.
This is a truly national issue. The request for today’s debate was signed by more than 10% of Members of this House and by Members who represent all parts of the country and sit in all parts of the House. Although a good number of Members are in the Chamber, there are many others who unfortunately cannot be with us. I mention in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who have Public Bill Committee duties.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members for securing the debate. There are other Members, like me, who were unable to put their names to that request, but who are here and who support the motion. He is right to say that Ford is a good company. It employs 2,000 people in the neighbouring constituency of Bridgend. However, people who transferred their pensions to Visteon are at a loss in trying to explain why, when they were given categorical assurances, time after time, that their pensions would be safe and protected, they have not been. All we are asking Ford to do is to step up to the mark and comply with its moral obligations as well as its legal obligations.
Stephen Metcalfe
I could not agree more, and the issue transcends any legal debates that might be in a court of law. This is about trust and moral responsibility, and a fine company such as Ford has unfortunately blemished its character by not living up to the expectations of its former employees. That is the nub of the matter, and why I will address my remarks not so much to Ford in the UK, but perhaps to Ford globally. This is a global issue, and ultimately its resolution lies in Dearborn in the United States. I hope that Ford executives in the States are watching this debate, because it is they who are able to solve the issue.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
I apologise for being unable to stay for the whole debate. Does my hon. Friend agree that restitution to the Visteon pensioners would be good not only for them but for the reputation of Ford?
Stephen Metcalfe
Absolutely. As I have said, this is a stain on Ford’s character and it does not live up to people’s expectations of a blue-chip brand that has been in this country for more than 100 years. That is why I have taken up the issue with such passion over the past three and a half years. Ford is damaging itself as well as its former employees. I want those executives in the States to watch this debate and listen loud and clear to the message that comes from this House. Indeed, I would be very disappointed if they were not watching—particularly Alan Mulally, the chief executive, and Bill Ford, the executive chairman—and I ask them to step up and sort the issue out once and for all.
I had hoped—as, no doubt, had many other Members—that our debate last year would have sparked some progress and provided the impetus needed to get justice done and see our constituents’ problems solved. Unfortunately, however, that was not the case and it is sad that we have had to come back a year later to rehearse many of the same arguments and ask Ford, again, to live up to its responsibilities. The Visteon pensioners find themselves in the same position; progress has been slow, and their fight for justice continues. Because of that, much of what I say today will sound similar to what I said last year, but it is worth repeating and I and colleagues will keep repeating the same message until Ford listens. To do anything else would be doing a great disservice to our constituents and to the Visteon pensioners, and I place on the record my total respect for the way they have conducted this campaign. Their dedication and commitment have been extraordinary, and that is one reason why I have been pleased to support their campaign.
For those who are new to this topic, I will provide a little history. Visteon was the global parts manufacturer of the Ford motor company, and in June 2000 it was spun off in an attempt to reduce supply chain costs. Visteon employees were actively advised by Ford to transfer their pensions to the new Visteon scheme, and they were promised that in transferring they would still
“receive the same benefits as at Ford, both now and in the future for all their pensionable service.”
They were told in no uncertain terms that their accrued pension rights would be protected, and they were given no new contracts of employment. On the contrary, the new entity continued to use Ford’s logo, it remained affiliated, and people used the same identity cards as previously and received loyalty awards on Ford paper—the list is endless. The two companies remained intertwined, even after the spin-off.
One thing that stands out after the spin-off is that Visteon UK never turned a profit after 2000—not in a single year. It ran up losses of approximately £800 million.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
I congratulate colleagues on securing this debate, and it is sad that we have to repeat the same arguments from last year. Does my hon. Friend remember reading the Detroit Free Press in November 2012, which I am sure is a common read in his office? Tim Leuliette was asked:
“Did Visteon have a chance when it was spun-off?”
He said:
“No. The labour cost issues and the burden and the overhead was so out of line with reality that it was almost comical. It just wasn’t going to work”.
Does my hon. Friend agree that Visteon was simply set up to fail?
Stephen Metcalfe
With great sadness I must agree with my hon. Friend. When the chief executive of an entity the size of Visteon says that he could never work out how it was going to succeed, we can draw the conclusion that it was set up to fail. Someone somewhere must have known that the cost base was too high, and that Visteon did not have a bright future when it was spun off in 2000.
Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)
In his research, has the hon. Gentleman come across any other company of Ford’s standing, large or small, that has done what Ford did and set up a company almost to ensure that it fails?
Stephen Metcalfe
I have not, but I have confined my research to this issue. There was a trend back in the late 1990s and early 2000s for large motor companies to spin off their parts manufacturer and create separate entities, but Visteon never had a chance, certainly in the UK, as demonstrated by its profit and loss. It never made a profit, and no company that never makes a profit can succeed. Inevitably, in March 2009 Visteon collapsed, shortly before the global corporation went into chapter 11 in the United States. Following the collapse in the UK, it emerged fairly quickly that the UK pension fund was underfunded to the tune of about £350 million. That required the pension fund to be placed in the Pension Protection Fund for assessment, which ultimately left former Ford employees with much reduced pensions. Some suffered cuts of up to 50% to a pension they had paid into and had earned. Indeed, my constituent Dennis Varney, who has been leading the campaign so vigorously with me in the past few years, told me his story and I would like to share it with the House.
Dennis joined Ford in 1967 as an apprentice toolmaker. He studied, worked, gained qualifications and got promoted. In 1973, he became a press toolmaker. In 1976, he transferred to the Basildon radiator plant and became responsible for maintaining press tools and related equipment in the manufacture of heat exchange components. In 1978, he was promoted again, with responsibility for the press shop. In 1986, he was promoted to senior manufacturing engineer and then to a management position in 1990. He went to university to study between September 1998 and 2000, and completed a degree course in engineering manufacturing. In 2000, he was transferred to Visteon UK after more than 32 years with Ford. At Visteon he held a management position in a simultaneous engineering group, and had 20 engineers reporting to him directly. In 2006, after 38 years of combined service, Dennis retired. He had worked a lifetime for a company he respected and trusted, and looked forward to a well-deserved and well-earned retirement. We can therefore imagine his dismay—I put it mildly—when Visteon collapsed and his pension was cut by almost 50%. What had he done to deserve this, other than provide decades of loyal service? This was Ford’s response to the plight of Dennis and the many others affected:
“While Ford recognises the severity of the situation for former Visteon UK employees, Visteon became an independent company in 2000 and was responsible for its own business decisions…Ford fully fulfilled both its legal and moral responsibilities to former Visteon UK employees.”
I, for one, do not think it did. I do not intend to comment on whether it fulfilled its legal obligations, as that matter may well go before the court. I remind Members of the words of Madam Deputy Speaker—to be cautious in what they say. Let me say, however, that in my view Ford has not met its moral obligations.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the work he has done to try to secure justice for the Visteon pensioners. On that specific point and to avoid this situation in future, would he welcome the Government reflecting on the legal obligations of employers to employees who have their rights transferred to a spin-off company? One big weakness in this case is that the employees who transferred did not have access to good financial advice. We need to ensure that protections are in place for workers.
Stephen Metcalfe
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The root of the issue does not lie at the door of the Government, but the Government can do more to protect workers, particularly on how the Pension Protection Fund cap operates when long service is involved. The Government need to ensure that people receive proper, independent, sound financial advice when they are transferred to a new pension fund. That would be a good and sensible step forward.
This is not a personal issue and I have no particular beef with the individuals I have dealt with at Ford. I have great respect for those who have worked with me on this issue over the past three and a half years—the former Ford UK chairman, Joe Greenwall; Christophe Clarke from the government affairs team; and, most recently, the director of government affairs, Madeleine Hallward—but is time for Ford globally to face up to its responsibilities and to do the right thing. I, with colleagues across the House, have been campaigning on this issue for nearly four years and we want to see it resolved.
Some might argue, agreeing with Ford, that this has nothing to do with Ford, but I disagree. Yes, Visteon was an independent company, but as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), it never stood a chance, and someone somewhere knew it. I submit that Ford recognised it could source its parts cheaper from other companies around the world and needed to get rid of its expensive in-house manufacturing plants, so it spun them off. That is what Tim Leuliette said. He said it did not stand a chance: the cost base was too high, the overheads were too high, the labour costs were too high. It was totally out of sync with the running of a profitable motor business, so it was sent floating off on its own into the great blue yonder.
That is why I am calling on Ford to meet its moral responsibilities. It knew that Visteon had no long-term future and that among the casualties when it inevitably collapsed would be thousands of former employees who had given loyal service. Those employees have now suffered serious pension losses. They transferred their pensions from Ford to Visteon in good faith, on the basis of trust. People trusted Ford, so when it gave them its assurances, they took them at face value. Why wouldn’t they?
I would like to quote the words of John Hill, a former Ford employer, then Visteon pensioner, who unfortunately is no longer with us:
“I had absolute faith in Ford, and I trusted them. Although over the years we had our ups and downs, everybody had a great respect for the company and a degree of affection for being part of its traditional values and the ‘family of Ford’. A long heritage, and the fact that they had been around for so long formed part of that trust. I just cannot believe that this could happen, and we have been betrayed.”
Unfortunately, he is one of the pensioners who will never benefit, whatever the outcome of the court case and our campaign.
Trust is important, as is family, and Ford likes to talk about family. When Bill Ford celebrated Ford’s 100th anniversary in the UK in 2011, he said:
“I have always thought of Ford employees, dealers, suppliers and partners as members of our extended family. My visit here has confirmed that belief—it has felt like a homecoming.”
He also said:
“Ford of Britain has a proud heritage…The United Kingdom quickly became the most important market for our cars outside of the United States.”
There is no doubt that Ford UK is a vital cog in the global Ford machine and Ford family, yet “family” is probably not the word that Visteon pensioners would associate with their former employers any longer. Simply put, people trusted Ford, and now they wish they had not. That is sad. Ford is a great company and has the potential still to be great in the future, but it is allowing its reputation to be tarnished by not stepping up to the plate. I am asking, in all good faith and in recognition of Ford’s contribution to the UK, that Ford do what is right by its former employees and resolve this issue. Yes, times are tough for the motor industry, especially in Europe, but this goes further than just a financial transaction; it is about restoring trust in what should be a rock-solid brand and removing a stain from Ford’s rich history.
Finally, I can do no better than refer colleagues and the Government to the wording of the motion. That is why we are here and that is what we want—put simply: justice for our constituents.
Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)
I am pleased to take part in this critical debate, because the Visteon plant in south Wales is located in my constituency, and I do so on behalf of many of my constituents, many of whom have travelled to London today from Wales. I begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) for securing this debate. As the chair of our all-party parliamentary group on Visteon pensioners, he is leading in Parliament the campaign to get justice for Ford and Visteon UK pensioners. I also pay tribute to my neighbouring MPs, my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea East (Mrs James) and for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who have done sterling work over many years on behalf of their constituents employed in the local Visteon plant. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East sends her good wishes for today’s debate. She is at home, convalescing after an operation, and I am sure everyone here will join me in sending our best wishes for a speedy recovery.
I want to place on record our thanks to the Visteon pensioners action group and the trade unions for their diligent campaigning over many years. I particularly thank Rob Williams of Unite, who was originally from the village of Glyncorrwg in my constituency. His grandfather, the late Glyn Williams, a distinguished president of the South Wales miners union, would have been very proud of him and the campaigning he is undertaking on behalf of his colleagues.
The case for justice for Visteon/Ford pensioners has already been made—and comprehensively so—by the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock, so I shall not repeat the unanswerable case that he made, other than fully to endorse what he said. What I would like to do today is to emphasise, as he did, the duty of care in the context of corporate social responsibility that Ford motor company needs to discharge to its former employees and their families.
I received this simple, yet poignant message yesterday from one of my constituents, Carl Kirby of Cwmafan:
“We hold meetings once a month and over the last year we have held a minute’s silence at nearly all for workmates that have passed on. This leaves their widows with a lower income, and I know a few have had to seek work to make ends meet. These men are not here to support their families now and their voices should still be heard.”
That is why we are here today—to articulate these concerns on their behalf.
Ford came to our locality in 1964—on to the site on the edge of Swansea that was previously occupied by the Prestcold refrigeration plant and that covered an area of 2 million square feet. It spent £20 million developing and expanding the plant to make it one of the largest and most modern car component factories in the whole of Europe. It grew rapidly from 2,000 employees in 1968 to 6,500 just over a decade later in 1980. Ford was therefore a major contributor to the Welsh economy, drawing its work force not just from Swansea, but from a wide area, encompassing neighbouring towns and villages across the whole of south-west Wales, often taking on the highly skilled labour that was leaving the declining coal mining industry.
Ford’s growth paralleled that of its neighbour, BP, in the petrochemical industry, with its nearby plants at Llandarcy and Baglan Bay. Their parallel growth in the same period was followed by a parallel decline of both companies in the region. There, sadly, the similarity ends. While the closure of BP’s local plants was undertaken in an orderly way, the opposite was the case with Ford. BP followed a clear exit strategy, engaging local stakeholders, developing a range of local legacies and ensuring proper pension rights. It developed a widely admired “Aiming for a College Education” strategy with local schools, helped to sustain and improve local sports and leisure facilities, helped to develop Coed Darcy, a new village in my constituency, and, most striking of all, contributed to the establishment of an impressive science and innovation campus at Swansea university that is to be opened in 2015 on the sea front—ironically, directly opposite the old Ford/Visteon plant.
We are speaking here of two world-class global companies: the one discharging its duty of care in an ethical way to its local employees and local communities, a model of corporate social responsibility over a long period; the other, sadly, retreating almost under cover of darkness, leaving employees, their families and their communities, desolate and in despair. It is not too late, however; Ford can redeem itself.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
In the light of what my hon. Friend has said about the contrast between Ford and BP, does he think that viewers of this debate and those who read about it in the United States will be surprised, given what they are likely to think about BP after the oil spillage? In this case, it appears that BP does its best to do its best for its workers, whereas Ford clearly has not.
Dr Francis
My hon. Friend has made a powerful point, and I agree with him.
On behalf of all my constituents—those who are directly affected and those who are not—I urge Ford, at this late hour, to discharge its duty of care to all Ford and Visteon pensioners throughout the United Kingdom by giving them their full pension rights before any more retired employees depart this world without receiving what is theirs as of right.
Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) for the tremendous work that he has done as chair of the all-party parliamentary group in support of Visteon pensioners since his election to the House, and the way in which he has led his merry band of warriors in keeping this issue at the forefront of people’s minds. We are not prepared to allow it to fade away with time and be forgotten. I think that the strength of feeling and the outrage over what is basically an issue of decency and morality have been obvious in the two speeches that we have heard so far today.
I, too, do not wish to use my speech to knock an international company that provides valuable jobs, expertise and innovation in this country. However, I am baffled by the fact that that it is seemingly being led by its north American approach to business—which is infinitely hard-nosed—and is not prepared to recognise what it is doing to a group of people who, although totally innocent, are being made to suffer ruined retirements, despite the assurances that they were given back in 2000 that their pensions would be looked after and would be on a par with the pensions of those who worked for Ford.
I am surprised at Ford’s intransigence in not recognising its moral duty to act decently. I know that business can be very cynical—Bob Dylan used to say that money shouts—but one would have hoped that there was still a sense of decency, and that this company would be prepared to consider the position of a small group of people who, although they have fought magnificently, will always be the Davids in this David and Goliath battle.
Like my hon. Friend, I find it sad that nothing has moved forward since the last debate, in which I was unfortunately unable to participate because I still wore the shackles of ministerial office. It seems that if we are not careful and if Ford is not prepared to regain its sense of decency, the matter may have to be resolved in the courts, which I do not think is in anyone’s interests, especially given the time scale.
It appears from all the evidence that even if, back at the turn of the century, Ford was following what other companies were doing and removing its suppliers from its direct control by creating new companies, the hands of Visteon, a company created to be independent from Ford, were tied from the outset. I understand that Ford had a virtual monopoly over the parts coming out of Visteon, and was thus in a position to drive down prices unilaterally. There was no proper, vibrant, functioning market, and that is not in any independent company’s natural interest. I also understand that Visteon had to buy its materials from the Ford foundry in Leamington, although they could have been obtained elsewhere at a more competitive and lower price. Once again, Ford seems to have kept Visteon’s hand behind its back and thwarted any opportunity that it might have had to develop as a vibrant, successful company.
I find it incredible that when Ford was keen to create Visteon and cast it aside, in effect, from Ford itself, those who worked for Ford and were going to be employees of the new Visteon were advised that the Ford European works council agreement guarantees that
“Visteon employees transferring their past service benefits to the Visteon Fund will receive the same benefits as at Ford, both now and in the future for all their pensionable service.”
Beyond that, employees were encouraged to join the Visteon scheme and transfer their pensions with statements such as:
“Your accrued pension rights will be protected.”
To me, and probably to all those people who were about to become Visteon employees, those were cast-iron, concrete statements of fact that gave them protection.
We also have to remember that this is not some plan to change pension arrangements in the future. I accept that many private companies over the last decade—as well as Government, and including Members of this House—have been changing their pension arrangements because it has been found that the existing arrangements are too expensive in the current economic climate. They are moving to salary-average schemes, but that is always for the future. They do not start tinkering with the commitments, the payments, the arrangements and the deals that have been done in the past. These changes are for the future. That is not what has happened to the Visteon pensioners, however. Their pensions—that they took out in good faith, and that they believed were safe and secure for all their pensionable life—have now, because of what happened to Visteon in 2009, been noticeably, and in some cases severely, cut by this cynical operation to create a new company independent of Ford.
Huw Irranca-Davies
The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point, particularly on this issue of the assurances that were given to Visteon pensioners. He, like me, will have received the Visteon action group briefing so he is clearly familiar with this quote:
“Your accrued pension rights will be protected.”
It was also stated that “not only” would their pension be “secure” but it would be in their best interests to “transfer” their pension and their pension benefits were “guaranteed”. People were not being greedy or stupid; they were acting in the best interests of their families and themselves on the best available advice, and it is morally repugnant for a company to walk away from those assurances now, when they were either delivered by that company or were vetted by that company before being delivered.
Mr Burns
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point because he is absolutely right. There were no weasel words. There were no cop-out clauses or any excuses that could be made that people had misunderstood what had been said to them or the commitments that had been given to them. They were, in so far as anything in life can be, cast-iron guarantees that those people, who in most cases had worked so loyally for so long for Ford, would have their pensions guaranteed. Having met a number of them, including constituents of mine, I have no doubt that they feel as though they have been kicked in the stomach because of what has happened to them and that they are having to suffer through no fault of their own.
That is why I say that Ford—and in particular Ford in the United States of America, which I believe is leading Ford in the UK on this issue—should sit down and quietly consider their conscience again. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) says, “If they’ve got one,” and I can understand why he says that because it does seem that they are without conscience. Of course companies have a responsibility to their existing work force and their shareholders to make a profit, but this is even more important: “You don’t make a profit if you don’t have a loyal, hard-working and decent work force.” If the company is prepared to see some of its work force treated like that, despite the cast-iron guarantees that it gave them, we have to wonder what kind of conscience it has.
I hope that the company will think again as a result of this debate and of the lobbying by Members on both sides of the House, by the trade unions, by the action group and by others, and that it will not consider drawing the matter out even longer, because, sadly, some of those pensioners will die during that time. I hope that the company will do the decent thing, the morally right thing, and restore those pensions to the people who should never have had them taken away from them in the first place.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
I come to this debate with mixed feelings. I feel grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to Mr Speaker for allowing us to have this great debate in the mother of all Parliaments, from where it will be transmitted across the pond to the United States, where Ford’s ears will be pricking up, as will the ears of Ford’s consumers, who will be thinking twice about whether the Ford brand is whiter than white when they choose their next car.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) and others for the work they have done with me to keep this show on the road and to keep up the pressure on Ford. Ford might have thought that, after the early rumbles of protest, the noise would die down to a whisper. Instead, we are turning up the volume, and the lion’s roar from Britain will be heard in the United States today and in the future.
I am also grateful to the Visteon workers who are with us today, up in the Gallery, and to the many others who have come here on coaches at other times and who continue their fight in London, Cardiff, Essex, Liverpool and Northern Ireland. They continue to demand justice in all corners of the United Kingdom, and that demand is echoed today in all corners of this great Chamber by all the parties.
I come here with sadness as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) mentioned the fact that Ford came to south Wales in 1964. At the time, my father was heading up economic development in the Welsh Office, and he was critical in bringing Ford to south Wales. He is no longer with us, but I remember his story about the chairman of Ford turning up at the Welsh Office in Cardiff in a green Rolls-Royce—believe it or not—to talk about the arrangements and inducements to get Ford to the area. That was more than 30 years ago, and perhaps Ford had a different outlook and a focus on wider communitarian values in those days.
So I come to the debate with thanks and with sadness, and also with a degree of frustration and anger that we find ourselves here. We have been engaging with Ford UK, and it has been forthcoming in engaging in dialogue, but its hard-nosed American bosses, sitting in their directors’ boardroom, seem to think that this issue will just go away and that the workers of the UK can be treated as some kind of offshore group of people that they can forget about. It has been mentioned that many of the people who have suffered are now dead, and I believe that Ford is hoping that the issue will go away. I and other Members from all parties say this: “Ford, you can run but you can’t hide from your responsibilities. We will continue to fight for our constituents, year after year, until this matter is resolved.” Madam Deputy Speaker, you mentioned that this matter was before the courts and that decisions have yet to be made, but we are talking not about the legalities of the case but about moral responsibility and the duty of care that should be shown by this multinational towards its employees, in respect of pensions in particular.
Members will know that I introduced the Multinational Motor Manufacturing Companies (Duty of Care to Former Employees) Bill, which covers this ground, but the Minister might also wish to comment on the big conversation that is taking place between the global multinationals, sovereign states, workers and consumers. There have been debates in this House about the responsibility of multinationals, be it Amazon, Google or Vodafone, to pay their fair share of tax. Vodafone had the biggest share transaction in history, or at least this century, involving £53 billion, but not a penny was paid in corporation tax. How are we going to re-orchestrate things with other countries to ensure that global corporations are not globe-trotting away from their responsibility?
That is a bigger conversation, and I know that people are engaged on the tax side of it, but its other side is the fair treatment of workers. We have heard reports, for instance on “Panorama”, of what Amazon is doing, and I am following through on that, as it is a local company in my constituency, too. As with Ford, we are talking about big companies that provide big employment and are crucial to all our towns and cities, but that does not mean they can run away from their responsibilities on fair tax, fair play and the fair treatment of consumers and workers, be they current, previous or future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) on bringing the matter to the House for consideration. I have been told by one Belfast worker that the workers
“rights were guaranteed not for the lifetime of the Belfast plant, but for the working lifetime of the individual workers. Therefore, their redundancy rights were guaranteed for as long as the workers remained employed, and their pension rights were guaranteed until they reached retirement age”
and beyond. We can understand the anger of those workers and their disbelief and dismay at what took place. Is it not time that the big company in America stepped up to the mark and paid out?
Geraint Davies
The hon. Gentleman makes his point with typical focus and strength. The Belfast workers will be looking at today’s debate and asking how Ford will respond. The Ford directors cannot sit around with their hands covering their eyes, ears and mouths, pretending that this will go away. They may think it can be kicked into the long grass of the lawyers, where there is an army supported by a huge ammunition dump of money to keep it there, but their business ultimately depends on the good will of consumers.
This is not just about Ford manufacturing innovative, efficient and modern cars; it is about the brand being one that people can be proud of. It is about not hiding behind the brand name a predisposition towards running away from responsibilities to people who have spent a working lifetime, in good faith, making quality cars for people to buy, for a business that is viable. It is simply not acceptable for the people to whom those workers have expressed such loyalty to walk away and leave them near destitute. We will not accept it in our House, our community or across our shores. I believe that the ethics of American consumers and American workers, both in Ford and beyond, mean that they will share our sentiments that we are in it together, to use those immortal words, in terms of our future and how this works. People may increasingly make consumer choices for ethical reasons—various brands have ethical dimensions and do the right thing—and this could be one of those instances.
I am not going to dwell on the details of the case. I simply say that it appears, on the face of things, that various undertakings were given to Ford workers which, as has been pointed out, any lay person would interpret as cast-iron guarantees, whatever the legal beagles might construe, with massive expense, could conceivably have been meant. Almost everybody took those assurances as being cast-iron guarantees.
The Ford pension fund was initially set up £49 million light and by the end of the period of Visteon’s existence—the nine or 10 years in which it continued, when, as has been said, it lost nearly $1 billion and did not turn a profit—that pension fund had become underfunded by some £350 million. The knock-on effect for the more than 3,000 workers who have been affected is a savage cut in the future incomes they can expect into their retirement and their capability to sustain a future of dignity and enjoyment in older age that they deserve.
It has been pointed out that Ford was, in essence, manipulating the profit and loss account of Visteon. On the input side, it was able to demand a certain input of raw materials at specific prices that may have been above the market price, so the input cost was up. On the output side, 90% of Visteon’s sales were set by Ford, which consistently reduced the prices that it was given to squeeze the profit of Visteon, so it was no surprise that it was making a loss and that that loss was manifested in the pension fund.
Interestingly and coincidentally, if we look at figures for 2005-06, Visteon Europe lost £700 million and Ford Europe made £700 million in profit. The point I am trying to make is that their accountancy animal was woven together—that £700 million could have gone either way. In essence, Ford chose the loss to fall on Visteon and on the workers who had nobly and loyally served it for so many years.
I know that a number of Members want to speak so I will not go on. In the evidence we took in the all-party group, and before that, we heard stories of representatives from Ford who, after sitting on the board of Visteon pension fund trustees and then having a vested interest in the closure of the plant, transferred their own pension out of the Visteon pension fund into a specially created fund—another Visteon pension fund, the engineering scheme. Clearly, they had a different and conflicting interest. We asked Phil Woodward, who was a director of the trustees, to give evidence to the all-party group, but what do Members think happened? He did not turn up. What does that say about this whole saga? The more we scratch the surface of this story, the worse it gets.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
I find it fascinating that people did not turn up to give evidence. If there were a Select Committee inquiry, could we not ultimately bring in those whom we want to give evidence from wherever they are, including the current Ford executives? Could they not be forced to come here in the same way that Rupert Murdoch was?
Geraint Davies
Yes, with pie on their faces! On a serious note, I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That point has been made in the all-party group, and we have been trying to get a Select Committee to take on this matter. Possible options included the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. When we took it to the Welsh Affairs Committee, there were concerns that the matter was sub judice. However, Mr Speaker has now ruled that the matter has been trundling on for far too long. We are four years into the campaign and there will be another year at least before there is a court hearing. Clearly, we cannot wait for ever, and there is a role for this Parliament to express itself and to ask questions about what has gone on and the duty of care.
What I say in response to the hon. Gentleman’s excellent question is that we have thought about that, but as the momentum has been building and we have now reached this point—we have had questions, discussions, early-day motions, a Westminster Hall debate and now this major debate in the Chamber—we should be aiming, given that we have the implicit sanction of Mr Speaker, to take the matter back to the Select Committees and demand that those executives give evidence. If they do not want to come, they can be dragged here screaming and shouting.
Ford needs to think carefully about doing the right thing for the workers and for the brand as this rolls on and as reporters in America say, “Hold on. Why are all parties in Britain uniting to say things about the glorious Ford? What about Henry Ford? What a great bloke he was. Wouldn’t he turn in his grave if he knew what was happening?”
Other people might talk about more of the detail, but there are some difficult questions that the brand managers and marketing managers for Ford need to think carefully about. What does Ford mean now in a qualitative and quantitative group? What will it look like in a month’s time, or a year’s time? What will it look like against emerging competitors, whether they are Nissan, General Motors or whatever? How is this playing and what are people saying about it?
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) mentioned BP, which, of course, took an enormous financial hit after its environmental issues and also took a hit to its brand values and to perceptions of what it cares about. Those are enormous things for global players. If we, in an advanced western democracy—the seventh largest economy in the world—do not stand up for people and cannot get a global company such as Ford to come to here and do the right thing, we are setting an example for less developed countries where global players might go in and out and cause social, economic and environmental harm.
It is time to say enough is enough. We are one global community, so let us work together and play together for the good of all countries. We should bring something to the table and remember that democracies here and elsewhere will work together to ensure fair play for pensioners, for consumers and for workers, as well as good jobs and good cars. Let us work together for a better world. Come on Ford, do the right thing. Stop hiding and put your money on the table.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) not just on securing the debate from the Backbench Business Committee but on how he has led the campaign, which has been supported on both sides of the House, as demonstrated this afternoon. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who has also been tireless in pursuing the matter. It is notable that four parties are represented in the House this afternoon. Sometimes MPs put aside their party differences and come together when it is plain that there has been an injustice that needs to be put right. That is certainly the case with the issue we are debating this afternoon.
There is a danger in such a debate that one simply repeats the points that have been made. We have already heard some powerful speeches from both sides of the House, such as that from my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), who represents many of the Essex Visteon pensioners, as I do. As has been pointed out, it is particularly sad that it is necessary to have this debate a second time—I participated in the debate in Westminster Hall—because we all still have great respect and admiration for the Ford Motor Company. It has a proud history in this country and a strong reputation across the world, yet this is a terrible stain on that reputation.
It is perhaps because Ford has previously been seen as such a strong company that it was understandable that its employees, who had given many years of service, should believe the assurances they were given when they told that they were being transferred to the Visteon company and that their pensions could be transferred to a new Visteon pension fund. I will not repeat the quotations given by many hon. Members about how they were told that there would be no detriment and that their pensions would be guaranteed under the same terms and conditions. Of course they believed that, yet today they find that the position is very different.
It is particularly sad when one meets and talks to employees who gave many years of service to Ford that now seem to be ignored and forgotten because for a few years—or even, in some cases, for a few months—they transferred to the Visteon company. In particular, I mention Mr Steve Sharpe, my constituent from Heybridge, who spent 27 years working for the Ford Motor Company and three months working for Visteon, yet has lost 50% of his pension. On any grounds, that is clearly wrong and should be recognised as such by the Ford Motor Company. What makes it worse is that—we have heard reference to this—it appears that Ford knew perfectly well that the Visteon company could not succeed, and indeed took actions after its establishment which made absolutely certain that it was not viable in the long term.
Also, we know that the Visteon pension fund was underfunded right from the start. In the discussions that we have had as part of the all-party group, we have talked to the Pensions Regulator, for instance. It is perhaps a matter of regret that the Pensions Regulator was not in place at the time that this happened. It is perhaps worth speculating that had we had the Pensions Regulator, this situation would not have been allowed to arise. I am grateful to see on the Front Bench the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), who responded to the previous debate so is familiar with this injustice.
At that time we talked about the way in which the cap on the Pension Protection Fund affected some former employees of Visteon. That is something that the Government have sought to address, but it is still impacting severely on some pensioners of the Visteon company. Perhaps the Minister might touch on that in his response.
As we know, there is a legal case pending, and I of course hear the instruction from the Chair. We do not want to prejudice in any way the legal proceedings that are under way. It should not be necessary because ultimately it is not a question of whether or not Ford acted within or outside the law. It is, as Members in all parts of the House have said, a question of corporate social responsibility. It is a question of the reputational damage that this is doing to Ford across this country and beyond, and it is a question of morality and decency.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
The Minister will have noticed the unity of Essex MPs. Does my hon. Friend agree that the legal skirt behind which Ford is trying to hide is shrinking all the time and the petticoat of morality is now around its ankles?
Mr Whittingdale
The hon. Gentleman puts it in his unique style. I think I agree with the message he is giving.
As I say, we will wait to see what happens in the courts, but I hope we do not have to, and that the Ford Motor Company will hear the message being sent from this Chamber this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) talked about the possibility of a Select Committee hearing. Whether or not we could force the Ford Motor Company to come to this country to a Select Committee is not entirely clear. I have had some experience of forcing people to come before Select Committees, and there is a problem if they are on the other side of the Atlantic. Again, that should not be necessary.
What should be apparent from hearing all the Members who have spoken this afternoon is the overwhelming moral case of the people who gave years of service to the Ford Motor Company and were told that they would be looked after in the future, yet now have suffered real loss due to the fact that they were transferred to the new company, which in a sense was almost bound to fail.
It is just a couple of weeks before Christmas. If the Ford Motor Company wanted to give a Christmas present, it should honour its moral obligations to the Visteon pensioners.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) for securing this debate and the spirit in which it is being held. We have all been at pains to stress our understanding and support for Ford as a major employer in this country, and I echo those sentiments. It has a proud history and plays a very significant role in our industrial base. Notwithstanding that, I do not believe that this House has ever been prevented from doing or saying the right thing when it matters, and I think we do so in that spirit today.
I do not wish to repeat the points that have already been made, but that does not mean I do not agree with them. I will highlight one or two specific areas, but before doing so I would like to say that I, like many Members here, am conscious of Visteon’s national reach, because it has reached into many constituencies. I compliment all of them on the conduct of their campaign, which at all times has been impassioned and powerful, but also courteous and respectful. I pay particular tribute to my neighbours and constituents in Enfield, whom I admire for their tenacity, of which I have had first-hand experience. I am delighted to be here to speak for them on the matter.
Ford, we are told, even on its website today, is a family of global vehicles and global employees. I think that they probably believe that, but today we have seen the evidence that that is not quite true.
Geraint Davies
I need to leave the Chamber for 10 minutes to give an interview to discuss whether or not Ford is a happy family across the pond, and how important it is for us to act to make it so for the future so that everybody has their fair share. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for having to leave, but I want to air that on the media.
Nick de Bois
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and understand that he has to attend to pressing priorities, and rightly so.
I would like to highlight two points. We have talked about the possible lack of understanding at Ford in the US about the consequences of the decisions that were taken here in the UK. I have considerable experience—some might say that I have the scars on my back—of working in America, having worked with American businesses and set up my own business there. It is an extremely different culture, particularly when it comes to employee relations. I can speak only about my area, and of course the company was not a substantive corporation like Ford, but I know that the work force protection schemes in America are nothing like those in this country, and many say that we have some of the least onerous schemes, compared with the rest of Europe. In America, an employer can hire and fire almost at will without recompense. There are a limited set of protections for redundancy or sacking with or without cause, but it is a very different culture. We may speak the same language, but we are not necessarily united by it in our practices.
It may well be that people in the boardrooms in America do not understand the implications or the potential harm to their reputation of pressing ahead and distancing themselves from the issues facing the pensioners of Visteon. I urge them to listen carefully and to imagine themselves not in the boardrooms of America looking over here, but over here looking at it through the eyes of their UK allies and partners. They might then understand what has driven us to the Chamber today and what has driven the unrelenting cause of Visteon pensioners.
Stephen Metcalfe
Does my hon. Friend agree that had the situation occurred in the United States and 3,500 employees who had worked for such an iconic corporation were banging on Ford’s front door in Dearborn because they had had their pensions reduced so dramatically, the issue might have been solved long ago? It is out of sight and out of mind over here.
Nick de Bois
I am afraid that I have to agree with my hon. Friend. I cannot give an example off the top off my head, but it is certainly true that companies are often preoccupied with what is happening on their own side of the pond, whichever side that is, and even for a global corporation it is still challenging to understand the dynamics that drive the worker-employee relationship and the customer relationship. He makes the point extremely well.
We have heard evidence today that Visteon was, to all intents and purposes, a captive supplier—of that there is little doubt. Given the choice of being a captive supplier or a partner, of course companies in these business environments seek to be a partner. As a supplier, they have to strive for a long-term relationship to guarantee the future of their business and employees. It is interesting that Ford’s supply chain strategy, which was started some considerable time ago, was to develop an aligned business framework with suppliers that recognised the need to work closely with it in a way that is, according to its website,
“designed to create a sustainable business model to increase mutual profitability”
and encourage a long-term partnership. That implies a deep and close understanding of the business dynamics at play in Visteon, including the financial accounts; it cannot mean anything else.
I was surprised to read that Ford spokesmen still stick to this line:
“While Ford recognises the severity of the situation for former Visteon UK employees, Visteon became an independent company in 2000 and was responsible for its own business decisions.”
That does not sit comfortably with the reality of working with a captive supplier or partner, or someone who aspires to be an aligned business framework supplier. That suggests that there are grounds for genuine doubts about whether the demise of Visteon was part of a strategy, first, to reduce a burden of cost on Ford’s balance sheet, and subsequently, to change its supplier base. I carefully say that it is perfectly legitimate to ask that question in the light of its strategy statements about how closely it works with its suppliers.
The moral case has been explored today, and I obviously add my weight to that, but let me add some perspective on the financial matters facing Ford Motor Company globally. Yes, it faced some challenging times. Certainly, the whole industry faced some challenging times, not least in the previous three to five years that we know about all too well. However, its record now is more than satisfactory. While its European business is still undergoing some financial restructuring, the last quarter saw a $1.27 billion profit. In fact, its operating basis was $1.82 billion for the quarter, but the notes to its accounts say that that was reduced to $1.27 billion because it was restructuring in Europe, including large pension lump sum payoffs. If my constituents and the other Visteon pensioners were part of those payoffs, this would be a far happier time for them and for the Members in this House who represent them.
I urge Ford in the US not only to challenge itself on the moral case but to look itself in the eye and say that this is a relatively small price for an exceptionally profitable company whose results have been delivered by employees who not only worked for it but then worked in its supply chain. Then it can live up to the values that it has until recently had cause to be proud of.
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), on his outstanding work in chairing the all-party group on Visteon and on securing this important debate.
It is very sad that, in the year the Ford family is celebrating the 100th anniversary of its first moving assembly line, we are having a debate about how poorly it has treated former proud members of its family and about how best we can support them and—I think we are all united in this—persuade Ford to recognise its moral obligation following its treatment of Visteon workers.
Ford has a good reputation for looking after its staff, and those constituents of mine who still work for Ford speak very highly of the way they are treated by the company. They have a great attachment to the brand and genuinely feel part of it. I think that makes the situation rather more heartbreaking for Visteon workers, who used to wear the familiar Ford logo with pride, but now feel compelled, after the treatment they have received, to campaign with a blue oval “Fraud” logo on their hats instead.
When I first became aware of the closure of Visteon, I, like many others, may have initially mistaken it for yet another sign of the depressing state of the economy back in 2009. It was not until I met a substantial number of residents who had previously been Visteon employees that it became very apparent to me that its collapse and the subsequent pensions issue for former employees was down to something more sinister, some of the details of which have already been well covered.
At that first meeting in my office, I was struck by what a sensible and level-headed bunch of men they were. They were definitely not the kind of men, in my opinion, who would recklessly take any advice from or let themselves be conned by a flashy sales pitch that other people might have said sounded too good to be true. Put simply, they are men who had worked hard all their lives to provide for themselves and their families, and for what they hoped would be a decent standard of living in retirement. In political-speak, we would say they are people who have worked hard and done the right thing, and that is why we are all in unison in supporting them in their fight with Ford.
I hope they will not be offended if I say that they are not all of an age whereby someone could glibly suggest that they go and get another skilled career in order to rebuild their shortfall. As we have heard, some of the Visteon pensioners have already passed away and missed the opportunity to be recompensed, and therein lies the rub.
These are people who gave many years of loyal service to Ford prior to the establishment of Visteon. They trusted the advice given by Ford at the time—that their pensions would be safely protected in the new arrangements; otherwise, they would never have moved over to Visteon. I add my own admiration to that voiced by colleagues for the effective and downright dogged way in which they have run their brilliant campaign, including demonstrating outside the Ford dealership in Rayleigh Weir in my constituency every Saturday, come rain, snow, blistering sun or, on occasion, flood. I commend them for their determination.
Let me get back to the basics of the matter. Visteon was spun off by Ford in order to reduce its operating costs. It was never functionally independent because it relied on Ford for about 90% of its business. Ford was even in a position to dictate the price at which it could buy back its product. In fact, I understand that it agreed a pricing pathway with Visteon management at the establishment of the company, but that agreement was never stuck to. The staff who transferred from Ford to Visteon were never even given separate contracts with the new company. Of course, with the benefit of hindsight one might now say that a successful multinational such as Ford was hardly likely to create and spin off a company that would be respectably profitable in the future. Perhaps that was the only warning sign we had.
Given what we have heard over the past three years, the situation seems to have gone further than that. The House has heard the view that Ford set up Visteon to fail, and loaded the pension fund with a deficit that was never going to be sustainable. What is even more unforgiveable for the former Ford employees is that it would appear that Ford—the primary customer of Visteon products—had actively anticipated and planned for the shutdown of UK Visteon operations since way back in 2006.
The Visteon Pension Action Group has documents compiled by Ford management—which went to great lengths to keep them away from Visteon employees—that give details of plans for projects to allow other companies to seamlessly pick up the supply chain when the UK plants closed. The high-level project was apparently known as “Kennedy”, and was directly controlled by Ford Motor Company personnel who were responsible for agreeing new supplier sources and the cost and quality of new products, and for releasing those products into the Ford production system. Visteon UK, as the incumbent supplier, was responsible for identifying potential new suppliers and developing them to meet Ford criteria for cost, quality and supply logistics. I gather that such lower-level projects were known as Protea, Cummins D3 and Arrow. They do not mean an awful lot to me, but they do to the pensioners in the action group.
It should be noted that, depending on product complexity, normal resourcing action takes between 12 and 24 months to allow time for the manufacture of new tooling, initial production runs, quality and testing checks, and supply filling. It therefore seems quite clear that Ford Motor Company was directly involved in such resourcing actions. When Visteon UK stopped supplying Ford very abruptly on going into administration on 31 March 2009, Ford vehicle operations did not stop for one second due to any lack of parts. Stockpiling of Visteon parts had taken place and the new supplier parts were available immediately. As we have heard, it is of course completely reasonable for companies to put in place contingencies in case a supplier folds, but that eventuality was completely within the power and design of Ford Motor Company.
It seems to me that Ford was therefore involved in the deconstruction of Visteon at least three years before the company went into administration. Ford knew that the pension fund deal it had put in place, and which it had encouraged its workers to take—allowing them to trust it in moving on to that deal—would mean that thousands of employees would be left out of pocket. That is why I believe that Ford has a moral obligation to come to the table with MPs and the Visteon Pension Action Group to agree a fair and just deal for Visteon employees.
The cause of the action group has been greatly frustrated by the fact that tougher rules on pension regulation came in several years after the Visteon pension scheme was established. I welcome the Government’s announcement earlier this year that the cap on compensation payments from the Pension Protection Fund will rise to 3% for pensioners with a record of more than 20 years’ service.
It is my sincerest hope that executives watching this debate in the boardroom in the States take note of what has been said today, and of the damage that the whole situation is doing to their otherwise good reputation among their own employees and to their brand in general. Finally, I once more congratulate the members of the Visteon Pension Action Group on their campaign so far, and I assure them of my and my colleagues’ continued support in this Chamber for their fight, because they all deserve justice.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
It is a great privilege to follow such an enviable group of MPs, particularly those from Essex. We started with eminent words from Basildon and then moved down the estuary to those from Castle Point, and we will end—I hope on a high point—in Rochford and Southend East. Several points have been made, and I will take care not to reiterate them, even to add emphasis.
Not in the last debate on Visteon but in the one before that, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) referred to Ford as
“a four-letter company, behaving in a four-letter way”.—[Official Report, 4 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 182WH.]
Hon. Members will recognise that we normally speak in very temperate language, so people should bear in mind how strongly we all feel about this issue. Very rarely is there a debate in which such strong words are used as we have heard today from both sides of the House. It has been not so much a debate as a siren call for action. Points have been made from either side, but they have all pressed Ford in the same direction.
I must disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who felt that the issue was a stylistic change between American and British business practices and some type of misunderstanding. If it had involved Baltimore rather than Basildon, or Seattle rather than Swansea, the same lack of duty of care and the same lack of moral responsibility towards employees would not have been tolerated.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) has travelled to the US and had informal discussions with several Congressmen. I hope that in the near future that can be formalised by making a request that the US Congress look at the issue alongside us, which will increase the pressure on Ford Motor Company.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I do not know whether my hon. Friend has seen the film “Made in Dagenham”, but it clearly brings out the very close relationship between Ford and the unions, and how the workers trusted it to give them the best deal. In that respect, have not the workers been greatly let down? They expected a deal to be made that was good for them and they had put their trust in the company, but they were sitting ducks to be misled.
James Duddridge
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Not only have I watched the film, but one of my constituents, Lesley Butcher, starred in it in a voiceover role. She is also an excellent parish councillor in Rochford, but that is her claim to fame. That goes to show what a close community we are. The community trusted Ford and was badly let down.
The motion has been signed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns). People who do not know his background might think that his speech verged on being anti-American. Given his strong passion for that country, I do not think it can be seen as anti-American. He will certainly be distraught that the project that allowed the supply chain to continue had the name Project Kennedy. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) made the very good point that this was clearly not an independent company. Project Kennedy allowed the continuity of the supply chain. Effectively, the directors and managers of Ford were shadow directors of Visteon. They were manipulating what went on in that separate company.
I hesitate to share with the House my ambitions as a young child.
James Duddridge
I am urged to do so, so I will. I wanted to be a Conservative Member of Parliament and I have achieved that. I wanted to have a purple pool table, and I hope that my wife reads Hansard tomorrow so that she knows what to get me as a Christmas present. I have always wanted a Ford Capri Mk II. It saddens me that, even if I had the space and the money, I would not be prepared to buy a Ford now. I am not irresponsible enough to call on my constituents, many of whom work at Ford, to boycott Ford in its entirety. However, I am sure that there are many people like me who are proud of Ford’s heritage, like Ford cars and like the Mustang that is coming out, but who would not think of buying a Ford car because of Visteon.
Every Saturday, I go to mini-football with my son and I sit alongside somebody who works at Ford. I have discussed the Visteon issue with him. I am fearful that an organisation that has made such a mistake with Visteon may very well make it again. Are the pension funds of Ford safe at the moment? If I were a Ford employee, I would be very fearful of that.
I do not know what Ford executives consider to be normal behaviour within a family, but this is no way to behave. If we follow the analogy, such behaviour would lead to divorce, family breakdown and great woes. Ford has let us down consistently. There is a small window of opportunity between now and the court case for it to do the right thing morally by our constituents, six of whom have made direct representations to me. If it does the right thing kicking and screaming, only when forced to by the courts, it deserves to take no credit whatever. It needs to act now, before the court case.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
May I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) on securing this debate? We have heard unanimity across the House on the issues at stake.
I have been struck by the strong sense in the contributions to this debate that Ford has a moral responsibility to take seriously the issues that have emerged since Visteon’s collapse. That point has been put across eloquently by Members from across the House. That moral responsibility comes from the fact that Ford workers, who had given many years of service, believed that their pensions were safe. Some of those workers are with us today. Members from across the House have made the point that Ford is a blue-chip brand with a long track record in the UK. For those reasons, this case has continued to arouse strong feelings on both sides of the House.
I ask hon. Members across the House to reflect on how one ensures that companies engage in and understand their responsibilities beyond the bottom line. Another way to describe a moral responsibility is to say that companies, corporations and those that employ people in our country have obligations beyond just the maximum profit they can make. That is certainly what the workers at Ford always felt, and they were assured—and felt assured—that in transferring their pensions to Visteon, their accrued rights would be protected.
It is important to add and iterate—I suspect the Minister will want to reflect on this—that at play here is the wider issue of what happens when occupational pension schemes get into trouble and it is discovered that they are sponsoring an employer that is going under. The previous Government, reacting to the Visteon case and to other well-known examples, created the Pensions Regulator and the Pension Protection Fund. I suspect the Minister will want to say something about the interaction between those institutions—not just the pensions landscape as it sits now, but as it relates to Visteon pensioners. Indeed, he recently proposed an amendment to the Pensions Bill so that the cap on payments under Pension Protection Fund regulations can be raised. I understand that there are Visteon pensioners who will benefit from that—those who might have retired before Visteon collapsed, but who have long years of service with Ford and then Visteon—but it is not a solution for all those pensioners.
A significant question that has been raised by Members across the House concerns what the Government can do and need to do to ensure and underpin occupational pension arrangements. The Pension Protection Fund and Pensions Regulator are central to that, and if I remember rightly, the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock said that the Government can do more on the cap and the need for proper independent advice on transfers.
Pensions are a complicated business, and during pension transfers from one company to another, employees inevitably depend on the advice they are given from what they understand to be expert sources.
Mr Simon Burns
I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I should be grateful to know what his message is to Ford about this unacceptable situation.
Gregg McClymont
My message would be the message that has come from across the House, including from the right hon. Gentleman, which is that we must engage seriously with the issue at hand and Ford must face up to its responsibilities in this matter. As has been said—again, by Members from across the House—Ford is a company with a strong imprint in the UK and has been here a long time. Unless the public are confident that Ford will play by the rules and treat people fairly, the potential damage to Ford’s brand is obvious. “Brand” can sound rather advertisement-like, but the position is very simple.
Nick de Bois
The hon. Gentleman talks about the brand and the customers, but it looks to me as if Ford has treated a supplier abominably. Perhaps there is a message that could go out to suppliers that is an unhealthy one.
Gregg McClymont
We have to be careful, given the ongoing legal case, but the comments from both sides of the House on these issues have resonated with everyone in the House today, including with those in the Public Gallery. Both sides of the House are clear that Ford must engage with its responsibilities. The wider issue is that if companies have a responsibility, beyond the bottom line, to their employees and the countries in which they operate, the direction of travel for Ford in this case must be clear.
What more can the Government do to satisfy the demands of Ford Visteon pensioners? I would be delighted to hear the Minister outline what the changes to the PPF cap mean and talk about the wider issue of ensuring that such pension transfers do not end up being to the great detriment of employees.
James Duddridge
On what more the Government can do, in my speech I explained that—doing my bit in my small way—I would not be buying a Ford Capri Mk II. The Government have a bit more purchasing power than the Duddridge household. How does the hon. Gentleman feel about the Government reconsidering purchasing Ford vehicles until this matter is resolved?
Gregg McClymont
That is a question for the Minister, who is just about to respond to the debate.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) on his work as chair of the all-party group and his perseverance over a number years in raising this issue, along with the officers and members of the all-party group, which is well represented today. Such unanimity across the House, across political parties and across parts of the United Kingdom is rare and is all the more telling for that. The House has spoken today with a single voice. Those who follow our proceedings, both in person and by other means, will have heard clearly the single view of the House of Commons.
As you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, at the beginning of our proceedings your fellow Deputy Speaker relayed Mr Speaker’s guidance. We respect that guidance, of course. I am particularly conscious of the need to avoid saying anything that would in any way undermine or prejudice the case being brought by Unite the union and by individual former Visteon workers. We want to see justice done through due process. I hope the House will understand that my remarks are slightly more guarded for that reason.
We discussed this matter almost exactly a year ago in a debate in Westminster Hall that raised many of the same issues. In the course of that debate, I said that I was particularly conscious of the Visteon workers ending up in the Pension Protection Fund and, as hon. Members have said, finding that the pension they receive is not much more than half the pension they were expecting. With my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock, I met members of the Visteon Pension Action Group in summer 2012, and it was their individual case studies that made me acutely aware of the impact of the PPF cap on their entitlements under the scheme. As I explained at the time, the thinking behind the cap was to ensure that what I loosely call the “fat cats” of the scheme, the people right at the top, could not manipulate matters and still receive a full pension. That was why the previous Government introduced the cap. It was my judgment at the time, and it remains so, that the cap was having an unfair and adverse impact on people who had relatively large pension entitlements not because they had earned phenomenal amounts of money, but because they had given very long service.
During the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock referred to his constituent Mr Varney, who had about 38 years of combined service with Visteon and Ford, and my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) referred to his constituent Mr Sharpe, who had served for 27 years. These are the sorts of workers potentially caught by the cap, depending—obviously—on their wage. I said in last year’s debate that we were looking at whether we could do something about that, and I am pleased to confirm today that we have acted upon that promise. The Pensions Bill, which is now in another place, provides that for those who have been members of a scheme for more than 20 years, the cap should be increased by 3% for each additional year they are above the cap. Obviously I cannot comment on individual cases but, in principle, someone who has served for 38 years would have 18 lots of 3% so a cap 54% higher than the standard cap. If they were still capped at that point, as it were, their pension would be 54% higher than it is currently.
Sadly, these things take time—the Bill has not passed the other place and when it has we will have to produce detailed secondary legislation—but I can assure the House that we intend these higher rates of payment to be in place in the lifetime of this Parliament and to apply from that date onwards. They will not be retrospectively applied, but they will apply to schemes already in the PPF, such as the Visteon scheme. I am aware that probably only 60 or 70 Visteon employees will be affected by this measure, but I hope that for them, who have suffered the biggest proportionate loss, this will be of some benefit.
James Duddridge
I fully support the payment protection being discussed, but if I follow the logic correctly, the Government are, in effect, paying for Ford’s failure to take moral responsibility. Will there come a point when the Government look to Ford to repay money they have paid out through the PPF?
Steve Webb
It is not the Government who pay for the PPF, but the rest of British industry. It is funded partly by the assets of the schemes in the fund and the investment returns on them and partly by a levy on schemes with defined benefit pension liabilities. I realise it does not change the issue my hon. Friend raises, but it is not the taxpayer who funds the PPF; it is other firms with ongoing defined benefit pension liabilities. The PPF does not form a judgment on the rights and wrongs of a firm’s conduct leading up to insolvency. That is a separate matter that might come up during the court proceedings.
During the debate, we heard that Visteon was spun off from Ford in 2000, before the present architecture—the Pensions Regulator and the PPF—was in place. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) asked whether these sorts of things could happen again and whether a hypothetical future firm could structure its affairs with a view to minimising its pensions liabilities and passing them on to the PPF. I can reassure her that part of the remit of the Pensions Regulator is to protect the PPF and hence other levy payers. For example, firms considering a corporate restructuring that would have implications for the covenant of their pensions scheme can seek pre-clearance from the Pensions Regulator, and the latter has powers to act if a corporate transaction has been undertaken with specific intent to weaken pension protection. The situation, therefore, is considerably different from the one pertaining in 2000.
The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) described the workers who accepted the transfer from Ford to Visteon. The hon. Gentleman said they were not greedy or stupid, which of course they were not, and my hon. Friend said they were sensible and level-headed. It was the natural thing to do at the time: someone’s employment is transferred from one employer to another, they are given assurances about their pension and it is suggested they transfer it across. There are different accounts of exactly how the conversation went, but it was an entirely rational thing for people to do. There is no suggestion that people who made that decision acted inappropriately; they acted in good faith on the assurances given.
Stephen Metcalfe
One issue that arose about the point of transfer was that some were reaching the end of their careers within Ford but were still left obliged to transfer before—in one case, only three months before—they retired, only to find out later that they had been disadvantaged. Could the Government look at providing for those in the process of reaching retirement a buffer zone, whereby people do not have to transfer out of the fund into which they have put most of their earnings over their working lives?
Steve Webb
It is worth bearing in mind that, in all these cases, we are generally dealing with a trust—a pension fund set up as a trust has trustees—and with private companies, scheme rules and so forth. It is difficult to see how the Government could write a law that interacted with all those different aspects in a rational way. I take my hon. Friend’s point, as I, too, have heard about folk who worked only a few months for Visteon, yet transferred across their life’s pension rights with Ford—with very adverse consequences. I appreciate that that happened. It is quite clear that no blame or criticism could possibly attach to the workers whose pensions were transferred across; they are clearly the innocent parties in all this.
Prior to this debate, I re-read the transcript of our debate of a year ago. I was struck by the tone, which was slightly different. I do not know whether this was co-ordinated because I was not involved in those conversations, but I was struck that a number of hon. Members said that they did not want to drag Ford down, as they recognised that Ford was a key employer for this country and that many people who worked for the company were proud to do. As I say, I was struck that hon. Members were not trying to denigrate Ford, but were concerned that, if the matter remained unresolved, Ford’s reputation would suffer. I think this striking tone will have been noticed.
It was made clear during the debate that although Visteon was spun off as a separate company, there were close links between Visteon and Ford. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) mentioned the nature of the relationship, drawing on his business expertise, while some hon. Members pointed out that new contracts were not signed. Reference was made to the fact that the long service award that Visteon workers received accumulated their Ford service, and there was Ford branding and all of that. Leaving aside the legalities, it is absolutely clear that the two companies were very closely interlinked; there can be no doubt about that.
During our discussions, the potential for Select Committees to look into this issue was raised. What Select Committees choose to investigate is obviously not a matter for the Government, but I am happy to repeat the assurance I gave a year ago that if any Select Committee—perhaps the Culture, Media and Sport Committee could find an obscure angle to get going on this—decided to take up this issue, we would be happy to put at its disposal the expertise of the Pensions Regulator, the Pension Protection Fund and my own officials to advise or guide in any such investigation.
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) asked what the Government could do. At this point, I refer back to the motion, which “calls on the Government” to do what they can and use what influence they can to bring matters to a “resolution”. The court process is happening, so the legalities will be resolved one way or another through that.
Prompted by today’s debate, I asked my officials to contact Ford UK, which they have done. We have agreed that I shall meet Ford UK early in the UK and I shall take up the concerns that have been voiced. Ford and I have agreed that the spirit of that meeting will be one of constructive dialogue. I thought the best way I could reflect the spirit of today’s debate and the many excellent speeches we have heard would be to relay in person to senior executives of Ford UK the tenor of our debate and the views of the House. Almost uniquely, we have spoken with one voice. I hope that that reassures hon. Members. In addition to what they have done by properly putting their concerns on the record again, I hope that, with our proceedings being heard beyond this House, further steps will be taken on behalf of these pensioners.
James Duddridge
I totally agree that constructive dialogue will provide the right way forward. It is what everyone has been trying to achieve ever since the first debate on the issue. If that constructive dialogue does not produce the results we hope for, will the Minister consider seeking a meeting with his opposite number in the United States to see whether any political options across the pond could be explored to encourage everyone to do the right thing?
Steve Webb
At the back of my mind is a feeling that I would not want to meet my hon. Friend in a dark alley at night. I am not sure why I have that feeling. [Laughter.] My hon. Friend put his point forcefully. Given that representatives of Ford have agreed to meet me in a spirit of constructive dialogue, I shall leave it at that for now, but we shall clearly have to reflect on what further actions could be taken.
Finally, let me reassure members of the all-party parliamentary group that I shall be happy to report the outcome of my conversation with Ford UK to their office. Obviously I do not want to raise any false hopes—Ford’s position is well known, and I do not want to pretend that it has suddenly changed—but I am trying to engage constructively with the company, and I hope that the company will engage constructively with the House.
Stephen Metcalfe
Thank you for the opportunity to wrap up the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that the relationship between Visteon and Ford has been very well explored, as has the reason for the belief of members of the all-party parliamentary group that Ford has a moral responsibility to make good the losses that have been suffered by our constituents.
We have heard from a number of Members today. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) drew comparisons with the way in which other companies have dealt with this issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) described the differences between the ways in which business is conducted on the two sides of the Atlantic. We also heard from my hon. Friend—and I do call him a friend—the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who is the vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group, and whom I thank for his invaluable help. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) expressed the hope that the issue would not go to court, and that is probably the feeling of the whole House. I think that if the issue did go to court and Ford were victorious, it would be a hollow victory anyway, because the company would still not have met its moral obligations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) presented a strong argument about the links between Ford and Visteon and the continuity in the supply chain, and my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) referred to Project Kennedy, which was intended to ensure that the supply chain was continuous. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) described Ford as a four-letter word behaving in a four-letter way. I am grateful to all of them, I am grateful to the shadow Minister, and I am especially grateful to the Minister for the efforts that he has made over the last three years. I am particularly impressed to learn that he has been in contact with Ford UK, and that a meeting is planned. That is a positive step.
The final message that I want to send to all who have listened to the debate, inside and outside the House, is that this fight will not go away. We see an injustice that has been done to our constituents, and we will carry on fighting until justice has been done.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that, when Visteon UK Ltd was spun off from the Ford Motor Company, employees transferred from Ford’s pension scheme into the Visteon UK pension fund on the clear understanding that their pension rights would be unaffected; further notes that, when Visteon UK subsequently went into administration, now over four years ago, former Ford employees suffered a substantial reduction in their pension rights; regrets that the resolution of any court action is still some way off; believes that Ford should recognise a duty of care to its former employees and should make good the pension losses suffered by those worst affected without the need for legal action; and calls on the Government to use the power and influence at its disposal to help ensure that Ford recognises its obligations and accepts voluntarily its duty of care to former Visteon UK pensioners.
Future Governance in Kashmir
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
I have in my hand a petition which has been signed by more than 2,000 of my constituents. It calls for a parliamentary debate to be held in the House of Commons on the situation in Kashmir. The people who organised the petition said:
“We hope you are fully aware of the ling lingering Kashmir dispute which is a threat to regional and global peace and is causing insecurity, instability and human rights violations. The dispute needs to be solved in accordance with the aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The UK being a friend of both India and Pakistan could facilitate a negotiated settlement as per international commitments and United Nations resolutions.”
My constituents firmly believe that were we to debate this issue in the House of Commons, we could deal with the human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir, and, by doing so, progress the right of self-determination for Kashmiris and prevent daily human rights abuses. I hope that the House will accept the petition, in which the petitioners
request that the House of Commons debate this matter on the floor of the House and further requests that the House urges the Government to facilitate a negotiated settlement.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the ongoing Kashmir dispute is a threat to regional and global peace; further that the dispute is causing insecurity, instability and human rights violations; and further that the State of Jammu and Kashmir should be given the right to self-determination.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons debate this matter on the floor of the House and further requests that the House urges the Government to facilitate a negotiated settlement.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001312]
Calderdale Royal Hospital
(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate on such an important issue for my constituents and for the Halifax and Calderdale area. This goes to the very heart—the very essence—of what people should be able to expect from their national health service, what services they should get from their local hospital, and how they should have confidence that well-run, popular and accessible services like Calderdale Royal hospital accident and emergency department will not be cut back or closed. However, for some time now Calderdale Royal hospital’s accident and emergency department has been under threat. It is an issue that has been simmering away in my constituency and recently the rumours have turned to reality as the Government and local health bosses, much to the anger of local people, have refused to guarantee that Calderdale’s A and E department is safe.
I shall briefly set out some of the background to this issue. In 2001 Halifax’s general and royal infirmaries merged with Northowram hospital to become Calderdale Royal. Over the last decade it has served the area extremely well. It has excellent, dedicated and well-qualified staff who provide a first-class health service to people across the district. It serves many diverse communities in Halifax and Calderdale, and its reach extends to the Lancashire border and to communities bordering Bradford. Therefore, a wide geographical area needs, and relies on, Calderdale Royal, and in particular its A and E department.
In recent months, as speculation has risen that the axe could fall on the town’s A and E, so has the sense of public outrage that such a short-sighted, unnecessary and unwanted decision is even under consideration, let alone that there is the possibility of it being implemented. United against that are hospital users, health campaigners, trade unions and Calderdale council. I have yet to find anyone who would be in favour of such a decision.
I know the Minister will say that nothing has yet been proposed, but nothing has been denied either. Indeed, I have asked in this House whether Calderdale’s A and E is safe and no one has confirmed that it is.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
I dare say that the hon. Lady, coming from the Calderdale area, has, like myself, had briefings both from the chief executive officer of the NHS trust and the chairman of the Calderdale clinical commissioning group, and I must say that at no time have either of those two people mentioned to me that Calderdale Royal is under threat of closure. I just wonder whether she could elaborate on where this information has come from.
Mrs Riordan
I have met the Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Trust CEO and doctors and other clinicians. They say—and they gave out a document for me to read—that changes are afoot. That is coming from inside the hospital and the council, and from the general public. So, again, I ask the Minister to rule out the possible closure or even any cuts.
All I have been told is that a strategic document is available on the future of local services. Frankly, my constituents do not need to read jargon-filled paragraphs about clinical decisions. They know when something is right or wrong, and they know that what matters in Halifax is the continuation of our good local health service, with an accident and emergency department free at the point of need. They do not want that service to be in Huddersfield, Dewsbury or Bradford. They want it where it is, in Halifax, serving the communities that I represent and those of Calderdale.
I have read and heard a lot in recent weeks about how A and E departments need reforming. I have heard that too many of the people using them could be seen elsewhere. I am afraid that that is a weak argument. The whole point of the service is to deal with accidents as well as emergencies. People cannot be told to use alternative services if their walk-in centres are closing, or if their doctor’s surgery has closed for the night or, when it is open, they cannot get an urgent appointment.
Craig Whittaker
The hon. Lady will know that we recently had a campaign to keep the walk-in centre in Todmorden open. The reality is, however, that the walk-in centres in Halifax and Todmorden are both under-utilised. Would it not be far better if those carrying out the review came up with a proposal for a low-level accident and emergency-type service in Halifax and in Todmorden? Surely that would be better than the current arrangements.
Mrs Riordan
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the A and E should be closed down and replaced by a low-level service in Halifax and Calderdale—
Mrs Riordan
We need the full A and E. Walk-in centres were designed to take the pressure off A and E departments and if they are used correctly, in conjunction with educating people on how they should be used, that is exactly what they will do.
My constituents certainly do not want to make a 25-minute journey across town to access health services that they rightly want to see in their own community. Let me be clear: the Government could and should have an important role to play in this decision. The buck should not be passed solely to local clinicians so that the Government can wash their hands of the matter. I was hoping that the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) would make it clear that he intended to put pressure on his Government to protect local health services.
Craig Whittaker
I am in total agreement with the hon. Lady: I would not accept the closure of A and E at Calderdale Royal. I am very much hoping that, following the review that is due in January, we will see an enhanced service not only in Calder Valley but in Halifax and the whole of Calderdale. I am looking forward to seeing those proposals.
Mrs Riordan
I am very much hoping that the Minister is going to tell us that Calderdale Royal hospital’s accident and emergency department is guaranteed to stay open.
The Government set the policies, and they must also take responsibility for any decisions that will affect the A and E in Calderdale. Also, there should be no hiding behind a public consultation. The question is quite simple: do the Government support the retention of the accident and emergency department in Calderdale? If they do, there is no need for any consultation. If they do not, they should come clean and set out their position. This lack of clarity is causing a lot of worry, anguish and anger in my constituency and across Calderdale.
Last week I organised a round-table meeting with interested parties at a local level to discuss a way forward. The town is united in the need to ensure that Calderdale’s A and E stays put. Let us imagine what would happen if the department were cut back or closed. I presume that the services would transfer to Huddersfield. For many of my constituents that would mean at best a 20-minute journey, but probably journeys of 25, 30, 35 or even 40 minutes along busy roads, past a motorway interchange, and into Huddersfield. At the risk of using emotive language, such a move really could be a matter of life and death. Do health bosses think that people would stop using the other A and Es if they closed the one in Calderdale? I do not think they would. I also want to place on the record that this is not about Halifax versus Huddersfield; it is not about pitting one A and E against the other. This is about ensuring that people across west Yorkshire have access to good quality health care that is rooted in their local communities.
Let us just examine for a moment why this position might have come about. Since 2010, the Government have been systematically dismantling alternatives to A and E: a quarter of walk-in centres have been closed since the election; NHS Direct has been scrapped; the guarantee of a GP appointment within 48 hours has been scrapped; and fewer and fewer GP practices are open at evenings and weekends. People in Halifax and Calderdale will have fewer alternatives, not more, if the A and E closes. If patients are waiting more than four hours for treatment, is the answer to close A and Es? I do not think it is. This crisis is not due to a lack of education or people going to A and E with minor problems; it is more to do with cuts to social care budgets, meaning that more older people are ending up in hospital because there is no one else to take care of them.
If the Government’s answer to an A and E crisis is to close A and E departments, we really are in trouble in Halifax. Cutting back on services does not solve the problem; it just transfers it elsewhere. I am determined to fight for better services at Calderdale Royal, not to see them cut. I want to see our A and E department saved, not sacrificed. I want to see the excellent staff supported, not under-resourced, and to ensure we have the best possible NHS serving Halifax and its wider communities.
The reaction of the public in my constituency has been an overwhelming “Hands off our A and E department.” We need it to stay open, to continue the excellent service it provides and to ensure it serves the people of Halifax today and for years to come. Anything else would be a tragic mistake of short-term thinking, and a failure to provide my constituents with a local hospital and a national health service fit for the 21st century.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs Riordan) on securing this debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) on staying on to attend and intervening in the telling way he did. There is obviously a keen interest in all these local health matters among Members on both sides of the House. I am aware that all parties are interested in these matters; I have received representations from other Members, and not just the hon. Lady who has raised this matter in the House previously during Health questions.
The reconfiguration of health services is an important issue for all of us and our constituents, and the future of A and E departments is particularly topical at present. I understand that people have anxieties about change and, in particular, about change in the NHS, because it is such a greatly loved and respected institution, but I hope I am in keeping with the spirit of this debate when I say that it is vital that we do not play on those anxieties, especially for purely political purposes. It is important that these difficult but necessary debates take place in an atmosphere of calm consideration.
Jane Ellison
I ask the hon. Lady to let me develop my points, because I have not even begun to respond to her speech. I shall give way, if time allows, a little later.
Before I address the particulars of this debate, may I touch on the Government’s policy on changes to services in general? I realise that the hon. Lady may say that this is what I was going to say, but it is important to understand the principles behind reconfiguration policy. This Government are clear that the design of front-line health services, including A and E, is a matter for the local NHS. That is for good reason, because those local leaders, working closely with local democratic representatives, local government and the public they serve, can come to better conclusions about the services for their area than a Minister sitting in Whitehall trying to decide policy for the whole country, which is a very old-fashioned model of how to do these things.
The NHS has a responsibility to ensure that people have access to the best and safest health care possible. That means planning ahead and looking at sustainability as well as safety in NHS health care provision. No party can escape the challenge of providing sustainable services, and I do not think that challenge is any different for the Labour Front-Bench team from how it is for the Government. The Labour party made these points often when it was in government.
Reconfiguration is about modernising delivery of care and ensuring that we have the facilities to improve patient outcomes, develop services closer to home and, most importantly, save lives. I listened carefully to the hon. Lady’s arguments about her own local area, but if we look at an area in London, as I represent a London seat, we will see that exactly the same arguments were made against centralising stroke care, which was centralised in eight hyper-acute stroke units. They are now providing 24/7 acute stroke care. Stroke mortality is now 20% lower in London than the rest of UK, and survivors are experiencing a better quality of life.
I gave that example to illustrate the fact that we must be wary of some of the arguments against reconfiguration. I am quite clear that in London something that was opposed for some of the reasons the hon. Lady has touched on in her speech is now saving lives for my constituents and others. I want to ensure that that point is at least underlined.
We must allow the local NHS continually to challenge the status quo. I do not accept the hon. Lady’s argument, which, as I understand it, is that nothing should ever change. How, in a modern and ever-changing world, can she advance the argument that nothing should ever change and that it would be wrong of her clinicians even to look at the case for change?
Mrs Riordan
I am sure that the Minister listened to my speech. I did say at the beginning, just to give her some brief history, that in 2001, under a Labour Government, we finally got that brand-new hospital for which we had waited nearly 20 years. It had been promised by a Tory Government. We went from three hospitals to one. She is quite right: things do change, and I was part of that change in 2001.
Jane Ellison
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I am glad that we have established some consensus on that point She is probably aware that I know her area quite well, having lived there for quite a few years before I moved to London.
All service changes should be led by clinicians, and be based on a clear, robust clinical case for change that delivers better outcomes for all our constituents. We have put patients, carers and local communities at the heart of the NHS, by shifting decision making as close as possible to individual patients, devolving power to professionals and providers, who also have patient care, safety and sustainable service at the core of their public service commitment, and liberating them from top-down control.
The principles are enshrined in the four reconfiguration tests. I am sure the hon. Lady knows them well, but for the record they are support from GP commissioners; strengthened public and patient engagements; clarity on the clinical evidence base; and support for patient choice. Those are the tests against which any reconfiguration needs to be judged.
A and E is obviously very topical at the moment. The NHS is seeing increasing pressure on A and E services, but is generally coping well. I am sure that that is the case with the hon. Lady’s local hospital as well. We are meeting our four-hour A and E standard at the moment. It is the 32nd consecutive week the standard has been met. We are determined to do everything we can for the NHS to continue providing high-quality care. She will know of some of the extra moneys that we have allocated—I think it is £2.3 million for Calderdale and Huddersfield—for winter pressures. That does not allow us to escape the fact that there are longer-term challenges, and these have been acknowledged across the House. One million more patients have gone to A and E in the past three years, and there are the pressures of an ageing population. We, across the House, have to address those long-term challenges, and the Government are trying to focus on some of the underlying causes, whether by having named GPs for the over-75s or changes to GP contracts; or, in public health, helping people to manage long-term conditions and to live well for longer; or the £3.8 billion allocated to help to integrate health and social care, because we recognise how vital that process is. All those measures are about addressing the underlying drivers of pressure on A and E and pressure on our health service and looking at how we can make it sustainable in the longer term.
We have recently had an excellent review from Sir Bruce Keogh that looked at urgent and emergency care. It also looked at demands on services and how the NHS should respond. We asked for that review because of the determination not to sidestep the problem of growing pressure on A and E but to deal long term with a problem that has been building for decades. Too many sticking plasters have been applied in the past to get through a year or two. That is why we need to clarify to the public how we are planning to shape those services for the longer term and where they will be delivered.
Most of the current reconfiguration projects are in line with the Keogh report’s principles as an overall direction of travel. We have been clear about that for some time. All local health economies that are undergoing reconfiguration have to pay close heed to the direction of travel set out in the Keogh report, the essence of which was that this is about services, people and co-ordination. It is not just about the bricks and mortar; it is about getting the right care to people at the right time, and flexibility and the co-ordination of services are just as important as how they are geographically configured, and that was the message from the Keogh review.
Let me turn to the hon. Lady’s local area. She said that people want good quality health care rooted in the local area. That is exactly what is at the heart of the review that is being undertaken. As I have outlined, the configuration of local health services is a matter for the local NHS, for the very good reasons I have given. It cannot be dictated from Whitehall. Locally, I understand that the review is considering health and social care services with the point about ensuring that patients continue to receive high-quality and sustainable services at its heart. The work includes considering how best emergency care services and other acute services can be delivered, and in an intervention my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley touched on some of the ways that can be done differently and in a more imaginative and responsive way.
No decisions have been made at the moment, and of course any plans for major service change that emerge from the review would be subject to formal public consultation. Public consultation has to be real and robust. Commissioners know that, and at all stages of the process I would expect Members to be involved, as well as local government. At this stage, the commissioners have not brought forward plans for consultation, but they will need to be assured that any proposals they make for reconfiguration and change will meet the strengthened tests I mentioned earlier.
At the heart of all this is the need to serve local people better. I understand from some of the early engagement work, in which thousands of local people were involved, that the message was that people want quality and access. Those are the two key messages that came through and that are the forefront of people’s minds. They want quality services and they want access to them at the right time. The trust has, I believe, identified a need to co-locate acute services to maximise the potential of its work force, to ensure that services are safe and to deliver the best outcomes for patients for a long time.
The trust is taking on board a range of views as part of the review. I know that the hon. Lady has met local NHS leaders, as have my hon. Friend and other interested local parties. That will include external independent clinical opinion on how best to deliver emergency care, such as that given by the Keogh review. I stress again that the process is locally driven, and I encourage interested hon. Members to continue to engage with the process and to work with the local NHS as it develops those plans. The NHS is one of the world’s greatest institutions, so ensuring that it is sustainable and serves the best interests of patients sometimes means taking tough decisions, including on the provision of urgent and emergency care. Those decisions are taken for a reason: good-quality care and access to it are at the heart of this.
As the hon. Lady has acknowledged, sometimes things change over time. The pressures change, as do the way we respond to them and what we know about how we respond to them. For example, we know that more than 30% of people who go to A and E—in some places, it is more in the order of 50%—do not even need to be there. That is not sustainable in the long term and we need to address it, but those decisions are best made when the NHS is working in collaboration with local people, with local democratic representatives and with local authorities and considering what is best for the people of their area.
May I take this opportunity before I close to place on record my thanks to the hard-working NHS staff of Calderdale for the service they give to the people of that area and to the hon. Lady’s constituents? I hope very much that they have a good Christmas in the sense that they have as few people as possible in A and E who do not need to be in A and E over Christmas, because I know it is a difficult and challenging time for NHS staff, but we are all grateful for what they do for all of us.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
EU Competitiveness Council
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
The EU Competitiveness Council took place in Brussels on 2 and 3 December 2013. The UK was represented by Shan Morgan, Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU. A summary of those discussions follows.
The main internal market and industry issues discussed on 2 December were on: electronic invoicing in public procurement; the directive for rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of competition law; the European trade mark system. There was also a policy discussion on the European semester and industrial strategy in the context of the February European Council; conclusions were adopted on single market policy, industrial policy and better regulation policy; and, outside the chamber, there was a lunchtime discussion about defence industries.
Council began with a discussion about electronic invoicing in public procurement. There was broad support for the compromise text presented by the presidency and all member states agreed to the general approach.
This was followed by a discussion regarding the directive for rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of competition law. In its presentation, the Commission emphasised the importance of this instrument, arguing that it provided a framework for complementing public enforcement of competition law while also providing a practical instrument to give effect to the right to compensation while protecting the leniency regimes on which the ability to break cartels depend. There was a full round-table discussion, with member states agreeing to the objective of the directive and the proposed general approach.
The next substantive discussion was a policy debate on the conclusions on better regulation, industrial policy and internal market policy. The internal market conclusions were adopted without discussion. Some concerns were expressed that the industrial policy conclusions did not sufficiently reflect the lack of alternative energy supplies in some EU countries. Following a minor amendment the conclusions were adopted. The conclusions on smart regulation were adopted following the removal of a reference to the work done by the high-level group on better regulation.
Member states then discussed the key messages that should be inputted into the February European Council discussion on industrial policy. A number of broad themes emerged including: the need to focus on securing prosperity by focusing on smart regulation, removing barriers to trade within the single market and removing barriers to trade with third countries; the cost of energy for industry; the digital single market; and access to finance for SMEs.
The final substantive item was on the European trade marks system. Council noted the importance of getting the trade marks package agreed.
Five AOB points were also on the agenda: the general block exemption regulation; the consumer product safety and market surveillance package; the collective rights management directive; the European patent and patent court; and the work programme of the upcoming Greek presidency.
Space and research issues were covered on 3 December. A general approach was reached on the Copernicus (previously known as GMES—global monitoring for environment and security) programme, with several member states including the UK intervening to support the role of the European Space Agency (ESA) as contracting authority. Discussion ensued on a Commission proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a space surveillance and tracking (SST) support programme. After noting issues raised by the Council legal service, the presidency concluded that the file required further discussion at technical level.
The Council subsequently reached a general approach on proposals for four decisions of the European Parliament and of the Council in respect of public-public partnerships with member states under article 185 TFEU in the following fields: metrology, research performing SMEs (“Eurostars 2”), European and developing countries clinical trials partnership programme (EDCTP) and active and assisted living (AAL) research and development programme.
The Council also reached a general approach on five Council regulations regarding public-private partnerships called joint technology initiatives (JTIs) established as joint undertakings under article 187 TFEU in the following areas: bio-based industries. clean sky 2, ECSEL (electronics), fuel cells and hydrogen 2 and innovative medicines initiative 2.
The Council reached unanimous political agreement on a proposal for a Council decision amending decision 2007/198/Euratom establishing the European joint undertaking for the global nuclear fusion project ITER. This text provides the basis for the financing of the activities of Fusion for Energy—the European procurement agency for ITER—and will enable Euratom to make its contribution to the ITER organisation for the construction of ITER and other ITER-related activities for the period 2014-2020. In addition the Commission reported back on the most recent ITER council and highlighted that significant work was underway to reduce the delays where possible in the construction of the new nuclear fusion reactor.
A wide-ranging debate took place on the topic of public sector innovation, on the basis of an expert group report. In its intervention, the UK noted the importance the Government attached to the digital delivery of public services as well as to modernisation of internal administrative processes. There was scope for mutual learning and networking between member states . At EU level we should seek to build on existing initiatives and prioritise carefully those actions which have the potential to add most value.
Finally, the Council adopted as A points the Horizon 2020 legislative package—with the exception of the Euratom file—which will permit the timely launch of the Horizon 2020 programme.
UK Cyber-security Strategy
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
Last December, I placed the first of my annual reports before Parliament on progress on the UK Cyber-security Strategy. I am pleased to present a second report to both Houses today.
The “Cyber-Security Strategy”, published in November 2011, set out the Government’s vision of “a vibrant, resilient and secure cyberspace”, providing a framework to guide our actions to “enhance prosperity, national security and a strong society”. To support the strategy we put in place a national cyber-security programme (NCSP) backed by £650 million of funding to 2015. This year we increased that investment with a further £210 million in 2015-16. This funding will build on existing projects and also support new investment, enabling the UK to retain its emerging reputation as a leader in the field of cyber-security.
The strategy set out four clear objectives:
Making the UK one of the most secure places in the world to do business in cyberspace;
Making the UK more resilient to cyber-attack and better able to protect our interests in cyberspace;
Helping shape an open, vibrant and stable cyberspace that supports open societies;
Building the UK’s cyber-security knowledge, skills and capability.
These objectives continue to drive our work and are as relevant today as they were in 2011 even in the face of a rapidly changing technological and threat landscape. In this report, I will highlight significant areas of progress, new announcements and our forward plans.
Making cyberspace safer for UK business
Our partnership with industry continues to advance and bear fruit to mutual benefit. In March this year, I launched the Cyber Security Information-Sharing Partnership (CISP) which we funded through the NCSP. It provides a trusted platform in which the security services, law-enforcement authorities and industry exchange information on threats and mitigations in real time. The partnership already includes more than 250 companies. In November this year, the CISP supported the financial sector’s “Waking Shark II” exercise in conjunction with the Bank of England which tested the financial sector’s ability to respond to a cyber-attack. Going forward, we plan to expand its partnership by doubling the number of members to 500 by the end of 2014.
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) has also worked with partners to deliver a “Cyber Governance Health Check” for FTSE350 companies and cyber-security guidance for small businesses, both of which help companies to identify and tackle cyber-risks. In addition, they have also been working closely with industry to develop an agreed “Organisational Standard”. Last month, the Minister for Universities and Science announced details of this new standard which will not only give companies a clear baseline to aim for in addressing cyber-security risks to their company but will enable them to advertise the fact that they meet a certain set of criteria on cyber-security. This provides them with an obvious competitive advantage in a marketplace that increasingly demands better cyber-security from suppliers. To reinforce this and give the standard a kick-start, we will be mandating its use in Government procurement. Its adoption will be subject to proportionality and relevance, particularly in relation to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), as this is not designed to impose costs on business but rather to boost cyber-security while improving the security of the Government’s supply chain.
In concert with this, BIS has developed a new cyber-security suppliers scheme as part of the work being done in conjunction with techUK and the cyber-security sector through the new Cyber Growth Partnership. The scheme provides UK companies with a means of demonstrating, via a public list, that they are a supplier of cyber-security products and services to the UK Government. We want to help UK companies capitalise on a growing market in cyber-security products and services, and we are setting a target for future export growth. The target, the first of its kind, has been set at £2 billion worth of annual cyber sales by 2016, a significant increase on the 2012 export sales figure of £850 million.
Tackling Cyber Crime
The launch of the National Crime Agency (NCA) in October saw the establishment of the new National Cyber Crime Unit (NCCU). The NCCU brings together the skills and expertise of its precursors, Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) Cyber and the Police Central e-Crime Unit, into a world-leading organisation dedicated to fighting the most serious cyber-criminals.
The NCCU has already had significant successes. Just in the past month, it issued an urgent alert to inform internet users of a risk of infection linked to a mass email spamming event aimed at millions of consumers. In addition, NCCU delivered a quick response to a threat to a bank that enabled security measures to be put in place and prevented approximately £14 million from potentially being extracted from accounts. Working closely with the Metropolitan police, six suspects were also sentenced to a total of 28.5 years after being convicted of stealing thousands of pounds from job hunters using fake online adverts for companies. The group defrauded UK financial institutions for many years and stole personal data from thousands of members of the public. We look forward to the NCA developing its capabilities further over the coming year to provide a relentless law-enforcement response to cybercrime.
Meanwhile Government Departments have also taken action to prevent cyber-fraud. A dedicated Cyber Crime Capability in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customes (HMRC) has provided specialist advice to approximately 20 criminal cases, resulting in an overall revenue loss prevented of more than £40 million and more than 2,300 fraudulent websites have been shut down since January 2011.
Making the UK more resilient in cyberspace
Improving our resilience to and diminishing the impact of cyber-attacks is vital. Much of our national infrastructure is owned and operated by the private sector and over the past year, the Centre for the Protection of the National Infrastructure (CPNI) has further extended its range of guidance and products to help companies protect their networks from cyber-threats. CPNI’s Cyber Risk Advisory Service provides in-depth support to senior executives and boards of the UK’s most critical firms.
The safety of industrial control systems is an important element of infrastructure protection. Helping build our capability in this important area, in conjunction with the EPSRC, we are establishing a new Research Institute in Trustworthy Industrial Control Systems. This is the third such institute to be established with the aid of NCSP funding. Based at Imperial college, the institute will broaden our understanding of the threats to these control systems and find ways to enhance their security.
The MOD continues to mainstream cyber throughout our defence forces. In May this year, the MOD stood up Joint Forces Cyber Group to deliver defence’s cyber-capability. The group includes the Joint Cyber Units (JCUs) at Cheltenham and Corsham, with the new Joint Cyber Unit (Reserve) which we announced last year. Recruitment for the Joint Cyber Unit (Reserve) commenced in October 2013 with a high number of applications received following the Defence Secretary’s announcement in September 2013. The MOD continues to develop new tactics, techniques and plans to delivery military capabilities to confront high-end threats.
An open and secure cyberspace
Complementing these domestic efforts, we have been pursuing an international agenda for an open, stable and secure cyberspace, as set out by the Foreign Secretary at the London Cyber conference in 2011. This has been advanced through subsequent conferences in Budapest in 2012 and Seoul this October, where over 85 countries were represented. In Seoul, we succeeded in getting agreement on a clear statement of the importance of maintaining an open internet for economic progress.
We are working in partnership with a whole host of nations and organisations including the G8, the UN, NATO, and the EU to help shape norms of behaviour for cyberspace while promoting the UK as a leader in cyberspace technology and policy. And we are investing in capacity and co-operation internationally by establishing a Cyber Capacity Building Fund. Through this we have supported the creation of the Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre at Oxford university this year. The fund is already helping the UK to tackle cyber-threats at source, with the arrest in June 2013 of a major global e-fraud network following UK training of partners in south-east Asia.
Cyber-security is a long-term project, so we are investing for the future with a new engagement process in which Chevening, Commonwealth and Marshall scholars from Africa, Asia, and America by selecting a number of these students to attend the annual Academic Centres of Excellence in Cyber Research conference in December and to enrol in an international cyber policy course at Cranfield university. Through this initiative, we aim to help ensure that future cadres of global leaders will have a good understanding of cyber security issues.
Education and Skills
We know that our efforts to expand the UK’s cyber-security sector mean that we need more people with the right skills and education to support this. The national cyber-security programme is working with business, academia and the education sector to ensure we have a future workforce with cyber-skills and expertise, as well as a basic understanding and awareness of cyber-security among the public in general.
We are addressing skills at every level and have funded development of cyber-security learning and teaching materials at GCSE and A-level, with further materials to be released to schools in January 2014. We are also funding initiatives at university level for graduates and post-graduate students, as well as internship and apprenticeship initiatives, such as the one being run by GCHQ to attract technically minded people.
To promote research in cyber-security, we have: set up 11 universities as academic centres of excellence in cyber-security research; established three new research institutes in the science of cyber-security; and set up two cyber-security centres for doctoral training to ensure the UK gains the high-end cyber-security skills needed to tackle current and future cyber-challenges.
For the future, with NCSP funding, the Open university is developing a massive open online course (MOOC) in cyber-security, to be run for the first time in summer 2014. The course is free and has a potential reach of 200,000 students worldwide. Through this initiative, we have a unique opportunity to raise awareness of cyber-security to a mass audience of students, not just those in courses involving it, with an ultimate aim of bringing more students into the field.
Throughout 2012-13 we have continued to fund work by the Cyber Security Challenge across the UK which runs innovative competitions to seek out talented, young people and motivate them into entering the field of cyber-security. We have also funded a new schools programme for the CSC which enabled them to run a pilot for which 562 schools have already signed up. For the coming year, we will be giving them a further £100,000 to roll out this pilot nationally.
We are also investing in public sector skills. For example, the National Archives are ensuring that staff across the public sector are trained in protecting information and have worked with National Fraud Authority to produce the e-learning course “Responsible for Information”, which has been taken by nearly 70,000 central Government staff since July 2013. It is widely available across the public sector and we will be adapting it for an SME audience in early 2014.
However, we also need to cast our net wider to ensure that people across the UK have a better understanding of potential threats and are better equipped with the necessary protection to go about their business online with confidence. To this end, BIS has been working with the UK’s internet service providers (ISPs) on a set of “Guiding Principles” for ISPs to improve the online security of their customers. The principles, being launched today, set out that at a minimum, ISPs will provide cyber-security information to their customers, or signpost to information elsewhere. ISPs will assist and empower their customers to protect themselves by offering tools and security solutions, or indicate where solutions can be accessed. If their customer does experience a problem, ISPs will support them by providing clear information about how to report the incident. They will also inform them of a potential compromise, in line with company policy, and explore ways to bring potential issues to the attention of customers. This is an important step in not only protecting people online but in helping to minimise the number and impact of cyber-attacks in the UK.
Lastly, we are investing in a major campaign to increase awareness of cyber-security among both the general public and small businesses. The campaign, led by the Home Office and backed by £4 million of funding from the NCSP, is to be launched next month. It is being supported by a broad range of organisations, including Facebook, BT, a number of anti-virus companies such as Sophos, banks and financial organisations as well as community and trade organisations. These organisations are providing financial and in-kind benefits worth around £2.3 million, which will extend the breadth and reach of the campaign and help to improve our nation’s cyber-health.
Conclusion
We are in a much better place than two years ago when we launched the strategy. This reflects the collective effort of numerous Government Departments and agencies, and powerful partnerships with industry, academia and international counterparts.
Today, I have also placed before Parliament a list of achievements over the past year, as well as a document which outlines our forward plans, priorities and some key initiatives we will be taking forward over the next 12 months.
There is still much work to be done, but our progress to date has put us in a strong position for the future.
War Pensions Scheme (Uprating)
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)
The new rates of pensions and allowances payable under the war pensions scheme proposed from April 2014 are set out in the tables below. The annual uprating of awards and allowances for 2014 will take place from the week beginning 7 April. Rates for 2014 are increasing by 2.7% in line with the September 2013 consumer prices index.
Rates (£) | Rates(£) | |
|---|---|---|
(Weekly rates unless otherwise shown) | 2013 | 2014 |
war pensions | ||
Disablement Pension (100% rates) | ||
officer (£ per annum) | 8,949.00 | 9,189.00 |
other ranks (weekly amount) | 171.50 | 176.10 |
Age allowances payable from age 65 | ||
40%-50% | 11.50 | 11.80 |
over 50% but not over 70% | 17.65 | 18.15 |
over 70% but not over 90% | 25.10 | 25.80 |
over 90% | 35.30 | 36.30 |
Disablement gratuity (one-off payment) | ||
specified minor injury (min.) | 1,093.00 | 1,123.00 |
specified minor injury (max.) | 8,154.00 | 8,374.00 |
1 - 5% gratuity | 2,726.00 | 2,800.00 |
6 - 14% gratuity | 6,061.00 | 6,225.00 |
15-19% gratuity | 10,601.00 | 10,887.00 |
supplementary allowances | ||
Unemployability Allowance | ||
Personal . | 105.95 | 108.80 |
adult dependency increase | 58.85 | 60.45 |
increase for first child | 13.70 | 14.05 |
increase for subsequent children | 16.10 | 16.55 |
Invalidity Allowance | ||
higher rate | 21.00 | 22.55 |
middle rate | 13.60 | 14.00 |
lower rate | 6.80 | 7.00 |
Constant Attendance Allowance | ||
exceptional rate | 129.40 | 132.80 |
intermediate rate | 97.05 | 99.60 |
full day rate | 64.70 | 66.40 |
Part-day rate | 32.35 | 33.20 |
Comforts Allowance | ||
higher rate | 27.80 | 28.60 |
lower rate | 13.90 | 14.30 |
Mobility Supplement | 61.75 | 63.40 |
Allowance for lowered standard of occupation (maximum) | 64.64 | 66.40 |
Therapeutic Earnings Limit (annual rate) | 5,174.00 | 5,252.00 |
Exceptionally Severe Disablement Allowance | 64.70 | 66.40 |
Severe Disablement Occupational Allowance | 32.35 | 33.20 |
Clothing Allowance (annual rate) | 221.00 | 227.00 |
Education Allowance (annual rate) (max) | 120.00 | 120.00 |
Widow(er)s benefits | ||
Widow(er)s’ - other ranks (basic with children) (weekly amount) | 130.05 | 133.55 |
Widow(er) - Officer higher rate both wars (basic with children) (£ per annum) | 6,915.00 | 7,102.00 |
Childless widow(er)s’ u-40 (other ranks) (weekly amount) | 31.15 | 31.99 |
Widow(er) - Officer lower rate both wars (£ per annum) | 2,402.00 | 2,476.00 |
Supplementary Pension | 86.99 | 89.34 |
Age Allowance | ||
(a) age 65 to 69 | 14.80 | 15.20 |
(b) age 70 to 79 | 28.50 | 29.25 |
(c) age 80 and over | 42.25 | 43.40 |
Children’s Allowance | ||
Increase for first child | 20.40 | 20.95 |
Increase for subsequent children | 22.85 | 23.45 |
Orphan’s pension | ||
Increase for first child | 23.30 | 23.95 |
Increase for subsequent children | 25.55 | 26.25 |
Unmarried dependant living as spouse (max) | 127.70 | 131.20 |
Rent Allowance (maximum) | 49.00 | 50.30 |
Adult orphan’s pension (maximum) | 99.00 | 102.60 |
City Deals
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)
Following the successful completion of the first wave of city deals with the eight largest English cities outside London in July 2012, the Government invited a further 20 cities and their wider areas to negotiate a second wave of city deals in October 2012.
I can announce today that the Government and business and civic leaders in the black country, Coventry and Warwickshire and Norwich have reached agreement on city deals.
The black country city deal will support the growth of the region’s high-value manufacturing sector by bringing into use key industrial development sites across the black country, backed by a black country investment fund of £30 million from local and national sources. Specialist support will be available to businesses in the sector, and at least 1,500 apprenticeships will be created in high-value manufacturing employers. The city deal includes a programme to work intensively with 2,800 long- term unemployed people to move them into employment. The black country local enterprise partnership estimates that the city deal will lead to around £130 million of private investment and create 5,800 new jobs in manufacturing over the next four years.
The Coventry and Warwickshire city deal is targeted at the area’s advanced manufacturing and engineering sector. Specialist support will be available for companies in the sector, including small and medium-sized enterprises, from a single service bringing together organisations such as UK Trade and Investment, chambers of commerce and finance specialists under one roof. New ways to equip the sector with the skills it needs will be trialled including a shared apprenticeship scheme across small engineering businesses below the scale to have an apprentice scheme individually. The city deal will enable the expansion of the automotive test track and research and development facility at Fen End in Warwickshire, supporting the ability of small firms in the automotive sector to innovate. The Coventry and Warwickshire local enterprise partnership estimates that the city deal will lead to around £66 million of private sector investment and over 8,000 jobs in the advanced manufacturing and engineering sector.
The Greater Norwich city deal will reinforce the success of the Norwich research park. It makes available business support and early stage finance to commercialise research excellence in life sciences and biotechnology at the Norwich research park, in the digital creative cluster in the city centre and the aviation cluster based around Nonwich international airport. The city deal provides the means for £80 million additional investment in local infrastructure to allow housing growth, including an additional 3,000 homes. A framework will be established to make investment in skills more responsive to the needs of local employers. The new Anglia local enterprise partnership estimates that the city deal will help create 13,000 additional jobs by 2025, support the establishment of 300 new businesses and bringing forward 3,000 additional homes, on top of the 37,000 previously envisaged.
Pupil Premium Funding
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
Today I am confirming the pupil premium final allocations for the 2013 to 2014 financial year and pupil premium allocations for the 2014 to 2015 financial year. The figures for 2014 to 2015 use early pupil data and will be updated when final pupil numbers are confirmed.
Final pupil premium allocations for the 2013-14 financial year
We now have the final figures for the number of pupils eligible for the premium, which means we are able to provide primary schools with an extra £53 to the end of the financial year for every primary pupil who is currently eligible for free school meals (FSM) or has been eligible for FSM in the past six years (FSM “Ever 6”). This is on top of the £900 primary schools currently receive for each of their FSM Ever 6 pupils. Primary schools will be able to use this additional funding to further raise pupil attainment. Secondary FSM Ever 6 and looked-after children will continue to attract a premium of £900 and service children attract a premium of £300.
Final pupil premium allocation tables for the 2013 to 2014 financial year based on these rates are available on the Department’s website for each local authority, parliamentary constituency and school.
Pupil premium allocations for the 2014-15 financial year
In the 2014 to 2015 financial year, the total pupil premium budget will increase from £1.875 billion to £2.5 billion. I am pleased to confirm that this rise in funding will enable us to increase substantially the funding per pupil for primary school pupils, allowing schools to intervene early, where the impact is greatest. From next year, primary FSM Ever 6 pupils will attract £1,300 which will help primary schools raise attainment and ensure that every child is ready for the move to secondary school. Meanwhile, we will allocate £935 for secondary FSM Ever 6 pupils.
In the 2014 to 2015 financial year, the pupil premium plus for looked-after children will have more than doubled, from £900 in 2013-14 to £1,900 per pupil. We are also extending eligibility to include those who have been looked after for one day or more, as compared with the six months in care currently required. The role of the virtual school head will be enhanced to ensure that, as the “corporate parent” of looked-after children, the virtual school head works closely with schools to ensure the funding is used to maximum effect.
We will, for the first time, include children who have been adopted from care or leave care under a special guardianship or residence order. This change recognises that the needs of those children who leave care do not change overnight. Schools will receive £1,900 for each eligible pupil adopted from care who has been registered on the school census and the additional funding will enable schools to offer pastoral care as well as raising pupil attainment.
We are continuing to support children with parents in the armed forces through the service child premium. In the 2014 to 2015 financial year, the service child premium will be set at £300 per pupil and we are continuing to expand the protection for pupils previously attracting the service child premium since its introduction in April 2011 whose parents are no longer in the armed forces or where parents have divorced. We will also continue to fund schools in respect of children of parents who were killed in action. These changes will mean an increase in the number of children eligible for the service premium from around 45,000 in 2011 to over 60,000 in 2014.
Illustrative 2014 to 2015 financial year allocations for each local authority, parliamentary constituency and school are available on the Department’s website. These will be updated when data from the January 2014 school census becomes available.
Integrity and Assurance of Food Supply Networks
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
On 4 June 2013, Official Report, column 92WS, I informed the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I had asked Professor Chris Elliott to carry out an independent review into the integrity and assurance of food supply networks following the horsemeat fraud. I would like to inform the House that Professor Elliott published his interim report today, it is available at: http://www.gov.uk/government/publications and copies are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The report recognises UK consumers have some of the safest food in the world. It highlights the key characteristics of a food supply network which protects consumers and enhances the reputation of the British food industry and in particular the steps needed to deal with the threat of food fraud.
My right hon. Friend and I welcome the interim report which affirms the complex nature of food fraud, with its possible links to serious organised crime. The horsemeat fraud earlier this year demonstrated the international context and complexity of food crime.
Significant action is already being taken to prevent and identify food crime. We have increased unannounced inspections of meat cutting plants. We are working with the European Commission and other member states to establish an EU-wide food fraud unit. We are undertaking a study to test that products which are labelled as from the UK are genuine. We have increased Food Standards Agency (FSA) funding to £2 million to support local authorities’ delivery of the national co-ordinated programme of food sampling.
The UK Government continue to work closely with the European Commission, other European member states and Europol to share information to strengthen reporting mechanisms for food fraud. We are already working with the European Commission to identify further targeted sampling programmes and how they might be implemented. I am bringing the interim report to the attention of the European Commission as its findings can contribute to activity to combat food fraud at European-level as well as in the UK.
Professor Elliott’s report recognises the leading role of the food industry, placing responsibility for delivering a food supply to consumers which is safe, resilient and free from crime, firmly on food businesses. EU food law makes it clear that it is the responsibility of food business operators to ensure that the food they sell is safe and is as described. The need for a more standardised audit process and the need for a balance between random and routine testing, reflect concerns expressed during the horsemeat fraud incident. The food industry undertakes a rigorous testing programme to ensure food authenticity. For horsemeat alone, the results of over 31,000 tests have been reported to the Food Standards Agency over the past nine months, none of which post incident have tested positive. During the incident less than 1% of tests of beef products in the UK were positive for horsemeat, compared to over 4% in the Europe-wide testing programme. The Government will continue to work with food businesses and local authorities responsible for enforcement to ensure measures are effective and not burdensome. We are already working with the sector to generate better food fraud intelligence by identifying barriers and solutions to intelligence sharing. This includes work being led by the FSA to develop a new intelligence hub to improve its capability to identify and prevent threats to food safety and integrity, based on an approach used by police.
There are a number of recommendations for Government, for example on intelligence gathering, enforcement and laboratory capacity. This is an interim report. The Government will be interested in views from interested organisations on these, as we consider them and how they might work in practice before taking a definitive decision on any implementation. Significant action is already under way to address the threat of food crime and the Government want to ensure Professor Elliott’s review builds on the good work already being done to ensure that British food is not just among the safest in the world but also the most authentic.
This interim report provides a foundation for further discussion between the Elliott review, the food industry, Government and others, on how to effectively address the threat of food crime. The report makes clear that food crime prevention is essential to maintaining consumer trust and that this is something on which we must all work together to ensure the integrity of our food supply networks.
Professor Elliott will be working further on these issues in the coming months, with the Government, food businesses and others to strengthen the evidence base as he finalises his recommendations.
I look forward to updating the House on Professor Elliott’s final report in the spring.
Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Taskforce
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
I would like to update the House on the progress that my Department has made in implementing the recommendations of the tree health and plant biosecurity taskforce, which published its report in May. This is further to my written ministerial statements of 20 May 2013, Official Report, column 54WS, and 16 July, Official Report, column 78WS, in which I accepted three of the recommendations relating to risk assessment, contingency planning and appointment of a chief plant health officer, and agreed to provide an update before the end of the year. I would like to thank the taskforce for their review of UK plant health controls.
I have made plant health one of my Department’s top priorities. Since then, we have made rapid progress in meeting that commitment and in implementing the taskforce’s recommendations. A single, prioritised plant health risk register has now been produced and we have started to use it to identify risks from specific pests and diseases and agree priorities for action. In addition we have commenced work to put in place new procedures for preparedness and contingency planning to ensure we can predict, monitor and control the spread of pests and pathogens. We expect to see the results of this work next summer and this will help ensure the UK is ready to deal effectively with future incursions of diseases into this country and is also able to respond better to those that are already established. Finally, recruitment for the senior post of chief plant health officer is under way and will be completed early in the new year.
The remaining recommendations are to:
Review, simplify and strengthen governance and legislation.
Improve the use of epidemiological intelligence from EU/other regions and work to improve the EU regulations concerned with tree health and plant biosecurity.
Strengthen biosecurity to reduce risk at the border and within the UK.
Develop a modern, user-friendly system to provide quick and intelligent access to information about tree health and plant biosecurity.
Address key skills shortages.
I can confirm today that I am accepting the remaining taskforce recommendations, and that in order to deliver these, my Department is developing an enhanced plant health programme. This programme will encompass all plants since the threats facing our plants are not restricted to trees. Details of this programme will be set out in a new plant health strategy, which I will publish in the spring of 2014. The strategy will set out a new approach to biosecurity for our plants and will include:
Pre-border activities to reduce the risk of pests and diseases arriving here from overseas, including our work with countries beyond the EU to drive up standards.
Activities at the border to reduce the risk of pests and diseases entering the EU and the UK.
Action inland to step up surveillance and improve preparedness.
All of this will be informed by the risk register, which will be published in January. It will be underpinned by a programme of work to build skills and capacity on plant health and to raise awareness of the threats facing our plants. I have reprioritised resources to enable this.
Since Government alone cannot make the radical changes needed to protect our plants from pests and disease the strategy will include details of what industry, environmental groups and the general public can do to help us to protect our plants from pests and disease. We will be sharing an initial version of the strategy with industry and environmental groups at a summit on 20 January next year to seek their input and to develop areas where they can contribute and we can work together. We will then finalise an agreed strategy at which point I will provide a further update to the House.
Crisis Response IT System
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
In my written statement of 21 February 2012, Official Report, column 74WS, I updated the House on the changes the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) had made to its response to overseas crises. This statement updates the House on further progress made by the FCO as part of its commitment to excellence in all areas of its work.
The review into the FCO’s response to the multiple crises of 2011 highlighted that our crisis IT system, LOCATE, did not provide a platform suitable for the 21st century. I therefore made a commitment that the FCO would introduce a new crisis IT system for British nationals affected by crises overseas. Our new crisis IT system, the crisis hub, is now fully operational.
The crisis hub is designed to make it easier for British nationals affected by a crisis overseas to ask for help, whether this is by phoning the FCO’s crisis hotline, sending a text message, completing a form online or speaking to a member of our crisis team on the ground. The FCO used the crisis hub to help British nationals in the aftermath of the recent Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. It was a highly effective part of the Government response, giving our crisis teams around the world access to the same information.
The crisis hub is one of the many changes which the FCO has introduced to its crisis response since the review of consular evacuation procedures in 2011. These changes include a cadre of crisis response experts, a requirement for all of our overseas missions to have their own crisis management plan, which is regularly tested in exercises, and a refurbished crisis centre with space for over 100 staff from across Government to work together on a continuous, 24-hour basis during crises. Our improved crisis response structures have supported our response to 25 crises in the past 24 months.
Crises will continue to occur, many without warning. British nationals should sign up for the FCO’s free country-specific travel advice alerts via email or social media, and updates will then be sent to them. In a crisis our latest advice will be published online and publicised by our crisis response teams in London and overseas. Continuous improvement will remain at the heart of the culture of the FCO’s crisis management department, driven by a thorough and objective assessment after each crisis of lessons learnt and areas for improvement.
Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Council
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
I chaired the second meeting of the overseas territories joint ministerial council in London on 26 November. The council was attended by political leaders and representatives from Anguilla; Ascension Island; Bermuda; the British Virgin Islands; the Cayman Islands; the Falkland Islands; Gibraltar; Montserrat; Pitcairn; St Helena; and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
The council focused this year on measures to increase economic growth and create jobs in the territories. The plenary day included sessions on economic diversification and promoting investment; employment and vocational education; the relationship with the EU; renewable energy; and international financial services regulation. The council agreed a communiqué which identified priorities and set out a clear action plan for joint work. A copy of this communiqué has been deposited in the Library of the House. The communiqué reflects the commitment of the Governments of the overseas territories and the UK to continue to work together in partnership to achieve the vision set out in the June 2012 White Paper “The Overseas Territories: Security Success and Sustainability”.
Later in the week we organised meetings with territory delegations and Government departments on health, the environment, passports, visas, immigration and asylum, and criminal justice. We also organised a major investment forum for the territories which was attended by well over 100 UK companies.
In line with our commitment in the White Paper we will continue to report to Parliament on progress in implementing the commitments in the communiqué by territory Governments and UK departments. We have also deposited in the Library of the House a report on progress made in meeting the commitments in the communiqué from the joint ministerial council in 2012. The communiqué, UK progress report and reports by the territories are available for viewing on the website:
https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/overseas-territories-joint-ministerial-council
Public Records: Colonial Documents and FCO Archives
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
On 5 May 2011, My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary informed Parliament of his intention to release to the public every paper from a large collection of colonial administration files, subject only to legal exemptions, Official Report, column 24WS. On 5 December 2011, I informed the House of our plans to release these files over a two-year period, Official Report, column 5-6WS.
I am pleased to report that the final tranche of files was opened to the public at the National Archives on 29 November. This tranche included files from Malta, Singapore, Tanganyika, Trinidad, Turks and Caicos Islands, West Indies, western Pacific, Uganda and Zanzibar as well as files relating to land transfer in Kenya and files documenting the management of the migrated archive. Professor Badger, the independent reviewer appointed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in June 2011, is expected to submit his final report shortly on these files and a copy of his report will be placed in the Library of the House.
In my statement of 30 November 2012, Official Report, column 36WS, I also informed the House that an up-to-date inventory of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s (FCO) archival holdings had brought to light a large accumulation of other material outside the FCO departmental file series, known as the “Special Collections”, much of which was over 30 years old and therefore overdue for review. A copy of this high-level inventory was published on the FCO website at that time. This high-level inventory has since been updated, with additional detail, and was published on www.gov.uk. It can be found at, www.gov.uk/archive-records. Plans to review and release this legacy material are under development and our aim is to prioritise material that is likely to be of greatest public interest and to release this over a six-year period, starting in 2014. More detailed information will be published in the new year on the archive records pages at, www.gov.uk.
I am pleased to announce that Professor Badger will continue in his role as independent reviewer to oversee the selection, review and release of the remaining legacy material
I can reassure all that we remain fully committed both to complying with our public records obligations and to doing so with maximum transparency.
EU/Swiss Agreement
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)
The Government have decided to opt in to the Council decisions to sign and conclude an agreement to extend the EU-Switzerland free movement agreement to Croatia.
The proposal seeks to amend the agreement to reflect the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union on 1 July 2013. The amendment is a natural step following accession and will extend the agreement to apply to nationals of Croatia in Switzerland, and to nationals of Switzerland in Croatia. The proposed amendment will not extend a right of free movement in the UK to persons who do not already enjoy such a right. Therefore, the proposed amendment will have no impact on the UK.
Immigration Transparency Data
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)
The Government are committed to openness and transparency to enable the public to hold the Government and other public bodies to account. This Government have made more data available than ever before. The Home Office contributes to that agenda by regularly releasing information about its work, spend and outcomes in a publicly accessible and open format.
This includes information about the immigration family returns process on our website. Unfortunately between 15 and 28 October 2013 some personal data were available on the Home Office website as part of a spreadsheet alongside the regular data set, in error. This was identified by Home Office officials on 28 October 2013 and the personal information was removed immediately. The personal data related to the names of 1,598 main applicants in the family returns process, their date of birth and limited details about their immigration case type and status. It did not include personal addresses or financial information.
The Department has taken steps to establish whether the data were viewed or accessed outside of the Home Office. That analysis suggests there were fewer than 30 visits to the relevant webpage. It has not been possible to ascertain whether those who visited the webpage went on to open the data sheet in question or accessed the part of the data sheet which contained the personal information.
The Home Office has notified the Information Commissioner’s Office and is undertaking an internal investigation. Measures have been put in place to prevent a recurrence of the error and verify that no similar error has previously taken place.
Our official assessment is that the risk to those whose personal information was accessible for the period is low. However, I have instructed my officials to take steps to notify those individuals concerned, where it is possible and appropriate to do so.
Drugs Policy
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)
I am today announcing that the coalition Government will conduct a review into new psychoactive substances. We are prepared to enhance our UK-wide legislative framework to ensure that law-enforcement agencies have the best available powers, sending out the clearest possible message that the trade in these substances is reckless and that these substances can be dangerous to health, even fatal.
At the heart of the review will be external expertise drawn from law-enforcement agencies and local authorities, together with medical and social science, forensic experts and academics. The terms of reference can be found on the Home Office website and a copy will be placed in the House Library.
New psychoactive substances—so-called “legal highs”—are a significant global challenge. They can pose serious risks to public health and safety. Despite often being marketed as legal alternatives to controlled substances, in 2011, 19% of them contained illegal substances. Users can have no certainty of the health risks that will arise from using them or their legal status. We take this very seriously and together with law-enforcement partners, the Home Office has recently taken part in a concerted programme of enforcement activity. This has resulted in 73 warrants being deployed, 44 arrests and the seizure of a large number of illicit items, including banned new psychoactive substances. However, the market continues to evolve with the rapid development of new drugs.
The coalition Government has put in place a forensic early warning system which enables us to closely monitor the availability of these substances, so we can target activity to reduce demand and supply. Hundreds of these drugs have already been banned under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the UK is playing a leading role in galvanising international partners and institutions to tackle the threat from these new drugs. Using the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, I have asked the Advisory Council to put in place a process by which the range of our generic definitions—used to ban families of harmful drugs—is reviewed, with the first tranche of its advice due in early 2014.
We have also published guidance for local authorities on a range of legislative tools already available to tackle “head-shops” across the UK. This can be found on the Home Office website and a copy will be placed in the House Library.
Police and Crime Commissioner Elections
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Damian Green)
I am today publishing the Government’s response to the recommendations contained in two reports by the Electoral Commission on the 2012 PCC elections. The first, “Police and Crime Commissioner elections in England and Wales: report on the administration of the elections held on 15 November 2012”, is a broad report into the planning and administration of the PCC elections. The second, “2012 Police and Crime Commissioner elections spending report”, is focused solely on candidate spending during the election.
The response to these reports has been placed in the House Library. The Government are grateful for these reports from the commission, and those from other organisations such as the Association of Electoral Administrators. The analysis and recommendations will inform and assist the development of PCC electoral policy and legislation.
Justice and Home Affairs Council
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held on 5 and 6 December in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom; David Ford MLA, Justice Minister for the Northern Ireland Assembly, also attended. The following items were discussed.
At the start of the interior day the Commission (Reding) introduced its communication on the free movement of persons, which came as a result of UK pressure over recent months. The communication noted that while free movement was a right, that right did not include moving to another member state to claim benefits. The Commission noted that appropriate safeguards and tools were available under EU law to combat fraud and abuse and committed to work with member states on these issues. The Commission believed that the five actions set out in the communication represented concrete tools to maximise and protect the benefits of free movement. In particular, the Commission committed to finalise the draft of the sham marriage handbook and, together with the Committee of the Regions, agreed to organise a conference of mayors on 11 February 2014.
The UK (Home Secretary) acknowledged that freedom of movement was an important principle of the EU, but it could not be an unqualified one. While recognition in the communication that pressure had increased at a local level was welcome, it was disappointing that the Commission had failed to take seriously the evidence provided by member states. The UK believed the Commission needed to accept that fraudulent claims for social welfare were a growing problem, and that current rules on social security co-ordination prevented member states from taking the necessary steps to ensure that only those migrating to work and contribute to a host country’s economy could access welfare benefits. On the sham marriage handbook, the UK and others were not in a position to accept the draft given its narrow focus. The Home Secretary also highlighted the domestic changes to tighten the UK’s implementation of free movement rules and to protect local communities, which had been announced by the Prime Minister. In conclusion, the UK said the EU of today was different to the EU of 30 years ago and the Prime Minister had recently been clear that transition to free movement for future accession countries could not be done on the same basis as it was in the past. The UK believed that abuse of free movement must also be part of the next justice and home affairs work programme.
A number of other member states thought the Commission’s response to the abuse of free movement was insufficient and ineffective, by failing to clarify member states’ legal powers or proposing new actions to protect the freedom of movement from abuses such as benefit fraud, document fraud and sham marriage. If the Commission was not in a position to support, member states would consider working together outside the EU structures. Free movement rights came with responsibilities, and tackling abuse would increase public trust in the EU and the national authorities. Others noted that free movement was a fundamental right and that the overwhelming majority of citizens move to work. However, abuse, where it existed, needed to be tackled. The presidency noted that the Council would return to these issues in the future.
The counter-terrorism co-ordinator (CTC) presented a paper on foreign fighters in Syria and asked for a steer on how the proposals should be taken forward. The Commission emphasised that while much of this work was the responsibility of the member states, it stood ready to support. The European External Action Service (EEAS) drew attention to the fact that not every European who travelled to Syria was driven by extremism and that humanitarian motives played a significant role. Eurojust noted that the existing legal framework across the member states was sufficient and considered judicial co-operation with non-EU states to be crucial. Europol stressed that the success of its work relied upon information provided by member states.
All interventions supported the CTC’s paper and the majority called for an emphasis on prevent work, third country engagement, and for greater use of existing information systems. Almost all member states specifically referenced the importance of agreeing the EU passenger name records (PNR) directive. The UK updated Ministers on the key findings of the extremism taskforce report of 4 December and pushed for EU work to focus on prevent initiatives, particularly welcoming moves in the internet and social media sphere. The UK underlined the importance of the PNR directive, particularly intra-EU PNR, third country engagement and aligning foreign fighters work with that of the EEAS and external affairs partners.
Over lunch the Commission presented its biannual report on the functioning of the Schengen area and its fourth report on the post-visa liberalisation mechanism for the western Balkan countries. Those member states that had experienced spikes in asylum claims from the western Balkans region last year expressed continued concerns.
Following the commitment made at the March JHA Council, the presidency presented the state of play on Bulgarian and Romanian accession to Schengen. A unanimous decision at this time was not possible. Romania and Bulgaria stressed that all criteria to accede to Schengen had been met. The presidency suggested the Council return to this at its earliest convenience.
The Council discussed the Commission’s communication setting out the EU’s response to the Lampedusa tragedy of 3 October developed through the Commission-led “Task Force Mediterranean”. The short and medium-term actions to prevent further migrant deaths in the Mediterranean were broadly endorsed and there was a strong consensus that co-operation with countries of origin and transit was the key to preventing migrant deaths and illegal immigration flows. Ministers were more cautious about further sea operations in the Mediterranean, and the Commission’s proposal to open more legal migration channels was met with scepticism by some member states. The UK broadly welcomed the proposed measures, but shared others’ concerns about proposals for more protected entry and legal migration routes to the EU, which were unlikely to have any significant impact on the problem. The focus of the EU response should instead be on preventative work upstream, particularly in Libya and Tunisia; this activity was also important in the context of Syria. The presidency confirmed that it would report the outcome to the December European Council.
The Council considered the future JHA strategic guidelines and the principles which should underpin them. A central theme running through the debate was to ensure implementation and consolidation of existing EU measures while ensuring that all future measures were carefully assessed against the need for new measures and their added value. The UK supported development of a short, strategic set of priorities and reiterated that tackling free movement abuse, reducing illegal immigration, action against human trafficking, return of foreign offenders and improved exchange of criminal records should be the most important priorities for action. The UK also argued that the JHA Council should play a leading role in developing future guidelines. The Commission noted its priorities would include better integration policies, implementation of the common European asylum system, solidarity and contingency planning, credible policies on tackling irregular migration and return, strengthening internal security, and preventing cross-border crime, tackling trafficking of firearms, linking internal and external policies and using EU funds to support Home Affairs priorities. The presidency welcomed written contributions it received from member states which would consolidate and share with the incoming Greek presidency. It was agreed that the new presidency stood ready to continue work at the start of 2014.
Under AOB the presidency reported on the EU-US Ministerial meeting in Washington on 18 November.
The incoming Greek presidency then listed its priorities which included reviewing a strategy to combat terrorism, focusing on the western Balkans; developing measures dealing with the source of illegal immigration and returns; combating trafficking in conjunction with third countries; revising the European common asylum system; completing the legal migration legislative framework; and promoting discussion on the entry of third-country nationals to the EU for study and work.
Justice day began with a discussion of the “One Stop Shop” in relation to the data protection regulation, the part of the regulation intended to streamline oversight and decision-making by supervisory authorities, by conferring these powers on a single supervisory authority in cases where a data controller has establishments in a number of member states.
The UK expressed support for a simple model with decision-making made in the majority of cases by a single supervisory authority. Other member states had mixed views. Given the conflicting positions, it was clear that the experts group would need to reconvene. The Commission nonetheless hoped that the Council could adopt an approach quickly. The Council agreed a general approach on the compromise text for the regulation on the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO), which the UK has not opted into, allowing the Council to open negotiations with the European Parliament in December.
There was then an orientation debate on the insolvency proposal, which focused on jurisdiction, interconnection of registers and co-operation between courts. While there was broad support for the proposal, specific concerns remain. In particular, the UK, along with others, raised concerns about the “adequate safeguards” and additional search criteria for consumer insolvency cases being too onerous and stressed the need for free access to the registers. Other member states raised concerns about abusive forum shopping (especially as concerns natural persons). The presidency concluded that although there was support for much of the text, there were still several difficulties, and called for continued work at expert level.
The Council adopted a general approach on the amendment to Brussels 1 regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The amendment is necessary to give effect to the patent package adopted last December and will include two common courts in the Brussels 1 system — the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court.
The presidency noted progress on the common European sales law proposal and that this had been a priority file, but also cautioned that this was very technical and there needed to be careful consideration of the detailed provisions in the annex.
Over lunch there was a discussion on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). This followed the recent publication of the Commission’s response to the subsidiarity yellow card triggered by a number of national Parliaments. The UK expressed concern that the Commission’s review was inadequate. It amounted to more of a legal defence of the proposal than a considered review of the opinions expressed by national Parliaments. There was some support from other member states for this position, and the Commission committed to consider the concerns of national Parliaments further during the course of negotiations.
The Council debated the Commission’s justice scoreboard. Eleven member states, including the UK, expressed concerns. The UK, supported by some other member states, expressed more fundamental concerns with the principle of the Commission undertaking this work and stressed that there should be no duplication with the work undertaken by the Council of Europe.
The presidency then informed the Council of its intention, at the request of Attorney-General holder, to provide the US with a contribution from the EU and its member states to the ongoing US review of its own surveillance legislation. The draft contribution was agreed.
There was then an initial discussion on future priorities for the JHA area following the expiry of the Stockholm programme, prior to the adoption of strategic guidelines at the European Council in June. The UK, along with a substantial number of other member states, expressed strong support for an approach based on practical co-operation, better regulation principles, consolidation and implementation of existing legislation, cost-effectiveness and cost-analysis in impact assessments, subsidiarity, and proportionality. The presidency concluded that work would continue under the Greek presidency with an overall approach based on: strategic guidelines that were concise and results-orientated; correct implementation of legal acts already adopted; consolidation; avoiding a catalogue of measures; a focus on quality; increased mutual trust; a focus on fundamental rights; and e-justice.
On the EU Accession to ECHR, the presidency explained that it was waiting for the consolidated text of the internal rules but the Commission’s formal proposal would only be issued after the Court opinion.
The Council adopted a strategy on e-justice, as well as Council conclusions on the fundamental Rights Agency; combating hate crime and citizenship. Both the presidency and the Fundamental Rights Agency recalled the conference in Vilnius on combating hate crime and crimes of totalitarian regimes.
The Council concluded with a presentation of priorities by the incoming Greek presidency. This would include continuing the work on post-Stockholm planning for the JHA area. They would aim for a general approach on data protection and insolvency. They would also aim for adoption of the European account preservation order, protection of the financial interests of the Union, as well as counterfeiting the euro and other currencies. They would also work on common European sales law, legalisation, European Public Prosecutor’s Office, Eurojust and the market abuse directive.
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (the Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of her TPIM powers under the Act during that period.
The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
TPIM notices in force (as of 30 November 2013) | 8 |
TPIM notices in respect of British citizens (as of 30 November 2013) | 8 |
TPIM notices extended (during the reporting period) | 0 |
TPIM notices revoked (during the reporting period) | 1 |
TPIM notices revived (during the reporting period) | 0 |
Variations made to measures specified in TPIM notices (during the reporting period) | 0 |
Applications to vary measures specified in TPIM notices refused (during the reporting period) | 6 |
During the reporting period: one individual was charged in relation to an offence under section 23 of the Act—contravening a measure specified in a TPIM notice without reasonable excuse—and his TPIM notice was revoked upon the subject’s remand in custody.
As Parliament is aware one individual subject to a TPIM notice—Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed—absconded on 1 November 2013.
Section 16 of the Act provides rights of appeal in relation to decisions taken by the Secretary of State under the Act. One appeal was lodged under section 16 during the reporting period. No judgments were handed down by the High Court in relation to appeals under section 16 of the Act.
The TPIM review group (TRG) keeps every TPIM notice under regular and formal review. The TRG has met twice during this reporting period.
Offender Monitoring
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
I would like to provide the House with an update on the Ministry of Justice’s electronic monitoring contracts, and specifically on interim arrangements that have been put in place to help prepare for implementation of the next generation of contracts next year.
The House will recall that I made a statement on 11 July 2013 about significant anomalies in the billing practices under the current contracts with G4S and Serco. Members will be aware that these matters are now the subject of a criminal investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.
My Department’s current contractual arrangements with G4S and Serco for the delivery of electronic monitoring services are due to expire on 31 March 2014. To ensure continuity of service from that point until the new contracts come into effect later in 2014, we have signed a contract with Capita to take over the management of the existing electronic monitoring services on an interim basis. This will mean that management of these services, which are now operated by G4S and Serco, will transition to Capita by the end of the current financial year. Under these arrangements, Capita will be using the systems and equipment of G4S and Serco, but the two companies will no longer have a direct role in delivering the service on the ground.
Capita is one of our preferred bidders in the ongoing competition for electronic monitoring contracts and, if negotiations and testing with the company conclude to our satisfaction, will take responsibility for the monitoring and field staff under the next generation of electronic monitoring.
The interim arrangements announced today mark an important step from our existing contracts towards the next generation of electronic tagging, which will introduce the most advanced technology in the world and deliver better value for the taxpayer.
EU Transport Council
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
I attended the final Transport Council of the Lithuanian presidency in Brussels on Thursday 5 December.
The Council noted progress on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Railways and repealing regulation (EC) no 881/2004 (part of the fourth railway package). This regulation would define a range of new tasks for the European Railway Agency following changes in the recast railway interoperability and safety directives. The presidency noted the importance of completing this regulation which would conclude consideration of the technical pillar of the fourth railway package.
The Council reached a general approach on the proposed directive on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure. With member states divided in terms of levels of regulation they would like to see the presidency successfully reached a compromise position acceptable to all which removed EU-level binding targets. There were reservations from three member states, who had hoped for more ambitious binding targets for electric vehicle recharging infrastructure deployment. There was widespread support for harmonised technical EU standards for infrastructure, with the general approach text successfully safeguarded to allow for a multi-standard approach for electric vehicle plug types, ensuring that member states can continue to support existing standards. The upcoming Greek presidency will seek to reach a first reading agreement with the European Parliament in early 2014.
The Council noted progress made on the review of a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights and regulation (EC) No. 2027/97 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage. The presidency pointed to progress made in a number of areas including time/distance triggers for compensation and what would constitute an extraordinary circumstance. Greece will seek to reach an agreement within the Council on this dossier during its presidency.
The Council agreed a mandate for the Commission to open discussions with Brazil to secure an EU comprehensive air service agreement. The Commission stressed the importance of securing a positive outcome from the forthcoming discussions, especially given the rapid development of Brazil and the opportunities presented by the World cup and Olympics that would take place over the next few years.
Under any other business, the Commission reported on the latest developments on aviation emissions trading noting that although the revised Commission proposal was legally sound, it had not been received well at international level due to its inconsistencies with the outcome of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Assembly in October.
I commented that our primary concern should be to agree a global market based measure (MBM) in ICAO, and I raised concerns that a negative reaction to the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS) at international level could jeopardise progress in ICAO. I therefore agreed with others, who supported the extension of the 2013 intra-European ETS to 2020 with a review in 2016 which could assess progress and make any appropriate amendments to the ETS.
The Commission suggested that comments made by Transport Ministers should be forwarded to their environment colleagues who would be meeting on 13 December. The Commission felt that this needed to be resolved at national Government level and the threat of a trade war remained very real. The presidency concluded that Council take note of the positions expressed.
The Commission presented its information paper on passenger ship safety and called for a constructive and co-ordinated approach at International Maritime Organisation (IMO) on this issue. The UK supported the Commission’s aims and would consider a future joint EU submission to the IMO following further discussions at the technical level. The Council took note.
On state aid—Denmark outlined their concerns with the Commission’s interpretation of the Leipzig-Halle case and the consequences this could have on existing and future infrastructure projects. The Commission confirmed that it had no intention of preventing the development of infrastructure on the grounds of state aid.
The Commission reported that Galileo and EGNOS programme had become a success story and was moving forward positively. In the Commission’s opinion, there remained no obstacles to the launch of the next satellites which would occur towards the end of 2014.
The Commission updated Council on progress on the blue belt initiative. The Council took note.
The incoming Greek presidency outlined their transport presidency programme over the next six months. They said that maritime transport would be the key element of their residency, focusing on progressing the ports services regulation, the, IMO co-ordination, blue belt and integrated maritime policy. Other priorities included the fourth railway package, Shift2Rail, eCall and weights and dimensions for land transport, passenger rights and noise for aviation and cleaner power for transport would be the main focus for horizontal issues. The key dates for their presidency would be Transport Councils on 14 March in Brussels and 5 and 6 June in Luxembourg. An informal council would be held in Athens on 7 and 8 May.
Lower Thames Crossing
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
On 21 May 2013, Official Report, column 74WS, the Department for Transport announced the launch of a public consultation on “Options for a New Lower Thames Crossing”. The consultation document set out the case for additional road-based river crossing capacity in the lower Thames area and the relative merits of three potential locations with one variant. It invited views on where to locate a new crossing.
The three options on which we consulted were:
Option A—at the site of the existing A282 Dartford-Thurrock river crossing;
Option B—connecting the A2 with the A1089; and
Option C—connecting the M2 with the A13 and the M25 between junctions 29 and 30.
Option C—variant: additionally widening the A229 between the M2 and M20.
The consultation closed on 16 July 2013.
I am pleased to announce this consultation resulted in a very good response. We received more than 5,700 consultation responses expressing a range of opinions. These have been analysed and I am publishing a report on the consultation on the Government website. A copy of the report will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Respondents raised a number of important points, which deserve due attention. At the same time we are committed to reaching a decision on location as speedily and effectively as possible.
The Department’s review of options showed that option B has the weakest case. Consultation feedback has additionally shown that option B receives limited support and instead raises serious concerns that it would jeopardise major redevelopment of the Swanscombe peninsula, a key part of the growth strategy for the Thames gateway area. A number of stakeholders have urged me to discard this option as swiftly as possible.
I have therefore decided that there are sufficient grounds to discard option B and that Government should focus on the choice between options A and C. The consultation evidence has persuaded me that this decision is one that has far reaching consequences for local people and users of the crossing. It is therefore not a decision to be taken lightly.
To assist Government in considering the consultation feedback and weigh up the relative merits of options A and C I am obtaining further advice on:
Potential scale of further improvements which may be required on the M25 and A13;
Potential implications for air quality in terms of compliance with national and European targets;
Potential scale of mitigation relating to possible impacts on protected habitats.
I will make a further announcement regarding the consideration of options A and C as soon as possible. This need not delay the delivery of the crossing as development of the remaining options continues.
In the meantime, we remain committed to introducing free flow charging at the Dartford-Thurrock crossing by October 2014. This will help alleviate congestion on the crossing in the short term.
Northern Lighthouse Board and Trinity House (Triennial Review)
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
We will shortly commence a triennial review of Trinity House in its capacity as a General Lighthouse Authority, and the Northern Lighthouse Board. Trinity House provides Aids to Navigation (AtoN) in England, Wales, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar; and the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, operating as the Northern Lighthouse Board provide AtoN in Scotland and the Isle of Man.
Reducing the number and cost of public bodies is a coalition priority. The triennial review process has been established to continue the Government’s work in ensuring accountability in public life by examining all non-departmental public bodies NDPBs at least once every three years.
The review will be conducted as set out in Cabinet Office guidance (“Guidance on Reviews of Non-Departmental Public Bodies, June 2011”). This review has two aims:
To provide a robust challenge of the continuing need for both organisations. The first stage of the review will examine both their key functions and the form in which those functions are delivered, which will include an assessment of a range of delivery options.
If it is agreed that these two lighthouse authorities should remain as Executive NDPBs (as defined by Cabinet Office), then stage 2 will review the control and governance arrangements in place to ensure that both bodies are complying with recognised principles of good corporate governance for NDPBs, having regard to their legal and constitutional positions.
Further details of the review, including detailed terms of reference, will be published on the www.gov.uk website shortly.
If you would like further information, or to contribute to the review, please contact Helen McGill by email (Helen.McGill@dft.gsi.gov.uk).
I remain committed to the continuing review of public bodies and my Department continues to work with the Cabinet Office to develop forward plans of reviews.
The report of the review, which is expected to be completed in spring 2014, will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Work Capability Assessment (Independent Review)
(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)
The Government are pleased to announce that the “Fourth Independent Review of the Work Capability Assessment”, carried out by Dr Paul Litchfield, will be published later today. This is the fourth of five annual independent reviews as required by the Welfare Reform Act 2007.
Dr Litchfield has reported on the progress of the implementation of recommendations made by Professor Harrington in the first three annual independent reviews of the work capability assessment. He has also evaluated the operation and effectiveness of the work capability assessment, perceptions of objectivity surrounding the assessment and recommended further changes that may be needed to improve the assessment.
The work capability assessment is integral to the Government’s commitment to ensuring that as many people as are able to do so engage in employment and those who genuinely cannot work receive the appropriate support.
The Government welcome Dr Litchfield’s report as a key step in making sure the assessment is as effective as possible and are currently carefully considering his recommendations. The Government’s response to Dr Litchfield’s report will be published next year.
House of Lords
Apprenticeships
Lord Horam
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the current number of people starting apprenticeships each year; how that compares with 2009–10; and what measures are being taken to improve the quality and number of apprenticeship schemes.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, in 2012-13, there were more than 510,200 apprenticeship starts, which is up by 82.4% on 2009-10. Also, 1.5 million new apprenticeships have been created since the Government came to power. Our reforms will ensure that apprenticeships are even more rigorous and responsive to the needs of employers. Putting employers in the driving seat will create apprenticeships that are able to meet employers’ needs.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, historically, and to our cost, Britain has not been good on technical education. Therefore, the information that my noble friend has just given on the number of apprenticeships represents a real success story and a real breakthrough. It is also good that we are involving employers in the design of schemes. Will my noble friend ensure that small and medium sized companies get a good look in as well as bigger corporations as I know from personal experience that they have a lot to offer in this area?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I agree with my noble friend. Apprenticeship is a real success story of our country and we should all encourage it as best we can. We have announced eight trailblazer projects, which will be the first to develop new standards and approaches to assessment for apprenticeships. These began work in autumn 2013. My noble friend raised the important issue of small businesses. Almost 50% of our apprenticeships are in small businesses but there is only a 13% take-up. Therefore I am delighted that the apprenticeship grant, which we have also launched, will allow new employers with fewer than 1,000 employees to take on new apprentices aged between 16 and 24, which the Government will be supporting fully.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that recent research indicates that among 14 to 16 year-old youngsters at school only one in five knows of the existence of apprenticeships? He will, however, be aware of the recent Ofsted report which criticises the Government for their failure to provide proper career guidance. What do the Government intend to do in response to the Ofsted criticism?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
It is important to ensure that in our schools and universities, through the careers advice services, students are made aware of all opportunities at all levels. We are working closely with the Department for Education to ensure that that happens. Small businesses are also working closely at a local level and the Government strongly encourage that partnership working.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that existing apprentices are one of the best resources for promoting awareness and take-up of apprenticeships? What steps can he take to encourage initiatives to take advantage of this potential, such as the Industry Apprentice Council set up by EAL to give a mouthpiece and forum for apprentices in the engineering sector?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord has raised an important point. In any field, what better role model can there be than a mentor who has actually been through it themselves? Mentors are engaged through initiatives from the National Apprenticeship Service, while the trailblazer projects work at the local level through local partnerships up and down the country, including in Yorkshire, the north-east, London and the south-east. We will be encouraging mentoring as a key part of those initiatives.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that many schools have a vested financial interest in keeping young people at school often to follow courses that do not fulfil their needs. How can those young people receive independent and impartial advice which might include the option of an apprenticeship?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
It is important that schools look at their focus in terms of career guidance and we are encouraging that through the Department for Education. Changes have also been made to higher apprenticeships which now provide a clear work-based progression pathway into higher education and professional careers. We want to ensure that apprenticeships are held in the same high regard as degrees and we believe that schools are going to be key in ensuring the promotion of apprenticeships.
Lord Martin of Springburn (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the good work they are doing on apprenticeships. Will they consider the fact that many young men and women over the age of 21, who perhaps have lost out because of unemployment, would also appreciate what is known as an adult apprenticeship?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The Government are fully aware of that fact and I take it on board. Of course we want to encourage apprenticeships across the board and age should be no barrier.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s focus on the value of apprenticeships, building on the work of the previous Government. Does the Minister agree that, especially in the 16 to 18 group, demand vastly exceeds supply? To keep on quoting the figure of 510,000 when the large majority of those are adult apprenticeships does not address that particular problem. We have almost 1 million NEETs and that is the area the Government need to focus on. We still have only a small number of employers taking up apprenticeships. The figure is somewhere between 4% and 18%, and only a third of the FTSE 100. What additional action are the Government taking to resolve a problem that could leave us with a lost generation of young people?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
On the contrary, I would say to the noble Lord that we are tackling the problem head on. We talked earlier about mentoring. The noble Lord is very good role model for apprenticeships and how much one can achieve. I pay tribute to his personal example. On what the Government are doing right now, on 28 October we published our plans for reform in The Future of Apprenticeships in England and those reforms will do exactly what is required by increasing the quality of apprenticeships. This is not a numbers game. It is about setting higher expectations with a focus on English and maths. Equally, we are putting employers in the driving seat, making sure that rigorous training is delivered and thus ensuring economic growth. Finally, we are simplifying apprenticeships by replacing long and complex frameworks with a simpler procedure to increase take-up, particularly by small businesses.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, when dealing with apprentices as an employer a few years ago the biggest problem that we faced was bureaucracy. There were bureaucratic requirements for extensive record-keeping that we at Tesco could just about manage, but for smaller companies it is obviously a big issue. Is the system now less bureaucratic? Will the Minister comment on that very important point?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend has raised an important point which the Government acknowledge and the consultation proved that apprenticeships needed to be simplified. I go back to my last point by saying that we have done that by replacing long and complex frameworks with one-page standards written for employers to encourage take-up in the SME sector. Equally, we are providing additional grants in the small business sector for organisations with fewer than 1,000 employees. My noble friend talked about the experience at Tesco. I think that large employers have a key role to play in this and Tesco is one example among others of companies that are doing very well. Rolls-Royce in Derby provides 100 to 200 apprenticeships a year and that goes across the board. Large employers and the SME sector both need to be encouraged. Apprenticeship is a success story and we should all get behind it.
Homeless People
Lord Spicer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the spare capacity in London of hostel places for the homeless.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, London has good hostel provision to meet the current needs of the homeless, and a range of services is provided to help rough sleepers off the streets. We are continuing to improve the quality of hostels, with investment nationally of £42.5 million under the homelessness change programme.
Lord Spicer (Con)
Bearing in mind what my noble friend has just said, why is the number of people sleeping rough on the streets of London likely to rise this year to record levels at Christmas? If one of the reasons is that many of them do not want to accept the accommodation being provided, why is that the case and what are we going to do about it? I raise this as a former Minister for Housing who, some 25 years ago, started, rightly or wrongly, the grants for rough sleepers. Nearly 50 years ago, almost to the day, I was one of those who set up Crisis at Christmas—now called Crisis—which all goes to show that 50 years can be a short time in politics.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for his long-standing interest in, and efforts to combat, rough sleeping. I think that I can be quite confident in saying to your Lordships that none of us wants anyone to end up on the streets. Our first priority in government is prevention, and we have invested £470 million on measures to prevent people ending up on the streets. However, in the sad event that prevention does not work, we need to ensure that those who do end up on the street are supported and moved off them as quickly as possible. That is what we are doing. We have provided £34 million to the GLA, which is using some of that money to fund the No Second Night Out campaign. I am pleased to report to noble Lords that 75% of first-time rough sleepers last year did not spend another night on the streets. Rough sleeping is increasing but we are getting people off the streets more quickly.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
As another former Minister for Housing, I remind the Minister that, by 2005, the previous Government had virtually eliminated the problem of children and families living in hostel accommodation. The situation has deteriorated since then. I am not casting any blame but I have a suggestion. I know that the lady I am about to mention is incredibly busy but, when the Minister goes back to the department, could she commission Louise Casey—who set up the original system in the early part of the previous decade that brought about that result in 2005—to take a few minutes off from dealing with troubled families to have a look at what has gone wrong and why we have ended up with children back in hostels? It is quite unacceptable and totally unnecessary.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I am interested in what the noble Lord says, but the information that I have contradicts some of the points that he makes. The most recent statistics that we have show that the number of local authorities accepting families as homeless is going down. There has also been a drop in the number of families in bed and breakfast accommodation for more than six weeks, which the noble Lord will know is the statutory limit for any family to stay in a B&B. Overall, because of the money that we are investing in prevention, which I spoke about earlier, the time that families spend in temporary accommodation has reduced from 20 months at the start of 2010 to 13 months now.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her contribution. However, is it not true that one-third of local authorities are not meeting that six-week regulation? I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say how much we appreciate the work being done by the various charities and local organisations, especially at this time of year. Churches and so on are doing remarkable work. What are the Government doing to make funding available for the continuation of that facility, to make sure that those who are on the streets have somewhere, especially in the coldest weather, where they can at least have shelter?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My noble friend is right to pay tribute to the charities that work so hard to support people who are homeless and find themselves on the street. With regard to local authorities that have not been meeting the statutory requirement to limit families’ stays in bed and breakfasts to six weeks, I responded to some specific questions on this the last time this topic was discussed at Questions in your Lordships’ House. I mentioned then the money that we had provided to improve the performance of those councils, and we have seen some improvement in that area.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that a significant proportion of the homeless in London are former members of the Armed Forces? It is a scandal that reflects on all of us that these men and women are prepared to go and fight for Her Majesty’s country, but we are not prepared to look after them when they come home. Is it not time for the Ministry of Defence to address this issue and try to get to the roots of it?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The noble Baroness is right to express real concern and disappointment that, in a small number of cases, people who have served this country find themselves homeless. The services that are there to support people who are out on the street are working hard for anybody who is out there on the street, including those who are former armed services personnel. We need to ensure that when people are supported, their reason for being homeless is addressed—and that is something that we are focusing on.
Lord Dykes (LD)
I thank my noble friend for supporting the No Second Night Out campaign, and wish it success. Will she ensure that the borough authorities, the charities and the GLA ensure vigilance and organisation in the last few days up to Christmas Day, when there may be people left on the streets through inadvertence or a lack of organisation because of the holiday period?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Yes, of course. I will also highlight for the benefit of noble Lords another initiative that we have, StreetLink, which is a system that is available for the public to use—I can provide noble Lords with the telephone number and the website address—where people can notify a local authority when they see somebody rough sleeping so that the local authority can go out and offer that person assistance.
Housing: Underoccupancy Charge
(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they will achieve the predicted savings from the underoccupancy charge if affected tenants move into the private rented sector.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, in asking the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest as chair of a housing association.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, moving into the private rented sector is one of a number of options available to people affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy. The published impact assessment considered tenant responses, including moves. Savings from the policy are expected to be around £500 million a year. There is currently no reason to amend this assessment. The independent evaluation that is currently under way will provide more detail of the individual behavioural responses that are being made.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, the Minister wants social tenants with a spare bedroom to free up their homes for the waiting list by moving to smaller flats, mostly in the private rented sector, where rents and therefore housing benefit will be £50 a week or more higher. If they move, the Minister will not make his savings. If they do not move and are fined, the Minister will not make his policy of helping those on the waiting list. The Minister can have his savings or he can have his policy, but he cannot have both. Which does he want?
Lord Freud
My Lords, you have to look at the whole transaction, a bit like a housing chain. If a single person moves into the private rented sector out of a large social sector home, clearly that frees up room for people to move into that home from the private rented sector. That is where either you get a much more efficient allocation or you get the savings.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, in Questions to the Prime Minister on 27 November on the spare room subsidy clawback, Mr Cameron said that,
“what we have done is to exempt disabled people who need an extra room”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/11/13; col. 254.]
For families with a disabled child, there is a blanket exemption. However, households with a disabled adult are subject to the vagaries of local councils using the discretionary housing payment, which has not been great. Does my noble friend agree that now is the time to make a clear exemption, as we do for disabled children, for households with a disabled adult who need a spare room, so that the Prime Minister’s statement of 27 November can be carried out?
Lord Freud
My Lords, the difference between children and adults is that adults can adapt their circumstances in a way that children cannot. We have gone through a judicial review of this policy as it relates to disabled adults. The judges found that it was impossible to reach a coherent definition and that the discretionary housing payment system was created to look after people in those circumstances.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister recently told the House that a review would be conducted and the results published. I think that the date that he gave was after the next general election. Does he accept that there is grave concern all around the House about the result of this policy and will he undertake an interim review as soon as possible to satisfy the concerns raised by Members of your Lordships’ House?
Lord Freud
I am pleased to confirm that, as I have said in the past, the interim review is due to be published in the spring of 2014. I will be most pleased to discuss the findings of that review with Members of the House, who I suspect will be keen to have that dialogue.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, the National Debtline has announced today that the most rapid growth in personal debt is in the area of rent arrears. In the context of the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, will my noble friend agree to examine on a regular basis the way in which personal debt is accounted for by rent arrears and to identify exactly why that is and what remedies might be brought in to suppress the increase of personal debt in this way?
Lord Freud
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right that personal debt in this country is a major problem. There has been a series of important reviews of that in recent weeks. I am looking at it very closely in the context in particular of the introduction of universal credit. That is one of the factors in the review that I mentioned in response to the last question and I will keep it very much in mind.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, will the noble Lord join me in correcting a mistaken view that some have expressed that reducing support for people in council houses and housing association properties who are deemed to have a spare room is only repeating a measure already in place for private sector tenants? Does he agree that the arrangements for private sector tenants are quite different, in that people are given a sum of money—the maximum that they can spend—and are sent out to find a property on the private market, balancing the number of bedrooms against the location and other factors? In particular, a major difference between the two sectors is that in the private rented sector these measures apply only to new and future tenancies and have not been applied retrospectively to people in existing tenancies—namely, the 660,000 people who find themselves covered by a measure that relates to the past and not, as in the private sector, one that relates to future tenancies.
Lord Freud
My Lords, clearly there is a difference between the structures of the social and the private rented sector arrangements but the objective is the same. The taxpayer provides the appropriate amount of money to house that individual or family in the same way in the private rented sector as in the social rented sector.
Pensions
(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they propose to take on the report by the Financial Services Consumer Panel concerning the selling of pensions annuities.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, when people have saved up for retirement, the Government agree that they should get the best from their retirement savings. That is why we are already taking action to combat excessive pension charges. It is also why we set up the Open Market Option Review Group, which introduced measures to prompt consumers to shop around for an annuity and secure a better retirement income. The Financial Conduct Authority is also looking, through its thematic reviews, into the important issues that this report raised. The report is a useful contribution to ongoing work in this area.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister join me in thanking the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail for exposing this latest example of financial institutions cheating their customers? Will he ensure that the Financial Conduct Authority deals with them firmly, as it did yesterday with RBS and Lloyds? Could he also look at some way of ensuring that the people who are punished are those in the institutions responsible and not the bodies themselves, which pass on the costs to their long-suffering customers?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I am not sure that I ever thought I would say this, but I join the noble Lord in thanking those newspapers that have drawn yet another financial problem to more general interest and view. The Financial Conduct Authority has new powers and is already showing that it intends to use them very rigorously. It has powers in respect of individuals as well as institutions, and will use them.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend, in making his statement that it is important that those who have saved throughout their life get the best return on their savings, bear in mind that the Government’s quantitative easing programme is one of the major reasons that annuities are so poor? Can we have some indication of when the Government might abandon QE?
Lord Newby
My Lords, we have discussed many times the fact that low interest rates are a key determinant in supporting growth, and that growth is in the long-term interest of the entire community. The Bank of England has given forward guidance in respect of when interest rates might rise. Monetary policy is firmly in its purview rather than the Government’s.
Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)
My Lords, the research in this report indicates that insurers can make £35,500 out of a £100,000, 25-year pension pot. That illustrates that this is a dysfunctional market. The Government have been told this for years. Given that the annuities market will double by 2015, is there not a case for the Government to consider a standing commission on pensions, which can look at the industry and pensions in the long term to ensure that people are not ripped off and that they get the best deal for their retirement?
Lord Newby
My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the big new development in pensions is around auto-enrolment. In this area, the Government have set a cap on allowable fees, precisely to deal with the problem of high fees going forward. More generally, the FCA is undertaking a thematic review of annuities, which will look at fees among other things. There is a lot going on and we will see action without needing to set up any further bodies to bring it about.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
My Lords, would the Minister not accept that, after the latest in an apparently endless series of disillusioning revelations about the cynicism of too many parts of the financial sector in particular, it is about time that we as a Parliament, and indeed the Government, made clear to the people of this country that there is a limit to what we can do in these issues? They bear on profound moral issues. Perhaps the time is right for us to, in effect, throw the ball back into the court of Mr and Mrs Britain and call upon them to exercise their own, individual moral autonomy and power to effect some sort of reformation of what is becoming a very depressing state of affairs.
Lord Newby
There are obvious limits to what government and Parliament can do, but I have always believed that one of the very important things that Parliament can do is to act as the bully pulpit and set out what it thinks is the correct way of behaviour. In terms of the financial institutions we have instituted, as the noble Lord knows, a number of pieces of legislation in this area but, as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards pointed out, culture is very important—that is, the culture of the industry and also of consumers. A big problem around pensions in particular is that virtually no consumer understands the product that they are buying, which makes it very difficult for us to get people to accept responsibility. They find it very difficult to get to grips with a pretty complicated product.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, unusually, the report of the Financial Services Consumer Panel on annuities is even more alarming than the press reports. Its final paragraph states:
“The chances of mass consumer detriment”—
I emphasise, mass consumer detriment—
“are, in our judgement, too high to trust to current market-driven solutions alone: hence our recommendations for further regulatory and government-led structural reform”.
Will the Minister commit to using the Pensions Bill to require a regulator to set best practice standards for those offering annuities and to require pension schemes to take responsibility for directing savers to brokers who meet those standards?
Lord Newby
My Lords, there is already the open-market option review, which brings together the Government, the regulator, providers and consumer groups. It is looking at how we can promote best practice. There is also an ABI code which, for example, requires insurers to no longer send out application forms so that people take out an annuity automatically with the company with which they have their pension pot. We are bearing down on this issue, and what the report that was produced only this week shows, is that there is further to go. However, we have the structures in a new regulatory framework, and we are determined that it will work.
Business of the House
(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
That the debate on the Motion in the name of Lord Dubs set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of Lord Norton of Louth to two hours.
Health: End of Life
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, my aim in this debate is to consider, in its widest sense, end-of-life care, to note what progress has been made in recent years and to look into the future. I accept that while some of the issues will command broad support in this House and in the country, others are controversial. But there is one thread running through all this: how we can best achieve informed patient choice. We are better able to discuss death today than ever in the past and it is becoming less of a taboo subject. This is in large part down to the work of the hospice movement, other stakeholders such as the Dying Matters coalition, successive Governments who have implemented the end-of-life care strategy, and the ongoing public and parliamentary debate on assisted dying led by Dignity in Dying, to which I owe my thanks for some of the help that it has given me in this debate, and indeed in the past.
I would like to say a little about what has influenced my own views. I remember, as vividly as if it were yesterday, the debate on my noble friend Lord Joffe’s Bill in this House some years ago. I listened hard to that debate; at the beginning of it, I was not even certain where I stood, but by the time I had heard the arguments I realised that I could not vote to deny other people something that I would want for myself. So of course I supported the Bill, and have been a supporter of that cause ever since.
It was at about that time that a friend of mine with motor neurone disease was dying. I went to see him, his wife and children around him, and he tapped out a message to me on a keyboard, the only way in which he could communicate because he was no longer able to speak. His message was that I should support the change in the law to permit assisted dying—a very passionate plea from a person who could not actually speak with passion. That was almost the last time I saw him because he died at home shortly afterwards. It moved me enormously in my attitude to this whole issue.
It is worth noting that palliative care, an area of healthcare that focuses on alleviating the suffering of patients, is, by comparison with other established forms of healthcare, a fairly modern development. I believe that palliative care merged with the hospice movement in the late 1960s, and since then it has made great progress to ensure that patients at the end of life can die comfortably and peacefully. Of course there is still some way to go in making this a reality for all people at the end of life, but I believe that this House will be united in its admiration for how far we have come in such a short space of time and would like to join with me in expressing my admiration for the healthcare professionals, in both the NHS and the wider hospice movement, who have dedicated their lives to alleviating the suffering of their patients.
However, we know that the journey to date has not been without difficulties and areas of controversy. The House will be aware of the recent concerns raised in the media about the Liverpool care pathway for the dying. These concerns resulted in an independent review by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, in July, which recommended the phasing out of the pathway, a recommendation that the Government accepted. There are other documented cases where standards of care at the end of life have fallen well short of what we expect, some of them highlighted by the Patients Association. I understand that in the near future the Government will make proposals to replace the Liverpool care pathway, and I wonder if the Minister can give us some idea of when this might be expected.
This debate comes at a critical time for the development argument of end-of-life care. The Government have asked NHS England to lead an alliance of stakeholders in creating and delivering,
“the knowledge base, the education, training and skills and the long-term commitment needed to make high quality care for dying patients a reality, not just an ambition”.
Separate to the review, and as a matter of profound conscience, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has tabled an Assisted Dying Bill that awaits its Second Reading in, I believe, the next Session of Parliament. I hope that with the combination of the NHS England review and my noble and learned friend’s Bill we will be able to develop a broader approach to end-of-life decision-making in the next two years, an approach that puts patients first.
I turn to what I understand by patient choice. Some people are uncomfortable about that concept. There is a concern that the patient may not make a free choice but may somehow feel under pressure from those close to him or her, possibly not always from worthy motives—I have had that point put to me. However, it is only right to point out that there are no safeguards at all in going to Switzerland to have an assisted death provided that one can afford the air fare, so my noble and learned friend’s Bill would actually improve the situation significantly by having safeguards in the process. The issue is whether there can be satisfactory safeguards for an ill patient who may also be in considerable pain. I believe firmly that this can be done otherwise I would not support changes in the law, because I believe that these safeguards are essential.
I should add that there are those who oppose people’s choices at the end of life because they are based on sincerely held—although, I believe, faulty—religious beliefs. To me, though, and I suspect to most people, the desire not to suffer or to see others suffer against their wishes is a worthy sentiment, and I see greater patient choice as ensuring that people do not suffer against their wishes at the end of life.
Of course, suffering is subjective. To some, the inability to spend their final days in familiar surroundings may cause distress; to others it may not. Some may have a higher threshold of pain than others or a stronger desire to live. Within reason, though, and with sufficient resources, informed choice can surely accommodate individual wishes and preferences that would enable the patient to have what they themselves consider to be a good death.
The End of Life Care Strategy published by the previous Government in 2008, and taken forward by the present Government, has led to increased investment in end-of-life care and more people dying at home. The strategy recognises the importance of treating people,
“as an individual, with dignity and respect; being without pain and other symptoms; being in familiar surroundings and being in the company of close family and/or friends”.
The right,
“to be involved in discussions and decisions about your health and care, including your end of life care, and to be given information to enable you to do this”,
is now also reflected in the NHS constitution.
Furthermore, I understand that the Government are giving active consideration to the merits of the Macmillan campaign, championed by my noble friend Lord Warner in this House, to provide free social care at the end of life so that people can stay in their own home with adequate support.
I do not believe that choice is simply matter of saying, “I want to be at home”. Choice is wider than that, but I do not want to diminish the importance, for those who want to do it, of dying at home. I believe that there are other people who would also like greater choice over their care and treatment at the end of life regardless of where that care is delivered. We need a broader approach to patient-centred care at the end of life. On this I wish to commend the work of Sue Ryder and its excellent report A Time and a Place: What People Want at the End of Life. It states:
“End of life care policy and practice has, for some years, focused on ensuring people die in their preferred place of death and usually at home. But this focus on where people die—rather than what they want at the end of life—has inhibited personalisation and informed choice for patients and their families. It has led to a lack of proper scrutiny of the experience of dying at home and left other settings neglected when it comes to developing them as good places to die”.
The report goes on:
“People’s first priority at the end of life is to be free from pain and discomfort (78% of respondents said this would be important to them), followed by being surrounded by their loved ones (71%) having privacy and dignity (53%), and being in familiar surroundings and being in a calm and peaceful atmosphere (both 45%)”.
It concludes:
“No care setting is perfect—home, hospices, hospital and care home all have their weaknesses—but all can do more to ensure that no matter where a person dies, the experience will deliver as much as possible on the outcomes people value at the end of life”.
Turning to what sort of care people wish to receive at the end of life, a poll commissioned by Compassion in Dying, the partner charity of the campaign organisation Dignity in Dying, recently found that a majority would want little or no medical intervention at the end of life. Specifically, it found that more than half of adults—57%—would want only comfort care, 13% would want limited intervention, and just over one in 10—12%—would prefer all available treatment, so people have a range of views about what they want, which is why I believe that choice is such an important factor. Relevant recommendations have been made by Sue Ryder, Compassion in Dying and other stakeholders which I would urge the Government to consider.
Let me draw attention to one specific recommendation by Compassion in Dying, which is that there should be a positive duty on healthcare professionals to inform patients of all their rights at the end of life, including the ability to make an advance decision, or a health and welfare lasting power of attorney, if there is a reason to believe that patients may lose capacity.
The wider issue of assisted dying is surely one of conscience, and it is a matter for Parliament to resolve rather than the Government. I welcome the Assisted Dying Bill that has been tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. It seems inevitable, as an issue of conscience, that this choice must be enacted and safeguarded separately from other initiatives to promote patient choice at the end of life. I recognise there is opposition from some quarters to this approach—I have heardit before in this House and in Grand Committee—but I sincerely believe that at the end of life people have the right to choose to be free from intolerable pain and discomfort, provided it is their free choice.
Of course palliative care can alleviate much pain and discomfort, but not in all cases for all people, so assisted dying, with safeguards, is but one of many legitimate choices dying patients should have.
I return to the experience in Oregon, which of course introduced assisted dying about 15 years ago. All the assessments conclude that the law worked safely. Eligibility has never been extended beyond terminal illness, nor has there been pressure for it to be extended. Numbers are very low. Assisted deaths have remained stable since 2008 at around 0.2% of all deaths per year. There is no evidence that potentially vulnerable groups are negatively affected. Around 40% of dying people who meet the strict safeguards to obtain life-ending medication never use it, simply taking comfort in having the option. That is a crucial point. It means in practice that people in Oregon who are terminally ill and in great pain can be in hospice care, knowing that if things become intolerable for them, they can opt to take the medication that will end their lives. Because people in Oregon feel that they are in full control, they seldom exercise that choice. That, to me, is one of the particular arguments in favour of a change in the law.
Compare that with the position here, where people have to agonise over whether to make the journey to Switzerland before they are really ready in their own mind to end their life. Yet they worry that they may be too ill to make that journey. This seems to be an intolerable dilemma which we impose upon people. Assisted dying and palliative care are not, and should not be, alternatives. As was stated by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, in a debate last week, the former chief executive of the Oregon Hospice Association, Ann Jackson, told the Select Committee on my noble friend Lord Joffe’s Assisted Dying Bill that the Oregon Act had not adversely affected the hospice movement. In fact, hospice provision had improved in Oregon since the passage of the Act. Last year, 97% of those who had an assisted death in Oregon had been enrolled in hospice care.
Assisted dying and palliative care are therefore complementary. Choice at the end of life does not begin and end with where you die. Within safeguards, and in line with public opinion, dying people should not have to suffer against their wishes. It is time for change. If we entrust dying patients to refuse potentially life-prolonging treatment, we should also entrust them to choose whether they want an assisted death.
We had a debate in Grand Committee last week. I was not very happy with some of the comments made from the government Front Bench, particularly using words such as “killing” and so on. It limited the argument and was not very helpful. Present law and practice allow doctors to administer sufficient doses of pain relief to end a patient’s life, so long as they can argue that it is not their direct intention to end life but to minimise suffering: the principle known as “double effect”. These things occur, so there is not that steep threshold over which we should go, as has been suggested.
The beauty and nature of choice is that it accommodates different views. Within reason, it accommodates the views of those who wish to prolong life as much as it accommodates the views of those who wish to hasten death at the end of life. While it is the job of Parliament, the Government and healthcare professionals to ensure that people’s choices are informed at the end of life, where necessary through upfront safeguards, we must also find it within ourselves to respect people’s choices even when they differ from ours. That is the message I want to leave with your Lordships today.
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)
My Lords, we will all of us die one day, and how we die is as important as how we live. This is about the best possible care at the end of life, and the choices which that affords. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue.
As a society, we are becoming personally less familiar with death. At one time, death was an integral part of life. Most deaths took place at home, with family present or nearby. My husband and I both come from large Irish Catholic families and it was the usual practice for your loved ones to be laid out at home for family and friends to pay their last respects before burial. However, with advances in medical science—advances for which we are all enormously grateful—death has increasingly become a clinical act that takes place in hospital, often after an emergency admission to an acute ward and, sadly, all too often in isolation. We have come to believe that medicine has the answer for everything.
We cannot recreate a society from another age, and each age must shape its own way. However, it is a fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, that when questioned, most people say that they would wish to die at home. We should strive to make that possible, wherever possible. That means greater investment in community care. It also means building on the investment which successive Governments have made in the development of specialist palliative care—an investment that has made this country a world leader in end-of-life care.
Those are the choices that I want to see embraced at the end of life. What I do not wish to see is the right to choose when to die, with assisted suicide enshrined in law as one of those choices for some people.
There is nothing more distressing than witnessing someone you love in pain and with little hope of recovery. I completely understand the honourable intentions of those who support a change in the law to license “assisted dying”. However, in reality that means licensing doctors to involve themselves in deliberately bringing about the deaths of some of their patients.
In the Bill of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, now before your Lordships’ House, responsibility for assisting suicide is placed on the shoulders of doctors. However, most doctors do not want that responsibility, and nor do their professional bodies. The Royal College of Physicians has stated explicitly that a doctor’s duty of care for patients,
“does not include being, in any way, part of their suicide”.
We need to remember that the law exists to protect us all—especially the more vulnerable among us. It is hard to imagine anyone more vulnerable than someone who is struggling to come to terms with their mortality and who is worried about the impact of their illness on those they love. The last thing they need is an invitation to take their own life. Instead they need and deserve our unfailing care and protection.
Lord Taverne (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support the Motion so eloquently and persuasively moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
The official position at the moment puts the law in a state that is indefensible. The Director of Public Prosecutions decides whether to prosecute those who help people suffering from an incurable disease who want to die but cannot travel on their own to Dignitas in Switzerland. She decides on a case-by-case basis, at her own discretion.
Take a case of bank robbery. The driver who drives a bank robber to the bank and helps him escape after the robbery is clearly guilty of aiding and abetting. The Director of Public Prosecutions does not say, “I will exercise my discretion whether to prosecute, and I won’t prosecute if, say, the driver intended to share the proceeds of the robbery with his poor old grandmother”. Aiding and abetting a bank robbery is a crime, whatever the driver’s motives.
The law about assisted suicide, as it stands, is equally clear. To help someone die is a serious crime, punishable by up to 14 years of imprisonment. But what is the difference between taking someone to Switzerland to help them to die and driving a bank robber to a bank? Both are equally guilty of a crime. However, when it comes to assisting someone to die, the Director of Public Prosecutions says, “Sometimes I will decide it is a crime and sometimes not. It is entirely for me to decide”. She would never say that in a case of assisting a bank robbery. This practice brings the whole system of justice into disrepute. It makes the law, to quote Mr Bumble, “a ass”. Indeed, that most eminent judge, the late Lord Bingham, said that the law was a mess and needed revision.
In the past, when some laws came to be regarded as intolerable, juries would ignore the law and acquit. At one time it was a capital offence to steal goods worth more than 40 shillings. Juries were required to make two findings: did the defendant steal, and what were the stolen goods worth? If someone stole £10, juries would often find that, yes, he had stolen the goods, and decide that the goods were worth 39 shillings and sixpence, since 40 shillings was the level at which the capital offence became due. Time after time, juries made a nonsense of the law, and the law was changed.
A vast majority of the public consistently tell pollsters that they support assisted suicide and favour a change in the law. I believe the reason is obvious. They want a change because so many have personal experience of the suffering undergone by a dying family member or friend. There is a mass of anecdotal evidence that, because the law is unjust, it is often disregarded by many doctors, who deliberately give some patients an overdose of morphine to end their suffering. But the law says that mercy killing is murder, for which the mandatory penalty is life, even if the act is a compassionate response to a dying person’s request for help to die. I regard that law as monstrous and intolerable.
Perhaps one day, in cases of mercy killing or assisted dying in the most compassionate circumstances, defending counsel may remind juries of their absolute right to acquit. Not long ago, Clive Ponting, acting on principle, broke the Official Secrets Act; his jury cocked a snook at the law and acquitted him. Juries should be reminded that their absolute right to acquit is one of the great virtues of the jury system.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, it is nearly 10 years ago that I was appointed a member of the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House on the assisted dying Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, under the as ever brilliant chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. It is on the question of assisted dying and legislation to implement it that I shall concentrate today. I put on record my passionate support for the hospice movement, which has come both from personal experience and from my time as a Minister with responsibility for hospices in the Department of Health. That commitment extends, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said in his excellent opening speech, to all settings in which people die.
When my own father was dying, I was deputed as the member of the family who should go and put the question to him—we thought that this was the only question—as to whether he wanted to die at home. It was a difficult conversation to have, more so because he thought that I was absolutely mad to be having this conversation. He turned to me in his way and said, “Well, dear, we’ll just have to see how it goes and what’s best at the time”. As it happened, he did die at home, but he would not have wanted to do so if that was a terribly distressing situation for my mother and it was more appropriate for him to be in another setting. That element of individuality in these choices is tremendously important.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I came to the Select Committee as someone without objection in principle, understanding about the hard cases and moved by them but as an ex-law student who had had it drummed into me that hard cases made bad law. Therefore, I was concerned as to whether adequate safeguards could be incorporated to make sure that there was no pressure on individuals to avail themselves of this option. My experience of taking evidence, visiting Oregon and going to other jurisdictions, persuaded me that it was possible to provide those safeguards, and I think that the Bill proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is particularly robust in that respect.
There were two other things that I learnt in the course of the past 10 years. One was that no one can speak for their demographic on this issue. Different people take different opinions from the same sort of background. I cannot speak for 64 year-old female Jewish parliamentarians in good health. There are probably quite a few of them around. I cannot speak for that group. There are differences of opinion among doctors—I am a member of the General Medical Council—nurses, people with disabilities, people of faith and, indeed, ministers of religion. However, overall, there is consistent general public support for a change in the law on this issue.
The second thing I have learnt concerns the insurance cover value of assisted dying legislation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred. In Oregon, the latest figures for 2007 show that 9,800 people considered a prescription for assisted death out of 30,000 who died. Just over 1,000 talked to a doctor about the prescription. Of these, 85 received the prescription and only 49 used it. However, other people gained great confidence and strength from knowing that if life was intolerable at the end, something could be done. I gain confidence from the fact that I have in place an advance directive about what should happen to me. I think that that confidence should be extended to others through legislation.
Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I must begin by thanking your Lordships for the warmth of welcome extended to me here. Thank you also to the staff for their guidance and help. I look forward very much to serving with you in this House and count it an immense privilege to be here.
It is particularly poignant for me to contribute to this debate on patient choice at the end of life as my own father is very seriously ill. Over the last few days I have been involved in a number of conversations with medical staff and my close family about the questions before us today. I am sure that these conversations are familiar to many noble Lords. The matters we debate are of profound importance to those who are near the end of their life, and to their wider families.
The diocese of Sheffield, where I now serve, covers most of south Yorkshire and parts of east Yorkshire. Its communities are vibrant, coherent, friendly and welcoming. Its manufacturing is alive and growing. There are vigorous partnerships between industry, civic life and the universities, including in the area of healthcare. Its people are deeply committed to their local institutions, including their National Health Service.
The city of Sheffield has this year embraced a new commitment to fairness and equality through its Fairness Commission and aims to become the fairest city in Britain in the coming years, including in equality of access to all forms of healthcare.
Like many others, I am grateful to those who have produced the independent review of the Liverpool care pathway. There is much in their report to be welcomed: the valuing of end-of-life care as a specific discipline, the move away from the language of pathway to a personal care plan, the greater shift to patient choice, and greater clarity in decision-making. Like others, I welcome particularly the continued valuing of the hospice movement. The greater shift to patient choice commended in the review does not, of course, include extending patient choice to physician-assisted suicide, something to which I remain opposed and which seems a very different kind of conversation.
I also welcome the work of the Leadership Alliance for the Care of Dying People, and in particular the collaborative partnership and way of working it has established between the medical profession, patients and their families. I note the sense of urgency among those involved in end-of-life care with whom I have spoken that proper provision should be in place soon in every place to replace the Liverpool care pathway, lest an imperfect system be made even worse by a period of uncertainty and confusion.
More Care, Less Pathway calls for a proper national conversation about death, which the Leadership Alliance is taking forward. This takes us to the heart of the issue. The death of someone we love, our own death, is far more than the cessation of life for medical reasons. Death is an existential event which raises and asks significant questions. Those questions are often suppressed, masked by humour or denied, but surface in times of vulnerability throughout our lives. What is it of the human person which endures? What light does death cast on the way in which we live? What is a good death? What does it mean to come to terms with our mortality and, from the Christian perspective, our vocation to eternity?
For all these reasons and more, the ministry of chaplains in our hospitals and hospices remains a vital part of end-of-life care. Chaplains are present to minister to those of all faiths and of none. They are drawn, of course, from every faith. They are present to offer spiritual support to the dying and to the bereaved, to patients and staff. They are a vital part of the team in end-of-life care as a specialist resource, as experts able to offer training to colleagues and as a point of referral in moments of crisis. I invite the Minister in the response to this debate both to affirm the key role of chaplains in this context and to ensure that the part they play is written clearly into the documents which will shape end-of-life care into the future.
I look forward very much to playing my part in the business of your Lordships’ House.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure for me both to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield for his thoughtful and poignant maiden speech, and to welcome him to your Lordships’ House. I see that, like Moses, he chose to read from a tablet.
I am married to an Anglican whose father and grandfather were, for more than 60 and 50 years, Anglican priests, and there are eight ordained Anglican clergy crossing the generations on my wife’s side of the family. As an outsider, I have seen something of the extraordinary selflessness that characterises the men and women from whom the right reverend Prelate has been drawn.
Steven Croft is a Yorkshireman who, after graduating from the University of Oxford, studied for the priesthood and obtained his doctorate at Durham. After serving in parishes and as a diocesan adviser in Wakefield, he returned to Durham with his family as warden of the university’s Cranmer Hall, St John’s College. This required him to lead the training of men and women for Church of England ministry. He thrived in his new responsibilities, wrote widely about his experiences as a parish priest and began to express increasing concern about the urgent need for the church to engage with a society that has been drifting spiritually but where the Christian faith is needed like never before.
Shortly after Rowan Williams—now the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Williams of Oystermouth—was appointed as the Archbishop of Canterbury, the right reverend Prelate became Archbishops’ Missioner and Fresh Expressions Team Leader. For four years he oversaw the emergence of Fresh Expressions, an initiative of the most reverend Primates the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, in conjunction with the Methodist Church. Fresh Expressions encourages and resources new ways for the church to engage with the world. The movement has resulted in thousands of new congregations being formed alongside more traditional churches. The right reverend Prelate is known as a very shrewd and strategic thinker. The energy and determination that he has brought to his work thus far will prepare him perfectly for his duties in your Lordships’ House. Sheffield is lucky to have him. I have no doubt that, as the years pass, we will hear many more thoughtful and challenging contributions to our proceedings, and I know that I speak for all sides of your Lordships’ House when I thank him again for making such an excellent start with his maiden speech.
It was an illustrious English woman, a devout Anglican, Dame Cicely Saunders, whom I was fortunate to meet, who was the founder of the modern hospice movement in England. Dame Cicely trained as a nurse, a medical social worker and finally as a physician. Involved from 1948 onwards with the care of patients with terminal illness, she founded St Christopher’s Hospice in 1967 as the first hospice linking expert pain and symptom control, compassionate care, teaching and clinical research. St Christopher’s has been a pioneer in the field of palliative medicine, which is now established world wide. Like the late Lady Ryder of Warsaw, Sue Ryder, whose charity the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to earlier, Dame Cicely was resolutely opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia. She once said:
“You matter because you are you, and you matter to the end of your life. We will do all we can not only to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die”.
In declaring a non-pecuniary interest as a patron of two hospices, I stand with the hospice movement, the disability rights groups and the British Medical Association in believing that we should never confuse the importance of providing end-of-life care with the legalisation of euthanasia. Were the law to change, we would see the emasculation of the hospice movement but we would also see a fundamental change in the relationship between doctors and their patients, especially the vulnerable.
Nor does experience overseas, which has been referred to, encourage me to change my mind. We are told that in the US state of Oregon, one of the handful of places where these practices have been legalised, everything is fine and the law is working well. That is a highly questionable assertion. There is no audit system in place for Oregon’s law. It is totally dependent on the honest reporting of doctors. What we do know, from the annual statistical reports, is that the number of legal assisted deaths is rising year on year. In 2012, the number was nearly five times that in 1998, and the latest figure is the equivalent of between 1,100 and 1,200 such suicides per annum in England and Wales. It is claimed that the rising trend has levelled off. It has not. The official data show that the death rate from assisted suicide has increased by over 20% in the past five years.
There is another reason for being cautious about Oregon. The latest report states that nearly half of those in Oregon who asked for lethal drugs with which to end their lives listed as a reason that they feared being or becoming a burden on their families. In today’s society, where we are living longer and where younger generations are often burdened with debt and other responsibilities, such fears are all too natural, and I fear that they will become even more so. For those reasons, I hope that we will resist the temptation to legalise something which on two occasions your Lordships have voted against.
The Earl of Arran (Con)
My Lords, last week I spoke of my experience as yet another member of your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill. I travelled to Oregon, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, in 2004 to see how the Death with Dignity Act works in practice, it having been enacted there 10 years before. I wish to talk further briefly on Oregon simply because we think that the Act works well.
We often hear from opponents that there has been a meteoric, inexorable rise in the number of people who have an assisted death in Oregon. Quite aside from the fact that a modest rise should be expected in a new system such as this—proving, surely, that the system is working well—we are still looking at a very small number of cases each year. There have been fewer than 80 cases each year, representing less than a quarter of 1% of all deaths in that state. In this country, as has already been said, that would amount to approximately 1,000 to 1,200 people.
What better proof can there be of the law’s effectiveness than the continued support of Oregonians themselves? They voted to retain the Act by 60% to 40%, and polling consistently confirms that between 75% and 80% of Oregonians continue to support the Death with Dignity Act.
I can suggest several reasons why that support remains so high. First, as I have already said, assisted dying is not running rampant across Oregon. It is used by a small number of people who suffer from intractable distress. However, while assisted dying is not used widely in Oregon, it offers reassurance—again, as has already been said—to a great many people. Forty per cent of those who request medication that would allow them to have an assisted death and meet the safeguards to access the medication do not use it and die naturally. Only around 1% or 2% of those who begin the discussion with their doctor about assisted dying actually go on to take life-ending medication.
The Act offers reassurance to dying people that they may avoid unnecessary suffering; it offers reassurance to healthcare professionals that they may discuss openly and frankly with their patients the whole range of choices at the end of life; and it offers reassurance to family members that they need not face the impossible moral dilemma of breaking the law and helping a loved one to die, as is the case in this country. The fears raised by those who are opposed to a change in the law have simply not materialised. There are no documented cases of abuse in Oregon. Vulnerable people are not disproportionately affected by the Death with Dignity Act. There have been no public calls to extend the Act to cover those who are not terminally ill or do not have mental capacity, proving that the alleged slippery slope does not exist. Indeed, assisted dying is now law in the states of Washington, Denver and Montana.
As I said last week, palliative care continues to play a vital role alongside assisted dying in Oregon, showing that they are not mutually exclusive. Of course, we must offer excellent palliative care for all, but we must also acknowledge that some people who are dying, even with the very best palliative care, will suffer at the end of life. For this small but significant minority of people, our current law is not working. As so often happens, it tends to be society as a whole that eventually brings about the great humanitarian reforms. Witness, first, the Sexual Offences Act 1967 on homosexual reform, which incidentally was introduced by my father in your Lordships’ House; and, secondly, the Abortion Act 1967 and further such legislation in 1990. Ultimately, it is the will of the people that pushes open the barriers and Parliament has to act. Both of those reforms involved the possibility of death. This Act deals directly with death and it is critical therefore that we get it right. Against a background of a growing majority of public support, I believe that we have got it right.
We have been arguing among ourselves for a long time—too long—about this reform. Now, dithering is done and Parliament must act soon—and very soon. Finally, none of us here today asked to come into this world. Should we therefore not have a choice to say how we might wish to depart from it?
Lord Joffe (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, join the welcome of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, and I look forward to his contribution to the important issues that this House considers.
The starting point for the debate must surely be the law on personal choice in England and Wales. The law has been considered in a large number of cases and was admirably summarised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in her judgment in 2002 in the case of Ms B v an NHS Hospital. In it she endorsed the 1993 judgment of Lord Donaldson of Lymington in Re T (Adult) when he held that,
“the patient’s right of choice exists whether the reasons for making that choice are rational, irrational, unknown or even non-existent”.
Likewise, Robins, Judge of Appeal, in the case of Malette v Shulman, held that:
“The right to determine what shall be done with one’s own body is a fundamental right in our society. The concepts inherent in this right are the bedrock upon which the principles of self-determination and individual autonomy are based”.
It is against this law that we should be considering the various options for patient choice at the end of life. These include the following options. Option 1, palliative care: where it is available it is the preferred option for the overwhelming majority of patients. However, despite the excellence of UK palliative care it is not the solution for a small but significant minority of patients—a point accepted with a measure of reluctance even by palliative care professionals.
Option 2, refusal of further life-saving medical treatment: all patients have this right to bring their suffering to an end.
Option 3: patients have the right to starve themselves to death by refusing either food or water. This takes great courage, self-determination and suffering because weeks can pass before the patient withers away.
Option 4, terminal sedation: the patient is so heavily sedated that he or she remains unconscious for all or most of the time until they die. However, it is not certain that patients can insist upon this option.
Option 5, a request by patient for removal of life-saving equipment: based on the case of Ms B, doctors are obliged in law to accept an instruction from mentally competent patients to remove them from the equipment so that they can end their suffering.
Option 6, the double effect option: the doctor at the request of a patient can prescribe potentially lethal medication to control the patient’s pain which could end the patient’s life.
Option 7, the Director of Public Prosecutions option: provided that the patient has mental capacity he or she can be assisted to die by any person except a doctor if the assistance was given on the grounds of compassion.
Option 8, assisted dying: this is not yet an option but one wonders why not in the light of all the options open which are dependent on choice. This should be a compassionate option but it is currently not available because our law prohibits it. This is why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has introduced the Assisted Dying Bill to change the law so that mentally competent patients who choose that option can end their suffering through ending their lives.
The only limitations upon patients making choices on their own lives is that they should have mental capacity and should not, when selecting their option, put vulnerable members of society at risk. In the case of assisted dying, this risk would be prevented by an array of safeguards introduced in the Bill of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer.
In congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on introducing this debate and agreeing with his unqualified support for the Bill of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, I ask the opponents of that Bill one question, which so far they have never answered: what option do they propose for the suffering of terminally ill patients for whom palliative care is not the solution and who make an informed decision to end their suffering by ending their lives? Surely that option cannot be that they continue to suffer terribly until they eventually die.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, before the next noble Lord rises to his feet, I remind all noble Lords that this is a time-limited debate. That means that when the clock shows “4”, they should look to conclude their remarks.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am new to your Lordships’ House but not new to this issue. It is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, as it was the fact that his Bill did not cover Scotland that was, in part, the reason for me lodging a Private Member’s Bill in the Scottish Parliament in 2005.
My Bill did not propose euthanasia, and nor did it concern all adults. It did not concern the elderly, the infirm or the depressed. It concerned mentally competent adults coming to the end of a terminal illness who were seeking to be able to choose the precise timing of their death. Many of those who opposed my Bill did so by opposing things that it did not stand for. The issue is now being carried forward ably in the Scottish Parliament by the independent MSP Margo MacDonald.
It is a personal sadness to me that in the eight years since my proposal people have continued to come to the end of their life without the legal protection for them to choose how to spend their final days. The law gives some protections, but they are primarily not for the patient.
After a landmark case in Scotland in 1996, the then Lord Advocate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, issued a statement that he would not authorise the prosecution of a doctor if the doctor, acting in good faith and with the authority of the Court of Session, withdrew life-sustaining treatment from a patient with the result that the patient died. Commenting on the case, Professor Sheila McLean of Glasgow University’s Institute of Law and Ethics in Medicine said:
“What our law does, therefore, is to endorse decisions which will result in the deaths of certain patients (most notably those who cannot express a preference) but not those who are competent to ask for aid in dying”.
There are further protections for the medical professions if they stop medical treatment that is keeping a patient alive but not making them better. Such futile treatment, as so defined, can be withdrawn, as they describe, without legal repercussion. Indeed, mention has been made in the debate of the double effect. However, if a mentally competent patient who is coming to the end of their life wishes to choose the precise timing of their death, no protection is allowed for—unless, of course, they wish to starve without hydration and to have their treatment withdrawn.
What is also indefensible is the current state of affairs in Scotland, where people do not even know if they may be prosecuted for supporting the choice of a patient to travel somewhere that does afford them that protection. As noble Lords will be aware, the DPP guidance does not apply to Scotland. The previous guidance had been provided for the medical professions, but successive Lord Advocates have repeatedly refused my calls for greater clarity for those who are coming to the end of their lives. This is quite simply a horrendous status quo, and the Scottish authorities need to act to remedy it.
I led a debate in the Scottish Parliament in similar terms to those of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, to whom I pay sincere tribute for bringing this issue before us today. The debate was held in the Scottish Parliament on Wednesday, 26 March 2008. The preceding Saturday I had been with a lifelong friend and mentor of mine who was in palliative care in Berwick-upon-Tweed. In the debate I said:
“He is a man of strong faith. He told me that he knows that he is leaving this world for a better one, and that his time to do that is now upon him. He has asked for treatment to be withdrawn and is now receiving only increasing amounts of palliative medicines ... He told me that he is not afraid to die, and he has made the arrangements for his funeral. He has instructed that it will be forbidden for anyone to cry at his thanksgiving … My friend has celebrated life all his life and has helped others … he has asked us, if we remember his life when he is no longer with us, to ensure that other people’s wishes can be respected as they approach the end of their lives, if his wishes cannot be respected”,
in asking for assistance at the end of his. His refusing medication and then food and water finally took its toll and, three days after my debate, he died.
Let us in this place recognise that we enhance society, we strengthen life and the love of our loved ones, and we cherish life more, if those who request it are given the protection in their final days that is currently denied them.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, one day we will look back on our present law on assisted dying with the same wry surprise as we now look back on our past laws on homosexuality, capital and corporal punishment, abortion and, indeed, attempted suicide. Let it be remembered that we used to prosecute people who attempted but failed to take their own lives. I believe that the present law is not merciful, but merciless.
Of course there are profound difficulties in devising the right legislation, with real dangers to be avoided and real concerns to be met, and of course it is imperative that nothing is done to imperil the continuing availability of the very best palliative care for those whose lives are drawing to a close. We must recognise the vulnerability of the terminally ill and ensure that they are not subject to the least pressure to end their lives a day earlier than needs be. Obviously, assistance must be given only to those of sound mind with a clear and settled intention of ending their lives early. All these safeguards seem to me to be fully enshrined in the draft Bill of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. If I have any reservations about that Bill, they are that it is too restrictive rather than too extensive in its application.
Let us take someone like the late Mr Tony Nicklinson, whose posthumous appeal has been heard this very week by the Supreme Court, although not yet decided. Mr Nicklinson would have been unable to invoke the Bill of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for two distinct reasons. First, his condition, insupportable though he found it after suffering for so long, was not terminal in the sense of dictating that he was likely to die within six months. Secondly, his case was argued on the basis that he could not himself do whatever was required actually to end his life. He needed more than assistance to commit suicide, and in fact he needed what under the present law can only be described as mercy killing. One might have thought, with his position being even more helpless than that of someone who can at least self-administer the final medication, that the law should be, if anything, the readier to allow him the choice of death.
I am, for my part, no less interested in how voluntary euthanasia is working out in Holland and Belgium, where it applies, than in how assisted dying is working out in Oregon and the various other American states where it is practised. As far as it goes, I shall certainly support the Bill of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. Surely the underlying principle must be to promote human dignity and autonomy and to allow—always when consistent with the rights of others—the individual his choice as to how he should end his life, no less than as to how he should live it.
My final point is one that has been made, and rightly made, by a number of other noble Lords. The great advantage of the Bill would be to give the terminally ill the knowledge that they have a safety net available if things get too terrible. In some cases, that confidence and assurance—that the time and manner of their ending is ultimately in their own hands—will not only give them peace of mind but actually prolong their lives, by deciding them against committing suicide early, while they are still able to do so unaided. That, I recollect, was very much part of Mrs Purdy’s thinking in the very last case that we heard in the House of Lords as Law Lords—the subject of that picture in Committee Room 1, “The Last Judgment”. I wish the Bill of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the greatest of fortune.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I join other Members of the House in welcoming the reinforcements to the Bishops’ Benches. I will make three brief points in my contribution, the first of which does not have a direct connection with assisted suicide. We typically have long waiting lists today for transplantation surgery in this country, due to an absence of an adequate supply of donated organs. I hope that we will do as much as we can, and more, to encourage people to carry organ donation consent cards and to engender a culture in society in which transplantation and donation of organs are encouraged, especially for those whose death comes in an untimely and unchosen way. This is a matter of choice at the point of death, as are the things that we are discussing in the main part of this debate.
Some religious communities exhibit a particular reluctance to support organ donation, which often works to the disadvantage of the members of that community who are waiting for transplantation. For some time, efforts have been made to overcome this reluctance. Earlier this week, a new interfaith organ donation action plan was launched, backed by the NHS and with the active involvement of a number of churches including the Church of England. I mention this simply to underline that there are various issues connected with choice at the point of death beyond the main issue of today’s debate.
Turning to issues of choice in relation to assisted suicide, I acknowledge the strength of the momentum for legalising assisted suicide, which has been well illustrated in the contributions to the debate so far. I must acknowledge the state of public opinion on the matter, which I believe is likely to get stronger. For a society that has now embraced abortion by choice, the move to assisted suicide by choice might seem, in moral terms, rather a modest step. I am surprised that this connection is not made more often, although two noble Lords in today’s debate have acknowledged it and, in last week’s rat-a-tat-tat debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made quite a lot of it, saying that the parallel between abortion and assisted suicide was connected by issues, as she put it, of common humanity. Whether one accepts that parallel or not, and whatever one makes of the parallel, I believe that the wider social context is crucial to our debates on this subject. Choice always has a context, and the context of our society has changed and is changing. I need to acknowledge that.
I remain personally opposed to the change in the law that is in the Bill of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. But the question with which I wrestle is: on what basis can I prevent others who take a different view from making their choices on the basis of a change in the law? It is a somewhat open question but I think I am still persuaded that in order to sustain justice for the vulnerable in our competitive and individualistic society—the context in which we are discussing this matter—there would have to be very powerful bulwarks in the law to prevent the exploitation of the weak and vulnerable.
Even with the safeguards in the draft Bill, changes in the law tend to create their own momentum, as has been well illustrated with what has happened with abortion. For me, that is where the problem will lie if a change in the law is based too much on the notions of choice and autonomy to which a number of noble Lords have referred very centrally. If you accept assisted suicide fundamentally on the basis of autonomous choice, how can you simply leave it to a very restricted group who are believed to be terminally ill? Logically, one day or another, sooner or later, it would have to be extended.
That leads me to my current conclusion: that the risks inherent in legalising assisted suicide still outweigh the benefits that might accrue.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, the whole House ought to be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for giving us this important and necessary opportunity to discuss this matter, although of course we do not have long enough to do it real justice.
At the heart of the debate there is, unfortunately, an illusion or a self-deception: the suggestion that under the present regime the medical profession does not get involved in determining the timing or circumstances of the death of its patients. In fact, as we all know, for a number of generations it has been pretty widespread practice for doctors who have a patient who is in distress right at the end of life to accelerate the process. One doctor put it to me as, “helping the patient on his way”, generally by administering a lethal dose of an opiate or perhaps a barbiturate. This is not talked about because of course it is against the law, so there is a great deal of hypocrisy here, but we should not have any illusion about the truth.
More frequently in recent years, the patient has been referred to a hospice and there a clinical decision is taken steadily to withdraw the necessary means of life support: resuscitation, ventilation, antibiotics and dialysis will be denied or withheld. In the case of someone who was very close to me, liquids were denied. The only thing that was administered was a sufficient amount of opiate to keep the poor patient comatose, presumably on the grounds that if she was killed by an overdose of the opiate that would be against the law, but if she was killed by dehydration that would not be against the law. She actually took two weeks to die. I cannot think of a more cruel fate.
I support the Bill of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for three reasons. First, it would liberate the patient and give the patient a choice; it would give the patient a vote in the important matter of his or her demise. Secondly, it would liberate the medical profession from these agonising dilemmas—the conflict between the law and the duty to do the best for the patient. The third reason goes to the heart of the responsibilities of this House. The law in this country—in any country worthy of the name of a country living under the rule of law—ought to be clear, unambiguous, respected and upheld. The law in this area is none of those things in this country. The law is cruel, anomalous and nobody takes it seriously. The previous Director of Public Prosecutions said that he would not prosecute in certain cases under this law, as has already been referred to.
In another area, jurisprudence has changed the law in respect of establishing the double-effect rule. No doubt the GMC will be producing guidance on what doctors can and cannot do, particularly as new pathways are brought in, and perhaps that guidance will be prayed in aid before the courts. The whole situation is completely unclear, unsatisfactory and, frankly, hypocritical. Nobody takes it seriously.
The law should not be made by the back door by the Director of Public Prosecutions. On a matter of fundamental principle it should not even be made by judges under jurisprudence. It certainly should not be made by professional associations producing guidance for their members. That is a completely disreputable way of producing the law. We in Parliament have abdicated our responsibility to ensure that we have a law that is clear, can be respected and can therefore be upheld. We must no longer abdicate this vital responsibility.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (LD)
My Lords, I serve as a Member of this Chamber in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. It is in that context that I wish to draw noble Lords’ attention to the Council of Europe’s banning of euthanasia on 25 January 2012. As your Lordships of course know, Britain was one of the founder members of the Council of Europe and, in May 1990, we assisted through the treaty of London in forming the European Convention on Human Rights. Although that convention was misinterpreted when it was put into law by the previous Labour Government, with Articles 6 and 8 distorted, we are none the less committed to it and continue to support it fully as a nation.
Nearly two years ago, on 25 January 2012, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted a resolution stating:
“Euthanasia … must always be prohibited”.
This articulates a strong principle for life and against euthanasia, given that, for the very first time, euthanasia was so clearly rejected by a major European political institution.
This was a third major victory for life and dignity of the weakest after the 2010 resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly that strengthened freedom of conscience for doctors and medical staff, and after the European Court of Human Rights asserted in 2011 that there was no right to euthanasia or assisted suicide under the European convention. The Council of Europe resolution, passed in January 2012, states in Article 5:
“Euthanasia, in the sense of the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited”.
The resolution is entitled:
“Protecting human rights and dignity by taking into account previously expressed wishes of patients”,
and aims for a clarification of the principles that should govern the practice of “living wills” or “advance directives” in Europe. Patients should be permitted and encouraged to express in advance their wishes with regard to medical intervention and treatment in case a situation occurs in which they are no longer capable of doing so.
Given that divergent regulation in European countries and the abuse of so-called “living wills” or “advance directives” can provide a gateway for euthanasia or assisted suicide, there are growing concerns about the effective protection of human dignity at the end of life. Therefore, the Parliamentary Assembly judged it necessary to present clear guidelines to close the door to euthanasia, to the abuse of “living wills” and to surrogate decisions by recalling principles elaborated in previous documents such as the Oviedo Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. First and foremost, the assembly sets the principle that,
“intentional killing … must always be prohibited”.
Secondly, an important amendment introduced by an Italian Member of the European Parliament, Luca Volontè, was adopted, so that paragraph 7.8 states that,
“surrogate decisions that rely on general value judgements present in society should not be admissible and, in case of doubt, the decision must always be pro-life and the prolongation of life”.
With the adoption of this resolution, the Council of Europe placed the ball in the court of countries that permit euthanasia, such as the Netherlands and Belgium. Even if this resolution is not legally binding, these member states are expected to be aware of the standard set forth by the Parliamentary Assembly and to review their own legislation.
That draws my attention to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, in 2004, who said that his Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill was just a “first stage”. The slippery slope opens up there. In the Netherlands, euthanasia is permitted for children who are 12 years old; in Belgium the age is coming down to 12. Let us think of the burden that this would place on the National Health Service, with at least 11,500 to 12,000 deaths being assisted, the mass of prohibitions that would surround that, the amount of debates and the enormity of transforming our National Health Service perhaps into a national death service. I strongly oppose the Motion.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I, too, applaud the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for moving today’s Motion. I strongly support his position that every individual should have the right to decide how much suffering they must bear. Of course, we acknowledge that right for those who want to continue until the end point and take any suffering that life throws at them. We just ask for the same right for those of us who wish to take advantage of it. Patient autonomy is a well established principle in medical ethics, enshrined in professional guidance. How can we justify removing the right of choice—the autonomy—at the end of life when people most need it? I simply do not understand that. To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, we are not here talking about euthanasia, yet most of her contribution was devoted to that.
I shall not repeat the very eloquent points made by many noble Lords but will instead focus my comments on two other end-of-life issues, particularly the right of choice. One is the right not to be resuscitated when life has become unbearable and the second is the right to decide where we die. When a person has capacity, there is no excuse at all for not doing what they wish. Yet, routinely, patients are resuscitated against their wishes and do not die in the place of their choice. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 created advance directives that should ensure that patients’ wishes are known and followed should they lose capacity. However, even when a patient completes an advance directive and a copy is included in their medical records, too often it proves useless because we do not have in place procedures that ensure as far as possible that emergency services and hospital staff know that an advance directive exists, let alone what it says. We need a national policy that governs exactly how and where advance directives are documented. It sounds a trivial point, yet there is really no use in having a document hidden away in some GP’s surgery when the ambulance men turn up and have to make decisions.
One suggestion is a register of advance directives similar to the organ donor register. Of course, it should be electronic for easy access. That would greatly increase the likelihood that emergency services have the information they need when they need it. Will the Minister consider whether NICE should publish guidance on the detail of these advance directive procedures, such as how they should be recorded and stored, and what procedures the emergency services should follow to make sure that they access that crucial information? I understand that, shortly, electronic medical records should include advance directives. Again, these must be user-friendly and accessible quickly. Will ambulance men have access quickly to that information? Also, will the Minister propose to the CQC that it gives priority to inspecting these procedures? In mental health services, the CQC gives terrific focus and priority to how documentation is preserved, kept and stored in relation to detentions in hospital. If the CQC gave anything like that priority to advance directives, the care of elderly people towards the end of life could be radically enhanced.
Now I turn to the issue of where patients die—I will do this rather quickly. The issues are raised very clearly in the Macmillan Cancer Support briefing. The fact is that 73% of cancer patients want to die at home but only 29% are able to do so. There are all sorts of reasons for this, such as a lack of free social care at the end of life. Can the Minister say a little about that? There is also the lack of 24/7 care, most particularly nursing care. Again, what does NHS England plan to do about that? Thirdly, there is the need for the early identification of people at the end of life. Is the Minister able to provide some statistics about the projected numbers of domiciliary nurses available over the next five years relative to last year? I hope that the Minister can provide some reassurance to this House.
Lord Rowe-Beddoe (CB)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for providing us with the opportunity to debate this topic. It is being proposed that the law should be changed to allow assisted suicide. This presupposes that there is agreement that the law as it stands is not adequate. What is being referred to by some noble Lords today would represent a major change to the criminal law. Parliament is being asked to agree that some people, namely doctors, should be licensed by law to involve themselves in deliberately bringing about the death of some others, namely people who are terminally ill. This, I propose, is no small adjustment; it is a major change of the law.
I suggest that if your Lordships’ House is to consider such a proposal seriously, it needs hard evidence that currently the law is not fit for purpose and if that is so, that which would be put in its place would be better and, above all, safer for us all. I do not believe that such evidence has been produced. All we hear are some honeyed words about the need to reduce suffering and some ill informed claims of what the law says and how it works.
For example, we are told that the law does not provide certainty as to whether a person who assists a suicide would be prosecuted. As citizens, we most certainly have the right to know what the law is. I submit that we do know. The law is clear: encouraging or assisting another person’s suicide is a criminal offence. Discretion is provided to the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether a prosecution is needed in the individual circumstances of any case. There is a published prosecution policy setting out how such decisions are reached and providing some of the circumstances which might incline the DPP to prosecute, or not to prosecute. This, however, is not sufficient for those who wish to see assisted suicide licensed by law.
A major complaint is that someone who breaks the law and assists a suicide does not have certainty as to whether the offence will be prosecuted. Certainty cannot be given as the outcome of a breach of the law will depend on the circumstances in which it was committed. To give assurance that a prosecution for assisted suicide would be in this or that circumstance would clearly amount to changing the law. Further, we are encouraged to believe that the law is cruel because of the maximum penalty that it holds in reserve— some 14 years. But no sooner do we work ourselves up on this issue than we are told that the law is not working properly because those who break it are not being prosecuted.
The reality, when the spin and fog is cleared away, is that we see a law with a stern face and an understanding heart. The penalties which the law holds in reserve are, I suggest, sufficient to make anyone minded to assist another person’s suicide think very carefully before proceeding. As a result, the offence is rare and the few cases that reach the DPP tend to be those where there has been serious soul-searching and genuinely compassionate assistance, perhaps somewhat reluctantly given. In such cases, the DPP is able to exercise the discretion that the law provides. I suggest that before there can be serious discussion of how the law should be changed by Parliament, we need clear and convincing evidence that it should be changed and that what would be put in its place would be better and safer—safer, that is, for us all. Until that evidence is submitted, we should return these proposals to the drawing board.
Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)
My Lords, I should declare an interest in that, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, I served on the commission of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. My contribution to today’s debate will be to consider some of the practicalities of the current situation and their appalling effect on individuals.
One of the main aspects of the Bill introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, as the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, has just described, would be to seek to alter the legal framework concerning assisted dying, which it found to be unfit for purpose. As has just been said, while 14 years’ imprisonment is the penalty, no one has been prosecuted for many years. Furthermore, the previous DPP issued guidance that makes it unlikely that any non-medical person assisting another to die with no malicious reason would be prosecuted. So what is the problem and why is it unfit for purpose?
I suppose I was asked to be on the commission so that I could help it with investigative and prosecutorial experience. Actually, I did not need to because the witnesses did that. As the law sees assisted dying as a criminal act, and because such an act has no regulation, then when such a process takes place the police inevitably have to be involved. I do not think that anyone quite understands what that means. If an assisted death has taken place and the police arrive, they will deal with that as a potential homicide scene. They will photograph it, isolate it and seize notes left for relatives, gifts and computers. Those involved are under the threat of arrest, are interviewed under criminal caution and will face months of waiting for a prosecutorial decision, and it may not be possible even to have a funeral very quickly. However kind and professional the police are, how much more pain do we want to inflict on people who have done what they believe to be right, out of compassion?
I shall tell noble Lords just how much more pain. One witness spoke of his wife, who had been diagnosed with motor neurone disease. She was a nurse so she knew what the disease would do. She was determined to die before she was unable to take her own life. She told her family that but she would not ever tell them when and where she would do so, which meant, as the witness said, that the love of his life died alone with no one, particularly him, to hold her hand while she was dying. If that was not enough, it did not work, of course, because the police came in and investigated her death anyway since that is what they have to do.
That is the practicality of a law that is wrong, which is protected only by prosecutorial guidance that can be changed, and which leaves the police inevitably to have to perform an immensely distasteful process for people who are already suffering enough. We should remember the wise advice of the friends of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
The Earl of Glasgow (LD)
My Lords, I made a speech a week ago in support of the legalisation of assisted dying, and I do not wish to bore your Lordships by repeating the same arguments all over again—many of which, by the way, have been made very well by noble Lords today.
However, I want to emphasise a point that is misunderstood by many of those who oppose assisted dying: the change in the law that we are proposing would apply to only a very small number of people in very specific circumstances. It has nothing to do with euthanasia or helping or encouraging people to die prematurely unless they have specifically and unambiguously requested it. It certainly would not apply to elderly people suffering from some form of dementia. Yet some of our opponents appear convinced that assisting dying is just the thin end of the wedge, the slippery slope that will eventually lead to helpless old people being quietly put to sleep. No; as many noble Lords have already said, this is first and foremost about individual choice, a choice that we may all have to make when we learn that we are dying and have only a short time to live.
In the vast majority of cases, nature will take its course and we will be fortunate enough to die peacefully in our sleep with the minimum of pain near our end. However, a minority of us will contract a terminal disease or illness where we will face the inevitable prospect of several months of severe pain and indignity, even with the best medical treatment. Some of us will seek palliative care while some will choose to fight through to the end, but others would like the option of being able to die in their own homes on their own terms at some time before the scheduled time of their death. To achieve that, though, they will almost certainly need assistance, particularly from a doctor or medical practitioner. As the law stands now, they are denied that help. Consequently, they are denied that choice and sometimes feel desperate enough to travel at considerable cost so that they can spend their last hours in an impersonal clinic in Switzerland.
Why should the law in this country deny them that choice, to die in their own home with their family around them, because of fears of slippery slopes or the second coming of Dr Shipman? This choice would be taken up by only a small but significant minority of people. Surely the law should allow terminally ill patients who are in their right mind to die in the way that they choose. Anything else is nothing less than unnecessary cruelty and a denial of human rights. The choice—I repeat that it is only the individual’s personal choice that I am talking about—of being able to avail oneself of assisted dying should surely be a great comfort to all of us, and certainly not a threat.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, today’s debate seems to be a dress rehearsal for the Second Reading of the Bill of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. However, I start from antiquity, where suicide was normal if someone suffered disgrace or their honour was seriously impugned. The Japanese samurai had a somewhat similar view. For the Jews, suicide largely fell under the command, “Thou shalt not kill”. For the western world, the Christian faith changed the earlier ways of thought. Shakespeare summed it up and gave a strong pro-life view in Act I of “Hamlet”:
“Or that the Everlasting had not fixed
His canon ’gainst self-slaughter”.
Islam is clearly opposed to euthanasia. Buddhists are doubtful about the rightness of suicide, emphasising the principle of not doing harm. Hinduism stresses Ahimsa, which is similar, and believes in Dharma, the accepting of moral duties. All faiths seek to minimise unnecessary suffering. Given the views of the great world religions, I conclude that humanists would be unwise to impose their genuine convictions on everyone else.
My second point comes from the old saying, “Hard cases make bad law”. We may be harrowed by individual cases of people suffering great pain, longing to die but perhaps too weak to kill themselves. Appeals to our compassion or to the principle of utility, however, should not be allowed to outweigh our duty to the common good of the great majority.
Changing the existing law would impose unnecessary burdens on a range of people. The handicapped or depressed will ask, “Am I a charge on society? Am I using resources that should be devoted to others? When will I reach the six-month point?”. Carers will wonder, “Should I speak to the declining person while they are still capable of deciding?” Temptations will face the beneficiaries of wills. Young people, perhaps aged 19 or 20, could make valid decisions, thus robbing their parents of precious time still together. Doctors and nurses also believe in preserving life rather than ending it. They have, and still seek, to provide a health service, not a death service. We should not add to their burdens but remember their Hippocratic oath.
I respect the deeply held convictions of those proposing change. Neither side will probably convince the other. Can we at least agree to work for a more co-operative and caring society where more people are enabled to die at home and fewer in the institutional surroundings of hospital wards? I believe that we should aim for all to be accompanied to a natural death in a familiar setting, with loved ones close at hand.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, there are policy priorities for the end of life and there are legislative priorities. They are very far apart, but intimately connected. I have no doubt that the policy priority must be to improve the experience of dying in hospital, as that is, at the moment, where most people die.
End-of-life care requires honest conversations between doctors, nurses, patients and families. The antecedents of a bad death are exactly the same as those that engender generally poor care in hospital wards. I admire the report published by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, and her colleagues which looked at how to replace the Liverpool Care Pathway with individual care plans, but I fear it will not make a jot of difference until the culture of medicine and nursing is transformed.
However, this policy priority is not the legislative priority, and compassion dictates that we find a safer way in legislation to help all dying people, just as in Oregon state the death with dignity law stimulated the public’s understanding of death and dying and increased the provision of good palliative care. I believe that focusing our legislation on the tiny few who want to make their own choice of time of death will not only help the few but will help to create an understanding of the broader needs of dying people.
Let us imagine for a minute that the Falconer Bill has already been enacted. In the average clinical commissioning group area, we are talking about five or fewer people a year who would make the request and fit the criteria. That figure is derived directly from Oregon state. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is right in saying that the numbers have gone up slightly in Oregon, but there is no statistically significant increase. It has remained at that tiny figure over the past 15 years, and it looks as if in Washington state, which is double the size of Oregon, it will be the same. There are four years of experience there. Five people annually are enough for a small team of expert doctors to administer a code of practice that would be devised by the professions and laid before Parliament.
I want to concentrate on just one safeguard because the others are fairly easy to address. It is about what the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, in a debate in Grand Committee so memorably referred to recently as “the vultures”—relatives who cannot wait to get their hands on an inheritance—and those who might exert subtle pressures on people to kill themselves. This has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and has been mentioned in the past by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, and the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Neill, Lady Campbell and Lady Grey-Thompson. I spent many years as an academic psychiatrist doing much testamentary capacity expert witness work and, believe me, I know that the vultures are circling overhead. It is crucial that we can spot where there are profound or subtle pressures on individuals. But given that all those seeking an assisted death will have full mental capacity, how susceptible are they really? We do not need to guess or to create false scares. A research review has recently been published by the American Bar Association Commission on Law and Ageing. Almost all those who are subject to undue influence or subtle pressures are indeed suffering from lack of mental capacity, as you would expect. They are very aged, frail and have dementia. They are habitually exploited. The very few who are subject to undue influence when they have full capacity are in those very curious situations, which are fairly easy to detect, where one individual is very dependent on another. We saw that recently in the case where a group of people were subject to imprisonment. I would refer to it as emotional imprisonment. They are very rare cases indeed. We can take account of them. A humane society that really cares for individuals should be able to meet the wishes of that tiny few who want to say where and how they die, with whom they die and also when.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, if it was possible to choose the occasion of one’s death by electing to be killed, it would create an escape route at the onset of an illness which, given time, would take away one’s independence and one’s mind. It would be an escape route from the fear of indignity and suffering. I understand that fear only too well. My wife, Jean, died last year having had dementia.
I have drawn two conclusions from my experience. First, it is imperative that we care for those who are suffering in this way and that we treat them with dignity. We need to create a society in which such care and treatment is the norm. I am so grateful to those of your Lordships and, especially, the doorkeepers and security officers who treated Jean with dignity and extended many kindnesses to her. It is so important to invest our time and resources to ensure that dementia patients receive proper care. Secondly, dependence is natural at certain stages in life. All of us were dependent on others at birth and for a considerable time thereafter. Dying is part of living and during that time we may be dependent on others. Why should that be a fearful thing? It is probably because our society prizes independence and schools us into it at an early age. We need to revisit this and to be educated to appreciate that dependence is no cause for shame.
The choice that I would like people to be able to make at the end of life is a choice to go on living in the assurance that they will be cared for with compassion and not ignored or regarded as a burden. All sides of this debate recognise that if assisted suicide is to be legal, there must be safeguards. Many of us believe that it is not possible to legislate for adequate safeguards. That aside, it is pertinent to ask whom the safeguards are intended to protect. It is sometimes assumed that it is only the would-be suicide who needs protection. Indeed, he or she does need protection, but society as a whole is also in need of protection from changes in the law which may have a deleterious effect.
There is a danger of confusing the role of the health professional and undermining the trust which exists between doctor and patient. At present, the health carer’s mandate is crystal clear. It is always to care and never to kill or assist in killing. One cures by treating the patient and eliminating the disease. Eliminating the patient is not treatment, no matter what the patient may request. Where one cannot cure, society should provide care. At present, the provision of adequate care is patchy and uncertain, and this needs to be addressed urgently.
If one was to legalise assisted suicide, one would be setting up independence as a quality whose worth is greater than life itself. What would such a society be saying to disabled people and the mentally ill? As the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law reported:
“The legalization of assisted suicide would itself send a message that suicide is a socially acceptable response to terminal or incurable disease. Some patients are likely to feel pressured to take this option, particularly those who feel obligated to relieve their loved ones of the burden of care. Those patients who do not want to commit suicide may feel obligated to justify their decision to continue living”.
While those who champion the legalisation of assisted suicide do so, I am sure, with the best of motives, I believe it to be a profound mistake. For these reasons and others, which time does not permit me to address, I believe that our energies and resources are best spent on improving the care that is available so that people can choose to go on living with confidence that they will not be neglected.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, as the immediate past president of the BMA and chair of the BMA Board of Science, I remind your Lordships’ House that the BMA opposes all forms of assisted dying and believes that ongoing improvements in palliative care allow patients to die with dignity. The BMA respects the concept of individual autonomy and encourages patient choice about clinically appropriate treatments, but it believes there are limits to what people should be allowed to choose when their choice impacts on other people.
The Department of Health end-of-life care strategy says that more people are making choices about their care and treatment, but that too few health professionals yet know how to talk about death and dying. Can the Minister say what is being done about this? There is clearly still plenty of room for improvement.
Despite that, we can be rightly proud of our pioneering work to create and develop the specialty of palliative care. We are ahead of the curve, leading the global race. Dame Cecily Saunders, the founder of palliative medicine, left us an extraordinary legacy. As suggested by my noble friend Lord Alton, I agree that her legacy could be undone by the introduction of assisted suicide as a choice. Without strong advocacy, constraints on NHS funding could lead to more cuts being made to end-of-life care. Assisted suicide, instead of being an option, would be the cheaper alternative. We would be offered either/or—rather as in Oregon, where patients have to sign out of active treatment to access hospice support and where palliative care is not a clinical specialty. Since our healthcare system is more similar to that of the Netherlands than that of the USA, we should be studying practice there, with one in 34 deaths now being through euthanasia.
It could be argued that it would make economic sense both for families and for the nation. However, this is a policy change that would replace our traditional commitment and compassion to each other—“in sickness and in health”—with a greater value being placed on high-achieving, fit and healthy members of our communities. Instead, we could invest more in our pioneering palliative care services and sell them abroad. We could train overseas doctors and nurses. We could accelerate our search for a cure for dementia and other long-term conditions. Now that we have legally recognised parity between physical and mental health, we could become the most psychologically aware nation in the world, and bring our new learning about their interrelatedness to our understanding of death and dying, rather than continuing to deny it. Let us use our emotional intelligence here.
In response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, it is usually unfinished business with family and friends that causes someone’s unbearable suffering, both mental and physical. People who have expressed a wish to die are now being publicly encouraged to commit to such a view to support the campaign by Dignity in Dying—which of course formerly had “euthanasia” in its title.
Certainty is difficult to commit to until you have the experience. Deciding is a process that unfolds and human beings have an extraordinary capacity to adapt. Help the Hospices told the Select Committee that informed choice means experience of palliative care, not just information about it. Let us show the world that our palliative care services put us ahead, not behind, those—only seven—jurisdictions which have chosen a cheap and unwise solution to the problem of death and dying and dependency.
The focus in the debate today has been more on a timetable for dying rather than coming to terms with leaving this life and what that will mean for the dying person and those left behind. Healthy adults are emotionally interdependent upon one another, and if we had time I would draw on psychoanalytic literature. Suffice it to say, the real issues at the end of life are the care and compassion that comes from being in a relationship with other people, including receiving more than giving, including becoming more dependent. I am talking about the love that endures rather than any physical inconvenience.
Emotional angst about unfinished business is better worked through than avoided through the mistakenly perceived control that comes with suicide. Dealing with unfinished business allows someone to let go of life and let go of suffering. Dealing with unfinished business is also better for those left behind, who will then live more peaceably when their loved one has gone.
Baroness Flather (CB)
My Lords, I have spoken on this issue on every possible occasion. The first time I spoke, I mentioned that if my husband, who is very disabled, were in great pain and did not want to go on living, I would help him regardless of what the law would do to me, because I love him. A lot of us who love people—those who are close to us and suffering—cannot bear it; as much as the person cannot bear it, we cannot. I think the DPP will now say that that is all right. That is a move forward. Fortunately, however, my husband is not in pain and is doing everything, so that is all right. However, he got two e-mails saying, “Watch out for that woman” on that occasion.
I remind noble Lords that, when the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, first brought his Bill forward, one noble Lord likened it to Nazi practices. I have never forgotten that, and I hope that nobody will ever think of it like that.
It is a matter of choice. It is about us being given a choice, not compulsion. Nobody is going to be compelled to take their life in their own hands. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, put it so well when he said that we have moved on in all sorts of ways, legally. We do not have capital punishment, and many other changes have come about. Everybody talks about the slippery slope—thank goodness for the slippery slope, otherwise we would still be sitting in caves. We always need to move forward. Perhaps we should not have invented the wheel. It is important for us to look to the future.
Abortion has been mentioned as if we suddenly discovered it and therefore introduced a law. No, we did not suddenly discover abortion; it has been with us since the dawn of time. Women have suffered since the dawn of time. What we did was to save their lives. Many women cannot manage to bring up a child. Many women do not want that child. Well, it is not worth that child who is not wanted coming into this world.
We have to think about things which have been and are going on, and provide for them. It is no use saying that we have discovered this or that and are therefore doing it. These things have been with us for a long time. Medical science has practically made it impossible for us to die quietly and peacefully. We get taken into hospital. We are treated and given antibiotics. The case of Bland led to a commission on euthanasia. It is important for us now to think about our choice. It is extremely selfish of those who are against assisted dying to deprive the rest of us. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester mentioned that and said that he thought of it as a matter of conscience: if he was against it, should he tell other people that they should be against it? It should and is meant to be a personal choice, and applies only when people have the mental capacity to make it.
That brings me to another point. I feel very sad that the disability lobby feels that they are vulnerable. They, too, will be able to ask for it only if they have the mental capacity to do so. Not only that, they can appoint an LPA to help them make the end-of-life decisions if they need someone they trust. We have a lot of choices in the Bill. I hope that we will think about it carefully, for the sake of those who want it. Care at the end of life will never be sufficient. The Bill would actually make end-of-life care more valuable and give it impetus.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, patient choice is a very great good and we ought to do all we can to encourage and enhance it. There are various ways in which we can do that. First, we can make it much more widely known that there is no moral obligation to go on receiving burdensome treatment when it is doing no good. There is no moral obligation to prolong life at all costs. That has always been the fundamental teaching of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church. It is part of our culture and is quite properly reflected in all medical ethical codes.
I was very glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, whom we congratulate on his maiden speech, spoke about the Liverpool care pathway. I myself was very privileged to be on the commission chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, and I examined very carefully the principles on which the Liverpool care pathway was set up, coming to the conclusion that they were fundamentally sound. The Liverpool care pathway was set up with good intentions, but it became bureaucratic and was not always administered well. I very much hope that our recommendations for the future, from pathway to personal care, will set good palliative care firmly in place in all our hospitals, not just in hospices.
There is another way in which personal choice can be enhanced and encouraged: by encouraging more people to sign up for advance directives. I know of somebody who is developing an interactive website to help people do that.
Patient choice is, therefore, a very great good. However, sometimes other goods override the good of patient choice. I will put before your Lordships three very simple and straightforward examples. First, a teenager in great despair pleads with you to help them end their life. Quite properly you override their choice because there is a greater good: the long-term well-being of that teenager. Somebody who is deeply depressed, who should be in a psychiatric hospital, resists going. They have to be sectioned, and sometimes drugs have to be administered to them so that they can be forcibly put into their hospital. Their choice is, quite properly, overridden. If a prisoner is in danger of suicide, they are put under “suicide watch”—a very careful watch has to be kept on them so that they do not commit suicide. Finally, the Samaritans organisation has saved hundreds of thousands of people.
I suggest by those examples that although patient choice is a good, it is not the only good, and that sometimes there is an overriding good. Those examples indicate that our society values human life at all times and in all circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said that the present law and DPP guidance are a mess and have been brought into disrepute. However, I suggest that where you have a very difficult situation, between lives that are unbearable and society’s desire to convey the message that lives at all times—even at the end of life—are of value, you are bound to get some kind of compromise like that. The DPP compromise is workable. It expresses society’s view that everybody’s life, even in extremis, is of value. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, quoted the words of Dame Cicely Saunders:
“You matter because you are you, and you matter to the end of your life”.
By having the law—which does express moral values —in place, that conveys society’s high estimate of every single human life.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Dubs, not only for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject, but for the very sensitive and objective way in which he introduced the debate this afternoon.
Surely it is important, wherever possible, to encourage people to consider their choices of treatment in good time, and for them to have the fullest possible information on which to make well considered choices. If possible, there should always be the opportunity for them to change course.
To believe in human rights must mean the right to control one’s own life for as long as that is possible. That must include the right to seek release from intolerable suffering—not only for yourself but for those around you. Sometimes, sadly, it is just not possible for a person to communicate their wishes, which places a huge responsibility on others who are involved.
Some people of my own faith take an inflexible and absolutist position on this, but there will never be an escape from the responsibility of applying love, understanding and compassion in all that is decided. It is never a matter of just clinically managing a decision on the end of life: there are the real issues of direct, indirect or supposed pressure, and it is always a matter of profound consideration of the individual as an individual. The input, if possible, of those who have known the patient for a long time will be a crucial part of this. The physicians should include, wherever possible, a doctor who has cared for the person concerned for a long time.
Meanwhile, how much of a priority is invariably being given in all training—not least of doctors—to end-of-life care? With increasing longevity and ever-growing survival prospects, dealing with the terminally ill and dying leads to a constantly greater demand on medical professionals and takes up an increasingly important part of their professional lives.
It is absolutely clear that the majority of people do not want to die in hospital, and seek the psychological or emotional security of home or a hospice. What I have experienced from my own involvement as the president of Hospice at Home West Cumbria is that that concept of a hospice at home can be a very valuable available choice. It brings together a community of professionals and volunteers. While the volunteers seek to achieve professional standards in all that they contribute, the professionals are really volunteers themselves in bringing a quality of commitment which is way beyond what could be expected from a contract. At its best, there is a culture of teamwork and mutual support. Volunteers can have a sensitive and effective part to play in family support and bereavement counselling. Strengthening all this is the accessibility of what the hospice offers, very much on a socially inclusive basis, and the widespread feeling in west Cumbria that it is “their” hospice to which they have a responsibility, not least in fundraising. I am convinced that this broad base contributes to a reassuring sense of belonging among patients and families alike.
What is essential is a close, flexible and imaginative working relationship between the hospice and the NHS—a context of mutual support, recognised interdependence. While the hospice can ease the pressures on the NHS, the latter is indispensible to ensuring, for example, support for specialist services, particularly palliative care and pain relief.
It is very significant, when we are looking at the future of health services in our countries, to see the relevance of that kind of initiative. I hope that the Government take it seriously, and that they can play their part in making sure that the necessary resources are available.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, this debate takes us into new ethical territory with complex medical, legal and emotional implications. Rational discussion is made more difficult by a polarisation of attitudes and opinions. I saw something of this about 12 months ago when I attended a meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Assisted Dying. I raised some concerns and was made to feel that there was something wrong with my thinking if I could not immediately see the open-and-shut case for changing the existing law. I am also too aware of the opposite arguments, couched in religious terms, that life is a gift from God and we should never, ever, even think of curtailing it.
I served for some years as a member of the BMA Medical Ethics Committee and am well aware of major changes in society and bewildering advances in science and medicine that require us to constantly look anew at previously accepted views and attitudes. Sikhs accept that life is a gift of God to be cherished and preserved wherever possible, but we are also required to bear in mind the important Sikh teaching of compassion, dignity and care for the suffering. These two considerations are not necessarily incompatible. However, I am unhappy about a narrow focusing on individual autonomy to justify attitudes that clearly affect others. We have seen some of this today. We constantly hear the argument that we are all individuals and that our happiness and needs are all-important to the exclusion of our responsibility to others. I believe that this over-focusing on self, on me and my, is responsible for many of the ills in society today. For example, we are all aware that religious teachings suggest that marriage is a committed partnership for mutual care and support and for ensuring that children grow up as responsible adults. What I believe to be a short-sighted contemporary social attitude encourages us to believe that it is okay to look exclusively at our rights, without consideration of the effect on others. This focusing on individual needs rather than on the family as a whole is, at least in part, responsible for the growing increase in dysfunctional families, with children frequently ending up in what we euphemistically call care, or with them mirroring the narrow thinking of their parents. A person’s decision to end their own life has an effect on friends and, importantly, on the message it can give to wider society of trivialising life. We all have wider responsibilities in all that we do.
I shall pull together these different threads in rational and compassionate decision-making to arrive at the way forward. First, we should always respect the gift of life and question the concept of autonomy. Secondly, there are times when those in ill health feel that life is not really worth living but, within a short time, they often feel that it is not really that bad. It is worse for those who find themselves with severe disabilities but, as the Paralympics showed, despite such disabilities, it is often possible to live a meaningful life. Relatives and carers sometimes find looking after someone onerous, and they can inadvertently make their feelings known to those they are caring for, making them feel an unnecessary burden. Sadly, there are others who may have more mercenary motives. A seemingly hopeless situation today may not always remain so. Huge strides are constantly being made in combating previously incurable diseases, as well as in palliative care.
In summary, while we should always be on our guard against the notion of individual autonomy trivialising life, we need to recognise that, from an individual’s perspective, life can become pretty intolerable and there is an argument for helping to end it in strictly controlled circumstances. The danger is that, if we go down this path, it could itself be a slippery slope to trivialising life, altering the very ethos on which medical care is provided. I feel, on balance, that we should leave the law as it is.
Baroness Warnock (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on introducing this debate, which is timely on two counts. First, we have a chance to think about the demise of the Liverpool care pathway, which was obviously well intentioned but had flaws. We have not yet had a chance to consider in detail what should be put in its place, if anything. Secondly, as this debate has shown, it is a kind of run-up to the debate that will take place later next year on the Bill proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I do not want to say anything more about that Bill except that I agree very strongly with the view that the present state of the law is unsafe and intolerable and cannot be supported.
I go on to one issue that seems something of a scandal—the case of patients who are dying who may actually be, or may be perceived to be, incompetent to make decisions about their treatment. I cannot think of anything more humiliating than to say that I wanted to die and that my life was no longer worth living only to be told that I was suffering from depression. Well, I would be suffering from depression in the ordinary sense of the word—but I could be told that I was suffering from clinical depression and could be cured by medication. My lawful refusal of medication might even be disregarded in those circumstances, because I should be deemed not competent to make it.
I regard it as a scandal that so very few people draw up advance directives or put in place a lasting power of attorney. Since the passing of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, this is something that is worth doing and which preserves choice, even in the case of the person being incompetent. One difficulty that has already been mentioned is the difficulty of access to an advance directive, even if it has been made. This is very serious. I have a friend who was involved in trying to devise a bracelet that people could wear to say that they had made an advance directive and how it could be accessed by people in the ambulance service. She was refused hospital help in devising this bracelet because the authorities said that they would be liable to prosecution as assisting suicide if they were known to have helped to devise this bracelet. That seems bizarre, because it would be a help if, as one can carry a donor card, one could also carry some kind of indication that an advance directive existed.
A worse difficulty is that so few people know about what their rights actually are under mental capacity law, and that many even do not know that there are such things as advance directives or that a power of attorney can be given. The culprits here are general practitioners, who should have a duty to have in their surgery accessible information about advance directives, in the way that they have dozens of leaflets about diabetes, asthma and other kinds of ills that people may suffer. This seems to be something that would be very easy to do—and then people, whatever their age or state of health, who came to the surgery, would have access to the means of making an advance directive. The means could be made simpler; the doctor could sign the pro forma that could be supplied in the surgery. People could, almost as a matter of routine, ensure that they had such a thing in place if they feared that their treatment at the end of life would be not what they would want and not what would be best for their own interests and the interests of society.
This is a very important change that ought to be made, and which could be made, if only the medical profession was not so very much afraid of death. This is a terrible indictment, really. Even at my age, I frequently talk to my GP, who I know well, about death—and he to me. But that is very rare. On the whole, doctors need, most of all, to change their attitude to death, because their professional and compassionate duty is not always to save life but to relieve the suffering of their patients. I think that this is a change that we can make.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for giving us the chance to discuss the final moments of life. End of life comes in so many ways; very often there is not the opportunity to have a choice. I was so pleased that Nelson Mandela, a remarkable person who had been ill with a chest infection and treated in hospital, went home, with medical help, and was able to die with his family around him. Seventy-three per cent of cancer patients would prefer to die in their own homes. However, only 29% of people with cancer are able to do so. Macmillan estimates that, in 2012, 36,000 cancer patients died in hospital who would have preferred to die at home.
My husband, who would have liked to die at home, died in an A&E department on a Sunday because the out-of-hours doctors would not come out on the Saturday and Sunday. On the Friday evening, when he became ill with a chest infection, which was serious as he had many medical conditions, the out-of-hours doctor came and prescribed a liquid antibiotic as my husband had a swallowing problem. However, I think that she wrote in the notes that he was not too bad. We had to drive for miles to find a supermarket with a pharmacy with the liquid antibiotic. This is the problem with rural healthcare; pharmacies and out-of-hours doctors are miles away. It is much easier to get an out-of-hours vet. With so many medical conditions it would be so much better if the people suffering from them had a copy of their own medical records. My husband died in a hospital 24 miles from home. The doctor could not get any records and had only the information that I could give him. My husband died in the presence of myself, a doctor and a very helpful and kind charge nurse. As it was classed as a sudden death, one had to wait for the police. The chaplain was late. So many people have a real fear that if a loved one goes into hospital they will be neglected.
During this year a young cousin of mine, aged seven, died of neuroblastoma after a two-year amazing battle with this aggressive childhood cancer. His parents did everything possible, including having him treated in America. He had a lovely thanksgiving service at York Minster, with all the children from his class and his headmistress attending. It is good for children to understand that death happens, and so much research is needed to make things better, but there needs to be ongoing support for those who are left behind.
We need mindfulness and compassion from those who have the responsibility of looking after patients at the end. Care for the dying must get better. Life and death are precious and sacred. Many vulnerable disabled people fear that they will be at risk of other people making decisions about their life and death if there is new legislation. It is dangerous as it could be a very slippery slope.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for securing this debate, which may aptly serve as something of a curtain-raiser for the debates we will have on the Bill of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, when it comes to the Floor of the House next year. I particularly commend the measured and dispassionate way in which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, introduced the debate, and, indeed, the generally restrained temper of the debate as a whole.
We do not have long, so I will make just a couple of points. The first, picking up on a point that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, himself made, is that assisted dying and palliative care are often portrayed as antithetical to one another; indeed, we have heard echoes of this today. The supporters of assisted dying are depicted as heartless monsters who simply want to bump their relatives off for their money or because they have become a burden, but this is a travesty. Most people would want to see the alleviation of suffering that palliative care can bring exploited to the maximum. It is only when palliative care is inadequate or can do no more that they say an assisted death should not be ruled out as an option. Pace my noble friend Lord Hylton, nothing is being imposed on anybody.
I certainly do not accept the argument that the desire for an assisted death simply shows that the palliative care is not good enough, and that it would not be necessary if it was. That is one of those arguments that cannot be disproved because, by definition, the care could always be better. The fact is that in practice that is not always the case. In fact, assisted dying goes hand in hand with palliative care. Evidence from Oregon, where assisted dying for terminally ill adults was legalised in 1997, demonstrates that the vast majority of people who are assisted receive palliative care and support. The use of assisted dying legislation is very low and researchers suggest that the reason for this may be the high quality of care provided by Oregon’s hospices. Hospice provision in Oregon now ranks among the best in the country, but its growth has actually gone hand in hand with the legalisation for assisted dying rather than the reverse. Fears of assisted dying impacting negatively on palliative care have not been borne out; in fact, the opposite seems to be true, and assisted dying can act as a catalyst for the improvement of palliative care. But though palliative care may be excellent, there will still be some people who at the end of life seek assistance to die, and they should be allowed to do so.
My second point is that the views of disabled people are much more diverse than is represented by disability activists. No, that is too mealy-mouthed in an effort to avoid polemic; they are actually the opposite of how they are commonly represented. In a YouGov survey of 1,000 disabled people reported in the Times yesterday, almost 80% said that someone who helps a friend or family member who is terminally ill to die should not face prosecution. Asked what position they thought disability rights groups should take on assisted dying for the terminally ill, just under half said they should remain neutral, and a third that they should support a change in the law. Only 8% said that they should oppose a change in the law.
I align myself with Tom Shakespeare, himself a disability activist but not at one with the disability movement on this issue, when he says that,
“calm and evidence-based deliberation is usually more useful to disabled people than extreme rhetoric”.
He goes on:
“It seems to me to be inconsistent to support autonomy for disabled people in all matters except the moment and manner of their death”.
I agree with my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries that there are occasions when it is right to override a person’s choice, but the decision must depend on all the circumstances. In my judgment, a case where a person is terminally ill, in great pain and wants to die is not one of them.
Lord Tombs (CB)
My Lords, I begin by apologising for my late arrival by a few minutes. I came rather a long way and the transport was not quite up to scratch.
I start by saying that I am opposed to assisted dying—as I think is well known—which has monopolised the discussion today, although the debate is rather wider than that and covers other aspects, which I would classify as assisted suicide. I do not think that we should place too much credence on reports of what happens in Oregon. There are good things about the system there and there are bad. One of the more worrying things is the number of fatal doses lying around that country in medicine cabinets, for which there seem to be no clear plans. That is a time bomb waiting to happen.
I think that the objections to assisted dying in particular, but also to assisted suicide, concern the vulnerability of ill people, old people, disabled people, and all sorts of people who require help—help which selfish people can consider a nuisance. My own experience, which is getting quite long now, is that the law is a very blunt instrument. It is designed as such because it has to be for the majority of people, quite rightly, because it is a societal invention and exists because of society. In doing so, it incorporates, because of pressure groups, so many exceptions or variations that it becomes almost impossible to administer.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, this has been a double-sided debate. On the one hand, it is about improving services for people in their last months, weeks and days so they have real choices in care—to be home or in a hospice with their symptoms controlled at the medication level they wish, offered any helpful intervention without waiting, with personal care given with respect, time and as they want, and knowing that their family are properly supported.
On the other hand, some propose a licensing system for doctors to supply lethal drugs to patients to deliberately shorten the lives of those who are thought to be dying. That is totally different to providing pain relief while a person dies of their disease. Seale’s research showed that illegal action by doctors in Britain is rare or non-existent. This is not just about the complexities of an individual choosing to end his or her life. There are ramifications for others. It is a matter of both conscience and public safety. Others are directly involved in the suicide, and by normalising assisting suicide an attitudinal change occurs across society. Currently, doctors have a key role in preventing suicide; now they are being asked to go into reverse and facilitate it.
I am afraid that Oregon’s figures do not confirm safety but show an almost fivefold increase in the incidence of reported physician-assisted suicide. That would translate, as has been said, to about 1,200 assisted suicides each year in England and Wales. That means that in Oregon since 2008 there has been a 21% increase in physician-assisted suicide, from 19 to 24 cases per 10,000 deaths. Compare that with the UK, where currently fewer than 20 cases cross the DPP’s desk. Oregon has no audit system to shed light on what is happening there. The dynamic seems to have changed. The Bill of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, gives eligibility criteria, not safeguards. It seems to be looser than the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. The current proposal has no reporting and audit system to detect abuse. Indeed, in Oregon, it was only research that showed that one in six patients who ended their life by physician-assisted suicide had clinical depression that was undiagnosed and untreated. There are also reports of patients being offered not oncology treatment but physician-assisted suicide.
The inquiry by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, into the Liverpool care pathway called for research to improve prognostic tools for the last weeks and days of life. We are very bad at prognosis. The Royal College of General Practitioners has said that we can,
“make reasonably accurate prognoses of death within minutes, hours or a few days. When this stretches to months, then the scope for error can extend into years”.
People are particularly vulnerable when very ill. On call last weekend, I was acutely aware how each patient hung on my every word and gesture, reading into it how I thought things were going. Behind each question was another. The GMC guidelines are absolutely clear—they enable in-depth discussions with patients about their dying or their fluctuating wish for death, and doctors are not frightened today of talking about death and dying. People fear being a burden on family, society or state, or being disempowered by the scandalous care that hits the headlines. The message that proponents portray is that for some the only way in which you have dignity when dying is by assisted suicide, that suffering is inevitable and pain often uncontrollable. That is deeply misleading and creates a great deal of anxiety.
Futile treatment is stopped because it is a burden not a benefit, not to bring about death. However, when a patient asks for help to end it all, the doctor can respond by processing the request at face value, which risks sending a subliminal message that the person would be better off dead; but when I ask, “What is making today so difficult?”, and, “What can I do, however small, to improve today?”, I give the message that, “You are worth me working hard for”. I have to redouble efforts, and rethink and reharness resources to meet the patient’s need to give true choice in care to the person.
A clinician cannot go in two directions at once by striving to improve quality of life and revise and review, while simultaneously booking an appointment for death. Physician-assisted suicide is being placed in the comfort zone of medicine, suggesting to society that it is some kind of therapy. We have heard euphemisms—assisted dying is not really assisted suicide or will not be extended to euthanasia, we have heard. Let us be clear: what is proposed is that Parliament should license an act that is otherwise regarded as criminal. As the Royal College of Physicians has said, a doctor’s duty of care to a patient,
“does not include being in any way part of their suicide”.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness has just reminded us, this debate encompasses two issues. The first is one that has clearly attracted unanimous approval throughout the House: the need to provide care and support for the dying at the end of life and to honour their choice, particularly in relation, for example, to whether they die at home, in hospital or in hospice—matters referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy. There is clearly agreement that this objective should be fulfilled, and there are ways in which matters can be taken forward from the current position. Compassion in Dying, for example, has recommended that progress be made in dealing with advance decisions, and simplifying the procedure for living wills and lasting powers of attorney. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, referred to establishing a register that, again, Compassion in Dying has referred to. There is the issue of training for professionals and much else. I hope that the Government will look at these matters.
One matter came to my attention yesterday by virtue of an article by Jackie Ashley in the Guardian pointing out that whereas people can get leave from work for various reasons, there is no provision in law for leave for carers of those who are terminally ill. Perhaps the Government could look at that. I am of course not asking the Minister for a response today but it is something that I invite her and colleagues in other relevant departments—BIS and so on—to look at. It could well make a significant contribution.
The second area with which we are concerned is assisted dying. On this we have had a very balanced debate. I have been keeping a scorecard of those who have spoken in favour and against, and it roughly balances out across your Lordships’ House. I must also say that the debate has been in the highest traditions of this House in terms of thoughtfulness and sensitivity. There are clear issues here—ethical, moral, religious and practical—that need to be addressed. It is not a party issue. There is no official opposition line, and I suspect that there is no official government line. I speak from a personal standpoint.
However, it is perhaps necessary briefly to rebut three points that have been made by some speakers. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said that under the proposals of my noble and learned friend’s Bill doctors would be required to take the life of patients. That is not the case. The Bill specifically deals with self-administered drugs that could end life. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, spoke of the “emasculation” of the hospice system. I see no evidence of that at all. As I shall say later, I have knowledge of the working of the hospice system and I do not think that anyone who might support my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer’s Bill or some version of it would for a moment wish to diminish the effective role of an important part of our health provision. There was a suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that among the major religions Buddhism was clear in its maxim that one should do no harm. That, of course, is also the substance of the Hippocratic oath. However, the question is: what constitutes harm? Is it confined only to causing death? Can it not also be allowing or facilitating the prolongation of suffering? Therefore, the situation is perhaps more nuanced.
My own position is informed by my personal experience. My wife died five weeks after I was introduced into your Lordships’ House, having suffered from bowel cancer for two years, with secondaries in the liver and lung. It was always a treatable but not curable condition. She was the daughter and sister of doctors. She nursed her mother, who died of cancer, in our home. She was a health visitor, a nurse and a Relate counsellor. From the outset of her illness, she was very clear that, should she suffer considerable pain, she would wish to be helped to end her life. She received wonderful treatment from the National Health Service in Newcastle and from the hospice in which she spent her last few days. Fortunately, she never experienced quite the degree of pain that would have led her to invoke the remedy, which in any event would not have been available to her.
She lived very fully in those two years. She made a television programme about bowel cancer; she made a DVD about stoma, having undergone a cystostomy; and, with friends, she produced a book about living with cancer. Therefore, she was very conscious of the condition and anxious that people should learn from her experience. However, I know that she would have wished me to express support for the choice that in the end she did not have to make. I suppose that I had the dubious privilege—nevertheless, I felt it to be a privilege—of being with her when she died in the hospice. She had been sedated and was out of pain for those last few days. Of course, not everybody has that opportunity, and there are those who would clearly wish to have the chance to end what can be a very painful experience.
I have friends who are undergoing precisely these difficulties now. I have a particular friend who has also suffered from cancer, and it is a recurrent condition. Having, again, been treated very well in hospital and in a hospice, she is now having home care and there is great gratitude for that but, frankly, it is a very painful condition—more painful than my wife endured. It is one which my friend wishes could end swiftly, rather than see her pain prolonged, even though she is having wonderful care, with full medical back-up, at home with her family. I have other friends who have undergone very difficult experiences, and there will be many in your Lordships’ House who can testify to that.
So we have some difficult choices to make. We are not asked to make choices today; we are debating and discussing how policy might evolve in both the areas that have been the subject of this debate. I take the point made earlier that, if you have the means, it is possible to avoid that debate. You can go to Switzerland, as some people have done, and leave the stage, as it were, there under the system that currently prevails. However, a minority of people can take that course and there will not be many, although there will be some, who would prefer the alternative, which my noble and learned friend’s Bill would secure. Of course there are issues of safeguarding and of avoiding people being persuaded to take that course of action, and it would be essential to embody that in any legislation, should we reach that position.
There are clearly many who would adopt the approach that Dylan Thomas advised in a memorable poem:
“Do not go gentle into that good night …
Rage, rage against the dying of the light”.
For those who do not want to go gentle, whether they want to rage or not, of course we must offer every conceivable support to allow them to do that. However, others would take a different line of poetry. They might take the line from Keats and wish:
“To cease upon the midnight with no pain”.
In my view and the view of some of your Lordships, that is a decision which should also be respected, supported and facilitated, but with the very clear proviso that there must be proper safeguards and that nobody should be required to go against their conscience—for example, as a medical practitioner—to administer what would be required to produce that ceasing upon the midnight with no pain.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for securing this debate. I fully appreciate his position on this issue, which is clearly personally heart and head-felt. I know that, as a member of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Choice at the End of Life, this is a subject in which he takes a great deal of interest.
I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. This is a well informed debate, and at times it has been very moving to hear personal stories from Members of your Lordships’ House. With a four-minute time constraint on speeches, noble Lords have focused their thoughts, and that has led to many powerful points being well made. Here, I should like to make special mention of the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, which was sensitive, thoughtful and thought-provoking. I am sure that he will make a huge contribution to the work of your Lordships’ House.
This is an important debate on a highly emotive and complex issue. Death affects us all. First, I assure noble Lords that, as a Government, we are committed to improving quality and choice in end-of-life care. Today, many noble Lords have focused on assisted dying. As was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and others, the Government believe that any change to the law in this emotive and contentious area is an issue of individual conscience and a matter for Parliament to decide rather than one for government policy.
The Assisted Dying Bill, introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, seeks to legalise, in England and Wales, assisted suicide for terminally ill, mentally competent adults who are reasonably expected to die within six months and who have been ordinarily resident in England and Wales for at least 12 months. The Government will take a collective view on the noble and learned Lord’s Bill in order to respond to the debate on its specific provisions at, but not before, Second Reading. As things stand, however, no date has been set for the Second Reading of his Bill and today’s debate does not address it.
My noble friend Lord Taverne raised the question of the DPP’s role in prosecuting offences. Prosecutors must apply the two-stage test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors in cases of encouraging or assisting suicide and all other offences. The full code test has two stages: the evidential stage and the public interest stage. A case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive. Where there is sufficient evidence, prosecutors must then consider whether a prosecution is in the public interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, stated that the DPP has said that he will not prosecute those who encourage or assist suicide. The DPP’s policy is clear that it,
“does not in any way ‘decriminalise’ the offence of encouraging or assisting suicide”.
Indeed, it specifically says:
“Nothing in this policy can be taken to amount to an assurance that a person will be immune from prosecution if he or she does an act that encourages or assists the suicide or the attempted suicide of another person”.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Of course, in a four-minute speech I had to use some shorthand, but my essential point was that it was extremely undesirable in the interests of both the clarity of the law and in how our democracy works to have the law on such an important subject made by the back door—by DPP decisions or even by jurisprudence. Would the Minister like to comment on that remark?
Baroness Jolly
I take the noble Lord’s point. I am not a lawyer but I will certainly write to him to ensure that his point is answered. In a letter to all Members of this House I will make sure that they, too, hear the same response.
Noble Lords may be aware of the different ways in which to document decisions on end-of-life care. Many of the general public are not. One option is a health and welfare lasting power of attorney. It allows someone to give authorisation to the attorney to make decisions about health and care, including decisions on life-sustaining treatments. Another option is making an advance decision. This enables anyone aged 18 or older who has capacity to make a decision about their future care. They may wish to refuse a particular treatment or intervention in the future when they no longer have the capacity to make their wishes known. It is a way of making plans for the future. It is a legally binding way of being able to refuse a treatment or intervention. An advance decision can be made not to be resuscitated under certain conditions. An advance decision can be made to refuse all life-sustaining care, provided that certain conditions are met. The decision must be witnessed and made in writing. These advance decisions are legal mechanisms to help a person plan their care. Both advance decisions and lasting power of attorney exist in addition to the systems that clinicians use to record patients’ wishes for end-of-life care.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that there should be a positive duty to inform a patient of their rights. Healthcare professionals should proactively seek to communicate with their patients and where appropriate, the patients’ families to find out their needs and preferences, and to capture these in an advance care plan if the patient so wishes. Healthcare professionals should understand the Mental Capacity Act so that they can inform patients about these rights if the patient is willing. It would be inappropriate to compel healthcare professionals to force such information on people who do not want it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, suggested that it would make a lot of sense to ensure that advance decisions are stored so that they could be accessed at the right time. It is important that those making an advance decision should decide how best to record their decision to suit their individual circumstances. There are also practical issues in trying to rely on a central register to record wishes, such as ensuring that it is up to date and accurately reflects current issues and wishes. Even if a register was established and showed that an advance decision was in place, healthcare professionals would still be required to satisfy themselves that it was valid and applicable, and would have to seek information from other healthcare staff and close family to ensure wishes, so a register would not be solely relied on. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, also raised the point of whether NICE should issue guidance on the use of advance decisions. NICE is an independent body and anyone can suggest a topic to it through the topic selection procedure. These are then evaluated to decide the topics on which guidance will be developed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, asked what is being done about ensuring that we have the right palliative care services. She raised various points, and when I get to the body of my text I will address that subject. All patients should receive high quality and compassionate care in the last days and hours of their lives, and we know that choice is at the heart of this. The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, highlighted two issues: legislative decisions and policy decisions. I will direct the rest of this speech to policy-related actions and decisions.
The mandate to the NHS was refreshed in November this year. We highlighted the importance of improving standards of care at the end of people’s lives as a priority for the NHS and an area in which we expect particular progress to be made. In response to a recommendation made by the NHS Future Forum, the Government updated the NHS constitution in March 2013 to make it clear that patients should be fully involved in all discussions and decisions about their health and healthcare, including end-of-life care.
I now want to set out further details on the work that we have planned for extending choice in end-of-life care. We recognise that dying well means people being able to exercise more choice in where they receive their care, and to have quality services delivered where and when they need them. We know that most people would prefer to be cared for and to die at home, in familiar surroundings, surrounded by friends and family. We know that currently more than 50% of people die in hospital, the place where they would least prefer to be. We want to make sure that services are set up to help people to die at home, with high quality end-of-life care for all those who need it. However, increasing choice is not an easy task that can be done overnight.
In Liberating the NHS: Greater Choice and Control, we set out our commitment to move towards offering more choice nationally to support preferences on how to have a good death. In light of this, we have been working with the National Council for Palliative Care to undertake a review, of when and how choice could be offered in end-of-life care. Noble Lords will be interested to know that a workshop involving all the key individuals and organisations in end-of-life care will take place early in the new year. It will discuss the key issues and barriers that the review will need to consider. In particular, a review will consider when such choices could feasibly be introduced, with the right services and support in place to deliver this. Our intention is that the review should be as comprehensive as possible, looking at all the issues in depth and involving all key stakeholders. We would therefore encourage and greatly appreciate your Lordships’ input. Any changes requiring legislation would be introduced using existing legislative powers. The outcome of the review will inform NHS England’s future approach to choice in end-of-life care.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked when we could expect proposals to replace the Liverpool care pathway. The work on a response to the independent review of the Liverpool care pathway is being led by the Leadership Alliance for the Care of Dying People. The alliance is currently engaging on draft outcomes and guiding principles that would underlie the care of people at the end of life in all settings. The system-wide responses will be published in the first part of 2014 after the engagement concludes. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield asked about the role of chaplaincy services. The College of Health Care Chaplains is represented on the alliance and will be part of the process of developing the final version of the outcomes and guiding principles. I endorse the comments made by the right reverend Prelate on the key role that chaplaincy services can play in end-of-life care.
Recent survey findings indicate that there is an increasing trend that people wish to die at home, and we cannot ignore that. The End of Life Care Strategy, published by the Department of Health in 2008, set out the ongoing ambition to support more people to die in their preferred location. Work is ongoing from NHS England—the leadership alliance—to refresh the strategy. This refresh will look at the strategy’s recommendations, including on patient choice, and build on them for the future direction of end-of-life care. NHS England is looking to complete this work early in 2014, which will inform its future approach. Following on from this, we know that one of the main barriers to people receiving the care they deserve is a lack of open discussion between health and social care staff. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, spoke of the death taboo slowly receding, but in some cultures death is still considered part of life itself.
We know that after speaking to their loved ones about plans for end-of-life care, GPs are next on the list of people that patients most want to talk to. We also know that where GPs initiate conversation, nine out of 10 people are happy to continue with it. However, we recognise that some people would not wish to enter into conversations, either with their family or with health and social care staff. If this is their choice, we would expect healthcare staff to respect that.
All this is the background to the Find Your One Percent campaign. One per cent of people on a GP list will die each year. The purpose of the Find Your One Percent campaign is to help GPs make sure that people who may be approaching the end of their life have the chance to discuss and plan for their end-of-life care. The campaign is hosted by the Dying Matters coalition, working with Macmillan Cancer Support, the Royal College of General Practitioners and others to ensure that clinicians are provided with the information and, more importantly, the resources they need to support a good death.
The focus is on helping. We believe that GPs play an important role in helping patients to make choices that are right for them and to make sure that this happens. Guidance has been produced for GPs to help patients make informed choices. It is not compulsory for them to follow, nor is it about hitting government targets: it is about improving the quality of people’s experience at the end of life and ensuring that they receive the care they need, when they need it. GPs can help make sure that that happens by offering people the opportunity to prepare an end-of-life care plan. Care planning of this type is not a single event. Plans evolve as people’s conditions change or their preferences alter. This mechanism allows GPs to ensure that people get the treatment they want at the end of their lives, and have a chance to discuss this difficult topic and express their preferences.
Further, the quality and outcomes framework, a voluntary reward and incentive scheme for GP practices in England, currently has two dedicated indicators for palliative care. The framework encourages GPs to establish and maintain a register of all patients in need of palliative care and to have regular, multi-disciplinary case review meetings where all patients on the palliative care register are discussed. These indicators are being retained in the quality and outcomes framework for 2014-15.
In October 2013, NICE, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, announced that it is shortly to review its quality standard for end-of-life care for adults and the support guide for commissioners. This will provide further help to develop end-of-life care services and provide incentives for better conditions.
Many noble Lords have recognised the valuable role that hospices play in delivering end-of-life care services. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, spoke powerfully about a community’s sense of identity and ownership in their local hospice. Building on the success of the £40 million capital budget for hospices in 2010-11, which funded 123 projects in 116 hospices, the Government have provided a further capital budget for hospices of up to £60 million.
The independent Palliative Care Funding Review panel, set up by the Secretary of State for Health, was asked to recommend how a new per-patient funding system for adults and children should be developed. It reported in July 2011 and was recommended by the Government. As noble Lords will know, pilots were set up as a result of this and are currently gathering evidence. This evidence gathering will finish in March 2014. We have already stated our position: we see merit in removing the means test at the end of life, and this is being considered as part of the review. Noble Lords will be pleased to note that we have committed to introducing the new funding system by 2015-16, which is a year earlier than recommended by the review.
Before concluding, I thank those charities and hospices that do such wonderful work with patients at the end of their life, and with their friends and families after death to come to terms with their bereavement. In particular, Marie Curie, Sue Ryder and Macmillan Cancer Support have all been mentioned in today’s debate, but there are other smaller organisations.
I hope that I have been able to offer some reassurance that the Government are making progress on these complex and sensitive issues. If there are any questions that remain unanswered, I will write to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, it was a privilege for me to secure this debate, in which there were some outstanding contributions. It was also very humbling to hear matters of conscience discussed so openly and with such obvious honesty and sincerity. I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield. I hope we will hear from him many times in the future, but perhaps on issues where he and I are in agreement. I am grateful to the Minister for the way she has dealt with this and to my noble friend on the Front Bench. All I can say is that we are going to debate these issues again and again.
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Chidgey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the replenishment pledges for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, made by world leaders in Washington in early December.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, at their meeting in Washington at the beginning of this month, world leaders confirmed their pledges on the fourth replenishment of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The Global Fund congratulated the UK on demonstrating strong leadership in global health, with a major contribution pledged to the Global Fund for the next three years. The United Kingdom will contribute £1 billion to the Global Fund for the 2014-16 period, the second largest pledge by any Government so far after the United States of America. Dr Nafsiah Mboi, the Global Fund chair, cited the extraordinary generosity and leadership of the United Kingdom since the fund was founded in 2002. She said that this new commitment would underline a transformative step forward for the Global Fund partners in their fight to defeat HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria, and gave an inspiring model of responsible global partnership.
Perhaps I may say at this stage how pleased I am that my noble friend Lord Fowler is in his place and will be contributing the benefit of his wealth of knowledge on these issues to the debate. I also welcome my noble friend Lord Verjee, who I am delighted to say has chosen to make his maiden speech in this debate. I know that my noble friend is able to speak from his personal experience in these matters and I look forward to his contribution today and to many more in the future.
The United Kingdom commitment to the Global Fund is geared towards encouraging other donors to maximise their own pledges and thus unlock additional funds with each new pledge. Can my noble friend the Minister say in her response what has been the impact so far of the Washington pledges on securing new pledges, or even indications of new pledges, at this time?
In its contribution towards ending world poverty, the United Kingdom is helping to halve malaria deaths in 10 of the worst affected countries by 2015. The United Kingdom has targeted saving the lives of 50,000 women in pregnancy and child birth, and 250,000 new-born babies, as well as helping to immunise more than 55 million children against preventable disease. The Global Fund pledging conference has set a target of $15 billion for the fourth replenishment. So far it has received $5 billion from the USA, the equivalent of $1.6 billion from the United Kingdom, and $612 million from Canada. A number of other pledges, notably from northern Europe, bring the total pledged to date to more than $12 billion.
The Global Fund was created in 2002 as a public-private partnership to raise funds to change the course of HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria. The United Kingdom has now become the second largest donor after the USA, pushing France into third place. Since 2002, the fund has approved more than $23 billion for grants spread over more than 150 countries. The fund accounts for 21% of all international funding for HIV/AIDS, 82% of international funding for TB and 50% of global malaria funding. It is the biggest funder of programmes to prevent, treat and care for people with these diseases. Big strides have been made, with 9.7 million people receiving antiretroviral therapy for HIV/AIDS and a further 30 million mosquito insecticide-treated nets being distributed in the first six months of 2013, making a total of 340 million nets. My noble friend may be aware, however, of disturbing reports that in some areas these bed nets are being used as fishing nets, which is clearly totally inappropriate. Does her department have any details of this departure and the effect it may have on the impact of the fourth replenishment?
The Global Fund’s TB programmes are continuing to expand, with the number of cases being supported now exceeding 11 million. However, the UK could be doing more, to which I shall return later. The UK’s latest £1 billion pledge to the Global Fund will maintain the record of “a life saved every three minutes”. Taking a lead in the worldwide fight against HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria, United Kingdom support over the next three years will deliver antiretroviral therapy to 750,000 people, 32 million more insecticide-treated mosquito nets to protect against malaria, and TB treatment for over 1 million more people. The UK’s allocation to the Global Fund will save a life every three minutes over the next three years and it will dramatically improve the lives of millions of people across the globe. Your Lordships will be aware that there are those who question the efficacy of organisations such as the Global Fund and its ability to channel the generosity of the United Kingdom into effectively combating diseases such as AIDS, TB and malaria. However, serious analysis confirms that the statistics demonstrate incontrovertibly that we can win this global battle on behalf of the poor.
On a human scale, I am sure that noble Lords can recall, like me, witnessing the suffering of those afflicted by these diseases and their like. I think of my visit to a hospice in Soweto in 2004, where volunteers were comforting and caring for patients dying from AIDS. Many were too weak to speak and unable to understand what was happening to them, having been abandoned by their families. Left to die on the streets, they were brought into the hospice by volunteer community workers who had been trained in basic healthcare by a handful of dedicated nurses. Almost 10 years on, thanks to organisations such as the Global Fund, the ravages of AIDS are gradually diminishing, with the hope that they will become something of the past in due course.
More recently, indeed just this summer, under the sponsorship of the charity RESULTS, I visited a district hospital outside Lilongwe in Malawi where small children were being comforted by their mothers as they struggled for breath and literally for life against the advances of pneumonia and TB. Further afield, at village health posts, I watched children being vaccinated by health workers, who were hampered by the fact that the transport of the cold boxes essential for the storage of vaccine was at the mercy of the poorly maintained and therefore unreliable fleet of motorbikes. Just to add to the difficulties, it was a 14-kilometre walk to the health posts for families living in the most remote communities.
Considering the Global Fund’s present challenges and the UK’s responses, it is the case that the poor relation in the three worldwide health campaigns seems to be tackling tuberculosis. TB is contagious and airborne. It is the second most deadly infectious disease in the world, and last year it was responsible for 1.3 million deaths and 8.6 million new cases. TB is the leading cause of death for HIV/AIDS-positive people and is responsible for one in five HIV deaths—that was 320,000 deaths last year alone. TB is estimated to have killed more people than any other pandemic in history, and is developing a drug resistance which makes it more expensive and more difficult to treat, with many more adverse implications and side-effects for patients. An estimated 3 million people a year who develop TB are not officially diagnosed or treated, with no guarantee of treatment outcomes.
The Global Fund has demonstrated that, with investment and leadership, significant gains can be made, but it needs to work with agencies such as DfID to be fully successful. It cannot operate in isolation. DfID can and should invest in issues such as TB which have an impact on health outcomes in the UK. DfID can and should prioritise issues that are important to the UK taxpayer. DfID can and should invest in new and innovative projects that could represent significant steps forward.
TB is a largely neglected disease. Only one new drug has received regulatory approval in 42 years and the old-fashioned BCG procedure offers no protection to adults and cannot be used on people with HIV. Moreover, it does not protect against the most common type of the disease. It is estimated to cost the EU region alone almost €6 billion a year, yet the region accounts for only 4.7% of global cases. Leadership from DfID in a country like the UK could be transformative. It could lift the profile of the disease and show that it is still a major issue, which could lead to additional investment. DfID has provided a model response to malaria, putting it at the forefront of the global aid agenda. The 1.3 million people dying every year from TB and the 8.6 million who suffer from the disease need the level of support and commitment that only an aid agency like DfID can provide.
I should be very grateful if, in her response, my noble friend could address this and the other issues that I have raised.
Lord Fowler (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Chidgey on his speech and I look forward to the maiden speech which is to follow in a few minutes. I should perhaps declare a new interest. Last week I joined the board of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative in New York. I agree entirely with what my noble friend has said in introducing this short debate, in particular about the value for money that the Global Fund represents and, of course, the contribution that it is making to the fight against TB. I will not repeat his arguments because I want to come to this issue from a slightly different position.
Over the past 18 months, I have been looking at HIV and AIDS in different cities around the world. What has struck me is that when I explain this in this country, I am met with the response, “You mean, it is still a problem?”. It depends on what you mean by a problem. Last year some 1,600,000 people worldwide died from AIDS, while 2.3 million were newly infected, and for every person who was put on to antiretroviral treatment, two were infected. Some 36 million people around the world live with HIV, including 100,000 in this country, accounting for a drugs budget in the region of £800 million.
It may be true that Africa has the biggest problem, but more than 2 million people live with HIV in India, while in Russia and Ukraine there are major problems of injecting drug users, home-made drugs and shared needles. Of those with HIV, up to a quarter are undiagnosed and, all other things being equal, continue to spread the virus. Even when people are on antiretroviral drugs, many do not adhere to the treatment, storing up all kinds of problems for the future. So, yes, not only is there a problem, but there is an acute and urgent challenge to every Government in the world. Thanks to the Global Fund and to the President’s fund in the United States, enormous progress has been made. The United States Government in particular should be given credit for what they have done—of course, I agree with my noble friend—as should the Government here, who have redeemed the pledge of my right honourable friend Andrew Mitchell to increase their Global Fund contribution. We should also recognise, however, that over the past few years the overall global contribution has remained stable in real terms; it has not increased.
In no way do I deny the progress that has been made because it has been formidable and dramatic in terms of the number of lives saved, but I would suggest that the lesson is that we must not give up now. We should recognise what that means: we are talking about a lifetime commitment to people living with HIV. It is not a condition where, after treating a patient for six months, you can move on to the next one. That is one reason why the world needs to put far more emphasis than it has on preventing new cases of HIV. As I mentioned, I have joined the board of IAVI and did it for this reason. A vaccine gives the best hope for the future: you cut through some of the prejudice that surrounds testing and, from the financial point of view, it opens up the hope of reducing an otherwise constantly increasing bill. That was why—if I may say so to my noble friend—I was surprised and dismayed a month or two ago, before I joined the board, that the Government slashed the help from a hardly princely £9 million or £10 million down to £1 million.
I accept that there is, at present, no cure and no vaccine—which is exactly what I said back in 1986. That means we have to do two things. First, we need to keep up our contributions to the Global Fund. It needs to be underlined that, in the vast majority of cases, that has been money well invested, resulting in tremendous advances and the saving of lives. Secondly, we need Governments globally to engage with the key minority populations where the risk of HIV is highest. It is absurd, unjust and counterproductive that homosexuality is criminalised in so many countries in the world. We also need to treat drug dependence as a medical issue, not just as part of a so-called and unsuccessful war on drugs, and to introduce more clean needle schemes, which we did in this country in 1987. We need to engage with people such as sex workers, where the rate of HIV remains very high, and not simply pursue a policy of looking the other way. We also need to fight discrimination against transsexuals, which often forces them into sex work.
We have made massive progress, much of which is down to the success of the Global Fund, to which I pay tribute. However, we should also recognise that there is still a hell of a long way to go.
Lord Verjee (LD)
My Lords, it is with a very full set of emotions that I stand before noble Lords this afternoon to make my maiden speech in the House. These emotions are hard to describe but they include great trepidation, great gratitude and great humility. I will deal with the easy one first: great trepidation as I stand before this august House, full of its long history, tradition and the wisdom of all the noble Lords gathered here today. This would indeed be humbling for any new Member of this House and I will have a great sense of relief when I complete this maiden speech and sit down.
I stand here in gratitude for so many reasons, including gratitude to my noble friend Lord Chidgey for introducing this debate. I am very fortunate to speak in this debate for many reasons. We are debating here a Global Fund not just for HIV but for tuberculosis and malaria, and in the country where I was born, Uganda, malaria is still the biggest killer. It accounts for nearly half of all the deaths of children in any one year.
Ten years ago, I myself contracted malaria in the jungles of India. There are two types of malaria. There is the less lethal type that none the less revisits you and debilitates you year after year, and then there is what is called “cerebral” malaria, which goes straight to your brain and kills you. I had the second kind. That day, I could have easily joined the ranks of the well over 500,000 people who die of malaria every year. I was told I had only a day or more to live. It is only because I had access to the best medical treatment that I survived. Today, thanks to the deal that was recently made in Washington DC, far more people will survive and become malaria-free, as I did. I am proud to say that the British Government’s contribution to the fund has trebled, and we continue to be the second largest contributor in the world—for this, I am here to say thank you.
I am also full of gratitude to all the staff, team, police and security personnel, and to Black Rod’s department, for all the most courteous, patient and kind help over the past few weeks as I so obviously wandered around very lost but trying hard not to appear so. I am full of gratitude, too, to my supporters: my noble friends Lord Dholakia and Lady Brinton. To follow in the immense footsteps of my noble friend Lord Dholakia is both a privilege and a challenge for a new Member of the House, and for me in particular, as we both hail from east Africa. I am full of gratitude to my noble friend Lady Brinton for all her help, support and confidence as we launched a leadership programme for my party that is designed to mentor and develop people from underrepresented groups so they can become MPs and participate in the governance of this country.
I am full of gratitude most of all to the country and people of Great Britain. My family were dispossessed by Idi Amin of Uganda in 1972 because we were Asians, yet I was able to come here and prosper in this country and become an entrepreneur, and my family and I were able to live in freedom and dignity. This country gave me the opportunity to thrive and I truly hope I can help many more people to have that very same opportunity.
The Global Fund and similar institutions provide these very same opportunities to people all over the world. I recently had the honour to travel with former President Clinton, who works with the Global Fund, to five countries in Africa. We visited Zambia, Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania and South Africa, to see the projects supported by the Clinton Foundation. In Zanzibar, we visited a project called ZAPHA+, established some 20 years ago for Muslim women in a tiny community who had been stigmatised and shunned for being HIV positive. This project took them in, provided support groups and business skills for them and helped them to turn their lives around. When we visited, the women were happy, healthy and confident, and introduced us and President Clinton to their HIV negative children. It showed me what aid money can achieve when it is well spent. I assure noble Lords that the money committed by our Government will transform lives.
Finally, I speak with a great sense of humility. The late President Nelson Mandela once said that,
“after climbing a great hill, one only finds that there are many more hills to climb”.
It has indeed been a great hill for me to climb from my birth in Uganda to my ascent into the House of Lords. I see now that there are many more hills to climb—hills on which there are people who need our help. I can rest at the end of this, my maiden speech, knowing that I will be climbing those hills together with other noble Lords. Thank you.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure for me to be able to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Verjee, on what I think all noble Lords would agree was an outstanding maiden speech. It was passionate, very personal and very modest. The noble Lord’s story is an extraordinary one of academic, entrepreneurial and philanthropic success. His business achievements are manifold, but anyone who has ever fought an election campaign will always owe him a particular debt of gratitude as the founder of Domino’s Pizza in the UK.
In his speech, the noble Lord referred to what aid money can achieve when well spent. The noble Lord, Lord Verjee, is not only a generous but an intelligent philanthropist. He works, through the Rumi Foundation, in a variety of fields, but I pay particular tribute to the work that he has described today in encouraging, through the leadership programme, people from underrepresented groups to participate in political life. We hear and see a great deal about the perpetuation of privilege in public life in this country and it is enormously important that stories about those who overcome obstacles and the triumph of talent are also told as examples to others. I first heard about the noble Lord, Lord Verjee, from my son, who works in the philanthropic field. He said, “You should meet Rumi, Mum, he’s one of the really good guys”. I think that the House will share that opinion as time goes by.
Baroness Hayman
When speaking about the Global Fund, I must declare my non-financial interests. I am a trustee of the Sabin Vaccine Institute, a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Malaria and Neglected Tropical Diseases and a trustee of the Malaria Consortium. I pay tribute to what the fund has achieved in the battle against malaria, to which the noble Lord, Lord Verjee, referred. Hearing the statistic that since 2001 the number of child deaths from malaria has been halved reminds you what aid money well spent can achieve. The Global Fund has been enormously important in that. The Malaria Consortium is the leading UK implementer of Global Fund money. In Uganda, with the fund’s support, we are working with the Ministry of Health to distribute more than 20 million long-lasting insecticidal nets to achieve universal net coverage in that country.
As many have said in debates about the Global Fund, it is essential that we replenish the fund if we are successfully to continue and build on what has already been done. The fund is hugely important, not only in its own work but—as was made clear to me at a meeting of the all-party group last night—in the effect it has on the upstream work to face the new challenges and create the new vaccines, medicines, insecticides and diagnostics. While those are being developed, there must be the encouragement of knowing that there will be an implementation machine to take them to the patients. It is tremendously important that the fund is replenished.
Replenishment will also allow the Global Fund to build and extend its work. I very much welcome the new funding model, which seeks to align investments in combating HIV, TB and malaria with national health strategies, while strengthening health systems and serving as a platform promoting the health of a person rather than combating only specific diseases. I feel this particularly strongly when I look at the issues of maternal and child health and of neglected tropical diseases.
For the world’s poorest people, these things do not fit into nicely delineated silos and different funding streams; these are the health issues of the poor. To be effective, we need to combine the programmes to ensure that the synergies are achieved and the best value for money is obtained. I think of it most particularly with regard to schistosomiasis. Schistosomiasis increases by twofold or threefold the likelihood that an adolescent girl exposed to HIV will contract HIV. The treatment for schistosomiasis is very cheap but, as a neglected tropical disease, it does not fall within the bounds of the Global Fund. My question to the Minister is: what are the Government willing to do to encourage the Global Fund to take a broader approach to health in the future?
Baroness Nye (Lab)
My Lords, I join the noble Baroness in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Verjee, on his most eloquent maiden speech. I look forward to his future contributions. I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, for securing this important debate and for his efforts to keep the fund at the forefront of the development agenda.
As the noble Lord said, the fund’s achievements have been remarkable: 6 million treated for HIV; 11 million diagnosed and treated for TB; and 360 million bed nets. I thank the Government for maintaining the support shown to the Global Fund by the previous Labour Government by making such a generous pledge. Although the replenishment campaign is over, the work of replenishing the fund must continue in order to ensure that it reaches its target.
I, too, look forward to the Minister giving us an update on what the Government are doing to galvanise support from other donors to ensure that UK and US money is not left on the table and on what part they are playing to ensure the long-term stability of the funding stream. Only with sustained, long-term funding can you achieve the scale of the interventions needed.
For all these efforts, gaps remain in our responses to these diseases. For 10 years, the UK charity Target Tuberculosis has been working in the field through local partner organisations, focusing on the needs of the poorest communities, who often live in remote locations far from government-led national TB programmes, which receive the bulk of the Global Fund allocations.
Currently the British Government do not engage in any bilateral funding of programmes related to TB, despite the Prime Minister co-chairing a high-level panel report on the post-2015 framework that identified treating TB as the most cost-effective health intervention measured. It returns £30 for every £1 spent. Perhaps the Minister will explain why the British Government do not fund TB-specific projects through bilateral funding.
In October the WHO launched its annual Global Tuberculosis Report in London with RESULTS UK, to which I am grateful for the work that it does and the briefing that it has provided for this debate. The report named five key priorities for beating the TB epidemic. I am going to concentrate on the need to:
“Accelerate the response to TB/HIV”.
Last year 1.3 million people lost their lives to TB. As the noble Lord said, 320,000 of those people were HIV positive. TB is the leading cause of death for people with HIV, yet only just over half of all those who are HIV positive and have TB can access anti-retrovirals. TB preys on a weakened immune system and, without access to anti-retrovirals, TB will progress faster in an HIV-positive patient. Co-infected patients without anti-retrovirals are more likely to die. A priority for reducing the number of deaths from TB and HIV is to scale up the response to co-infection and ensure that everyone with TB is tested for HIV, and vice versa, and given the proper medication.
The Stop TB Partnership, the WHO and UNAIDS stated that 1 million deaths could be prevented among people living with HIV by 2015 if the world implemented simple strategies; that is, everyone with TB gets an HIV test and access to treatment. Worryingly, there remains a huge gap between where we are today and complete coverage of anti-retrovirals for TB/HIV patients, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said. The recent DfID position paper reaffirming its commitment to TB/HIV is to be welcomed.
The fund’s strategy committee has decided that it should do more on TB/HIV. It has mandated that any country with high rates of TB/HIV co-infection that applies for funding for treatment programmes will have to design its programmes in a single unified application. Every country will have to have joint, integrated, co-ordinated programmes for TB/HIV. This could be a huge step forward, as the fund provides 80% of international financing for TB and more than 20% for HIV. I urge the Government to take the lead and to support the Global Fund, not with money this time but by supporting and adopting similar policies and by urging other partners to do the same.
Finally, in a week when the eyes of the world have been on South Africa, there is one other area where we could make a difference. South Africa’s gold mines contribute 9% of the global total of TB cases, which in turn fuel the HIV epidemic in the region. The British Government could show real global leadership and I hope that the Minister will update your Lordships’ House on the Government’s recent meetings with mining companies. The South African Health Minister and chair of the Stop TB Partnership board has called a regional gathering of Health Ministers and mining companies for early next year. The meeting will seek to drive a regional response to the disease. It would show real commitment if the British Government sent a high-level representative to that meeting. This is the kind of leadership that the British Government could and should provide. They have stated that TB/HIV is a priority; now I urge them to prove it.
Baroness Tonge (Ind LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, for securing this debate and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Verjee, on a brilliant maiden speech—I congratulate him even more on surviving cerebral malaria.
I have not exactly heaped praise on the coalition Government in the past three years, but I praise them for having the vision and good sense to see that overseas aid, prudently spent, not only benefits people in developing countries but will eventually benefit us all by reducing poverty and migration and increasing our markets abroad.
Not being a great fan of “vertical lines of expenditure” on specific issues, I was sceptical when the Global Fund was set up, but I accepted that the three diseases that we are discussing were causing such devastation that a new approach was clearly needed—and the Global Fund was that new approach. It has been successful, as we have heard from the fund itself in the excellent briefing that we have received from it and from other noble Lords. I shall therefore congratulate the fund but not repeat what has already been said by other speakers.
Replenishment of the fund is now needed, and we have heard of the plans for it. We must keep up support for the fund and nag other countries to keep pledges. Drug resistance is growing and we must stay vigilant.
This applies also to my main interest, which is population and development, and expenditure on sexual and reproductive health, particularly family planning. According to the ODA, funding for population assistance is still increasing, but at a much slower rate than prior to the financial crisis. This is despite the tremendous boost given to accessible family planning by our coalition Government at the summit in London last year and carried forward by the Gates Foundation, to which we owe a huge debt of gratitude.
Allowing women in the least developed countries to have access to family planning to limit the number of children they have is still crucial to the achievement of the millennium development goals. If the world’s population continues to increase, the MDGs become harder to achieve. We may feel that we are making progress, but more and more people coming into the world will need more help and more treatment. It is crucial therefore to keep up the pressure on family planning provision, always ensuring of course that there is no coercion. If you consult the statistics, you will see that economic growth always follows reduction in family size; it is not the other way round, as used to be believed. And that, reduction in family size, is the way out of poverty for most developing countries.
One of the factors which led to my lack of enthusiasm for “vertical” programmes such as the Global Fund—this has been alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman—is that while a patient may get his or her treatment for HIV/AIDS or TB, the provision of reproductive healthcare and contraception may be in another clinic or another place, necessitating another long journey to a health centre—and sometimes the provision does not exist at all. I am delighted, therefore, that the Global Fund is now trying to ensure that more comprehensive health systems will be set up alongside the treatments for AIDS, TB and malaria. I would love to hear the Minister’s assurance on that. There is a direct link, too: contraception in the form of condoms is after all the first defence against AIDS while we are waiting for a vaccine. Every health facility dealing with AIDS should remember this fact and have those available.
Once again, I congratulate the Global Fund and the current and previous Governments on having achieved so much in international development during the past two decades, and I look forward to the next decade with some confidence.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend, Lord Chidgey, for securing this debate, just 10 days after the Global Fund’s replenishment conference. I join others in congratulating my noble friend Lord Verjee on an excellent maiden speech. I want, too, to congratulate the Government on their commitment to the fund, which has raised a remarkable $12 billion for the next three years and made unprecedented strides against HIV, TB and malaria.
When the Economic Affairs Committee took evidence a couple of years ago on the economic impact and effectiveness of development aid, I noted in particular the evidence of Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University, who said he was,
“a big fan of well targeted, well defined programmes that can accomplish well designed and specified purposes”,
such as delivery of bed nets or vaccines. This is what the Global Fund helps to achieve: as we have heard, 11 million cases of TB have been diagnosed and treated, 360 million bed nets have been distributed to protect against malaria, and 6 million people have received life-saving antiretrovirals.
However, huge gaps remain. Every year, there are 3 million people around the world who develop TB and are not officially diagnosed or treated and remain infectious. That number has not changed for six consecutive years.
There is one initiative which would help: a Stop TB Partnership project called TB REACH, created with a grant from the Canadian Government amounting to $120 million. It is important because, while the Global Fund provides more than 80% of international financing of TB treatment, it is unable to fund projects that do not have a track record of proven success, which inhibits innovation.
TB REACH undertakes feasibility studies for donors such as the Global Fund. It incubates innovations in TB care delivery; for example, using mobile phone technology, developing public/private partnerships and rolling out new, rapid diagnostic tests. That is exactly what it did in Ethiopia, where it supported a project that saw 1,200 community health workers team up with motorbike riders to get TB samples from remote villages.
The project put a comprehensive package of measures in place to improve access to TB care. Health workers identified people who had been coughing for two or more weeks and collected sputum samples, prepared smears and supervised treatment, leading to a doubling of case detection and a 93% treatment success rate. That scheme has since been supported and scaled up by the Global Fund and the Ethiopian Government. It now has a sustainable future.
However, I understand that there may have been concerns about the number of small projects that TB REACH funds, and about their sustainability and their scalability. Inevitably, with any initiative that funds innovation, not all projects will be a success and not all can be scaled up, and that is the price of innovation. But TB REACH is broadly successful, providing fast-track funding so that projects can deliver results within six months of a proposal being received. Its outputs seem impressive. In the past three years, TB REACH has contributed to the detection and treatment of more than half a million people with TB, through more than 100 grants in 44 countries targeting key groups including TB in mining communities and childhood TB. In addition, TB REACH projects have prevented 750,000 people becoming infected.
I am aware of two reports that have the Government’s seal of approval. The first is the high-level panel report on the post-2015 framework, co-chaired by the Prime Minister. The report found that TB interventions offered the best return on investment of any health intervention. The other report is the recent DfID Health Position Paper, which identified the critical importance of innovation in solving the world’s most intractable health problems. I think that the Government are right to identify the importance of TB interventions, and the importance of innovation. I therefore hope that they will look very carefully at the strong case for extra funding for TB REACH.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, for initiating this very timely debate. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Verjee, on his excellent and moving maiden speech, making a very powerful, personal case for the fund.
As my noble friend Lady Nye said, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has since its inception provided 6.1 million people with life-saving access to HIV treatment, 11 million people with tuberculosis treatment, 360 million households with insecticide-treated nets to prevent malaria, and treated 260 million cases of malaria.
As we have heard from noble Lords in the debate, it was rated as “very good” value for money in DFID’s 2011 Multilateral Aid Review, and continued to make progress according to the 2013 follow-up.
As we have heard in the speeches this afternoon, the donors’ decision earlier this month to pledge $12 billion over the next three years is extremely welcome but still $3 billion short of the $15 billion needed. If that goal was achieved it would mean that: 17 million patients with TB and multidrug-resistant TB could be treated, saving more than 6 million lives over the three-year period; 1.3 million new HIV infections could be averted each year; and 196,000 additional lives could be saved from malaria, helping to avert a resurgence of the disease that could see the world return to levels of mortality not seen since the year 2000.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, I pay tribute to the US Government for their action here. The US has committed itself to a one-third match of all funds raised up to the full $15 billion, so a further $1 billion is now on the table if other donors can step up to raise the remaining $2 billion needed. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, I am very proud of this Government for maintaining my Government’s commitment to the £1 billion funding. That places us in a strong position to exert influence over others for this round of replenishment. What steps will the Government and department take to help the fund realise the full $15 billion replenishment and thereby maximise the support from both us and the USA?
Key to this will be more effective engagement with emerging economies that have the capability to support the fund. As we have heard in previous debates, India and China between them donated less than Ireland did on its own. For malaria, the Global Fund represents half of all international financing and will go a long way towards helping meet some of the urgent needs for prevention, diagnosis and treatment. Current prevention measures have dramatically reduced malaria cases and deaths, particularly in young children. The WHO World Malaria Report published yesterday shows impressive progress in the global malaria campaign. However, as quoted in today’s Guardian, Margaret Chan—director-general of the WHO—warned:
“This progress is no cause for complacency. The absolute numbers of malaria cases and deaths are not going down as fast as they could”.
The Global Fund also makes up more than 80% of all international financing for TB, making it the single most important funding mechanism in the fight against TB. If global funding for HIV, TB and malaria were to flat-line, we could see 2.6 million new HIV infections every year, some 3 million fewer people treated for TB, and 430 million malaria cases that could have been prevented. As Mark Dybul, executive director of the fund said:
“We have a choice: we can invest now or pay forever”.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Chidgey for securing this important debate at a very important time. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Verjee for his moving maiden speech. I am absolutely delighted that, with all his wide experience—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, outlined—he chose to make his first speech in this debate, which I am answering. It is also excellent that so many noble Lords who have such an outstanding track record in this area, especially my noble friend Lord Fowler, have contributed. I thank noble Lords who paid tribute to what we are doing, especially my noble friend Lady Tonge, as I know how very hard won is her praise.
As noble Lords made clear, AIDS, TB and malaria remain among the biggest causes of death and illness in developing countries. In 2012 alone, AIDS killed 1.6 million people, malaria 627,000 and TB 1.3 million. However, great progress has been made: new HIV infections are declining in many of the worst-affected countries; there has been a significant reduction in malaria incidence and deaths; and the world is on course to halve TB deaths by 2015, compared to 1990 levels. Just 10 years ago, the world struggled to respond to HIV, TB and malaria, and access to key prevention and treatment interventions was very limited—as noble Lords will remember. This picture has now been transformed and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has played a major part in this. Since 2002, Global Fund-supported programmes have detected and treated 11.2 million TB cases and distributed 360 million treated nets. Some 6.1 million people living with HIV are now receiving antiretroviral therapy thanks to the Global Fund. That is truly a remarkable achievement.
However, as my noble friend Lord Fowler and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, pointed out, we must not give up now and cannot be complacent. Improvements are not uniform in all countries. As my noble friend Lady Tonge said, resistance to effective medicines is a growing threat. Devastating rebounds can occur quickly. That is why we must redouble our efforts and increase our commitment. As my noble friend Lord Fowler made clear, we now have a historic opportunity to make a decisive impact on these diseases. We have effective tools to prevent and treat them and an unprecedented global commitment to transform the three diseases into manageable health problems rather than national and global emergencies.
Last week at the Global Fund’s replenishment conference in Washington, donors pledged $12 billion. That is the largest amount ever pledged—a 30% increase on the amount pledged at the 2010 replenishment conference. But $12 billion is only the start: the fund aims to raise a further $3 billion over the next three years to bring this to $15 billion and make the most of this historic opportunity. The UK is playing a groundbreaking part in that, as noble Lords noted. We are committing £1 billion—provided that that is not more than 10% of the total replenishment value—to encourage other donors to come forward and meet the target. Developing countries, civil society and the private sector also have crucial roles to play. Last week the Gates Foundation announced that it would provide up to $200 million to match other donor commitments. We hope that that will encourage new partners, including private contributors, to join the global effort.
I assure my noble friend Lord Chidgey and the noble Baroness, Lady Nye, that we are working very hard to ensure that others follow suit. That is why the UK, the US and the Gates Foundation have made our contributions conditional. The most important role, of course, will be played by the countries themselves: designing effective national strategies; using funds transparently and well; and providing the bulk of financing from their own domestic resources. It was notable and historic that Nigeria participated in Washington as an equal partner, committing $1 billion for investments in treatment, care and prevention for Nigerian people affected by the diseases.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked about the broader health sector support for the Global Fund. Clearly, the focus of the Global Fund is on the three diseases, but there has been a widespread understanding of the effect that it has on other diseases and the importance of ensuring that action in one area is supported by action in another, and that it is important to look across the sector. Whether it is neglected tropical diseases or family planning, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, referred, it is recognised that these areas interplay.
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, asked about key populations. We strongly support a public health approach to key populations affected by HIV, including men who have sex with men, sex workers and injecting drug-users, that respects human rights and addresses the stigma and discrimination that they face. It is very important that that is recognised.
Of course, we wish to see the money spent effectively. On the misuse of bed nets, I can assure my noble friend Lord Chidgey that the World Health Organisation’s World Malaria Report 2013, which was launched yesterday, estimates that 86% of people who had access to a bed net used it to protect themselves from getting malaria. We are supporting efforts to maintain and increase that.
On TB, we are committed to the global goal of halving deaths from it by 2015. Various noble Lords mentioned this. The noble Baroness, Lady Nye, suggested that there were no TB-specific bilateral programmes. The majority of UK funding for TB treatment is through the Global Fund, but we are providing bilateral funding to TB-specific programmes in a number of countries, including South Africa, Burma, Nigeria and India. In August, we announced support for nine public-private partnerships, including FIND, the TB alliance and Aeras. These partnerships will help fund crucial work on developing new and more effective tools to prevent, diagnose and treat TB, in addition to our spend through the Global Fund.
In addressing my noble friend Lord Shipley on TB REACH, I will say that we have reviewed its external mid-term evaluation and agreed that it has successfully funded innovative approaches leading to additional TB cases being detected among high-risk populations and in high-burden countries. Besides supporting it through the Global Fund, DfID also supports TB REACH through our £53 million annual core support to UNITAID.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nye, spoke of integrated approaches to tackling TB and HIV, which is something that her noble friend Lord Collins put to me the other day. DfID has been leading in this area, and we have been strongly involved in the recent Global Fund requirement for countries burdened by the two diseases to put forward a unified and integrated application for joint TB/HIV programmes. This is a strong signal that disease-specific initiatives will not address TB/HIV co-infection alone. That is also highlighted in DfID’s HIV position paper review, which has just been published, because we recognise the importance of co-infection.
In terms of working in the extractives industry, which the noble Baroness, Lady Nye, also brought up, we are working with the Government of South Africa, the Chamber of Mines and the World Bank to expand the quality and access of TB-related services, including TB control and treatment referral across borders. There are some other details, which I can provide to her.
We now have to ensure that we use the funds pledged at the recent conference, and those that will follow, as we seek to meet the $15 billion requirement for the Global Fund. We have to make sure that these funds are used in the most effective way possible, so that we achieve the greatest impact from the money contributed. The UK will continue to work closely with the Global Fund to ensure: that we are financing the highest-impact interventions; that we are increasing funds to the lowest-income or most fragile countries with the greatest disease burdens; that we are focusing interventions on the most at-risk populations, using the latest epidemiological evidence to target disease hotspots in country; and that we are using funds to support implementation of robust national disease strategies with full country ownership.
We will ensure that the Global Fund implements and builds on its new systems of governance and risk management, so that no one is denied access to life-saving treatment due to a loss of funds through fraud and corruption. We must not forget the importance of shaping markets and reducing costs, and have made huge strides already in this area, which I think that noble Lords are familiar with. But with continued work, we believe that further sustainable price reductions are possible, so that more lives can be saved for every £1 raised.
The $12 billion pledged in Washington is the start of a process towards full replenishment and achieving the maximum impact from $15 billion. This in turn is part of something bigger, with vital contributions from other donor sources, the private sector, civil society, and, most importantly, from the countries themselves. Working together in a true global partnership with clear goals and targets and unwavering national and global commitment is the only way to end the death and suffering caused by HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB.
House of Lords: Size
(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Norton of Louth
To move that this House takes note of the case for reducing the size of the House of Lords.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, the proposition I wish to put to the House is straightforward. In terms of membership, the House of Lords has grown, is growing and ought to be reduced. There is an immediate problem; there is an even greater prospective problem.
My starting point is that this House does a good job in fulfilling functions that add value to the political process. It complements the elected Chamber, not least in carrying out tasks that the other House may not have the time, resources or political will to fulfil. However, the fact that we do a good job does not mean that we could not be even more effective than we are. Enhancing our effectiveness has two elements. One is making changes to how we operate and the other is bolstering public confidence in what we do. Unlike the other place, we cannot take our legitimacy for granted. We have to earn it. The changes that would enable us to fulfil our functions more effectively and enhance public support go well beyond limiting how many Members we have. However, addressing the size of the House is critical because of its relevance to fulfilling the functions of the House and our public standing.
There are two aspects to the size of the House. One is the total membership and the other is the active membership. The total membership is especially relevant to how the House is seen by the public, and the active membership is relevant to the capacity of the House to do its job. In terms of total membership, the House has grown markedly since the passage of the House of Lords Act 1999. At the start of the new Session of 1999-2000, we had 666 Members—in other words, a membership slightly larger than that of the House of Commons. Today, we have a total of 835 Members, making the House more than a quarter larger than the House of Commons. We are the largest second Chamber in the world. That remains the case even if we exclude those who have taken leave of absence or are ineligible. Excluding those who are ineligible or have taken leave of absence, we have 781 Members. However, we have to take into account the fact that ineligible Members, such as those holding judicial posts, will in due course be able to resume their seats. Some of those on leave of absence because of the positions they hold, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, may well resume their seats upon completion of their current posts.
However, even working with the figure of 781, imagine what will happen if a new list of Peers is announced. Then think ahead to the next Parliament and the likely creation of another list. There may be ebbs and flows—we lose some Members each year and there is a lull between lists—but the underlying trend is clear. That is demonstrated graphically in Figure 2 of Meg Russell’s pamphlet, House Full, published in 2011. As she points out, the largest single number of Peers to be created in any one year since 1999 was the 117 who were created in 2010-11.
The number, be it of all Peers or just of eligible ones, is rising and has risen most markedly in the past three years. It is not beyond reason to envisage a House at some point in the next Parliament with a total membership close to, or even in excess of, 900 Members. A House of that size, whether active or inactive, does nothing for the reputation of the House; it is difficult to defend in the public arena.
One can certainly justify a House similar in size to that of the other House, given that we need a large membership to sustain an active House of part-time Members. We benefit fundamentally from Peers having outside links and maintaining current expertise. This House forms an invaluable arena for discourse by civil society. However, the more that we grow in number beyond the size of the other place and, like Topsy, just grow and grow, it is difficult to defend against the criticism of being primarily an expanding repository of political patronage.
There is no obvious justification for the expansion in terms of fulfilling the tasks that are core to our activity. The more that we grow in size, the more that the position becomes indefensible. It would not be bad if there were a rational argument for the growth in numbers, but there is no clear intellectual basis for it. The composition of the new membership in this Parliament bears little relationship to the stated aim of the coalition agreement in terms of membership proportional to votes in the general election. To achieve proportionality now would require a further, substantial injection of new Peers.
There is a more tangible problem in terms of the resources of the House. The growth in membership in recent years has brought in Members who contribute regularly to the work of the House. This is reflected in the daily attendance: the average daily attendance in the Session 2009-10 was 388, while in the most recent session, 2012-13, it was 484. As Meg Russell records, this substantial recent growth in the active membership generates three problems. First, it puts pressure on the limited resources of the House. Secondly, it puts pressure on the work of the House, not least in terms of demands to contribute to Question Time and debates. Thirdly, it has a negative impact on the culture of the House. The more that Members are brought in quickly and in large numbers, the more that this makes it difficult to socialise Members in the accepted norms of the House, and the danger is that the House may become more fractious and partisan.
The pressure on resources is fairly obvious, not least in terms of space. Members have always been underresourced relative to Members of the other place. This is shown in the extent to which Peers are allocated not offices of their own but rather desk space. The pressure is also obvious in the Chamber, in that at various times it is not able to accommodate all the Members who wish to attend. We have a smaller Chamber than that of the other place but a larger membership. The Commons has seating for more than 60% of its Members; we cannot match that, even based on the average daily attendance, and the situation is clearly growing worse.
The increase creates particular problems in a House that works on a fairly lean support base. The cost of this House is notably less than that of the House of Commons. In the previous Session, the cost to the public purse of the House of Commons was £392 million while the cost of the House of Lords was £87 million. We may take some pride in delivering value for money, but making a case for more public money at the present time is difficult. We are expected to make efficiency savings. That will be difficult with an influx of new and active members, each eligible for an attendance allowance and transport costs and adding to the demands on the resources of the House. There is clearly a problem in how this will be seen by the public. There is also the problem of how we can cope within our existing physical capacity and administrative support. The demand is in danger of outstripping the ability of the House to meet it.
So the situation that we are in is clearly problematic, and if there are many more creations then it will likely become unsustainable. What, then, is the answer? There are various steps that can be taken, although in taking them it is important to have regard to certain principles. One is that no party or coalition of parties forming a Government should have an absolute majority. Another is that there should be a protocol, a formula, on the balance between the parties in order to prevent another escalation in membership. Any reduction needs to have regard to the balance between political groupings in the House. A third is that we should work towards a membership that is smaller than that of the House of Commons. That may take time but it is a useful aspiration; it provides a framework for managing the reduction in numbers.
One immediate and rather modest step would be to put a limit on the size of the House. One proposal is to have a moratorium on the creation of new Members. I would propose a cap on membership. That way, one could create new Members but only when existing ones had demised. One could develop a formula of creating, say, only one new Peer for every three who left the House. That would gradually reduce the size of the House; it would be a slow process, but over the course of the Parliament it would reduce the size of the House by at least 50.
Other steps include those embodied in the Bill introduced in this House by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and that in the other place by Dan Byles, such as removing Peers who hardly ever attend. That would not affect the active membership but would have a beneficial effect in terms of public perception. Another provision of the Bill would create a form of retirement provision, which would have the effect of the Members ceasing to be Members of the House, with no provision for retirement to be rescinded.
More radical proposals have been canvassed. These include proposing a mandatory retirement age or imposing a set period for which a new Peer may serve, such as 10 or 15 years. The problem with each of these is that it has the potential to rid the House of Members who are making a substantial contribution to it. There is another proposal that would not have such an arbitrary effect and could be geared to the need to maintain a balance between the parties in the House and allow for some recalibration in each Parliament: to determine the number that each political grouping should have in a Parliament and to allow each to elect from within its own ranks those who should remain within the House—in other words, a scheme not dissimilar from that employed in 1999 to determine which hereditary Peers should remain in the House.
My purpose this afternoon is not to put forward a particular proposal, but rather to emphasise the necessity to address the problem. The more we can get on record the need to act, the sooner we may be able to achieve some steps by government to address the compelling need for some corrective action. Accepting the need for a cap on membership would be a starting point.
Given that, may I invite my noble friend the Leader of the House to focus not simply on where we are now, but on where we are likely to be in two, five and 10 years’ time? In terms of creations already announced, could he give us some indication of the additional costs estimated to be incurred in a full financial year once the introduction of the current tranche of new creations has been completed? Does he accept that a further list of Peers in the current Parliament will create not just additional but significant difficulties in terms of the finite resources of the House? Projecting ahead, would my noble friend accept that the problem will be exacerbated in the next Parliament, especially in the event of the return of a new Government? That will be the case if the new Government is a majority Conservative Government. Would not the new Government expect to create more Peers? If my noble friend accepts that there is a problem, either now or prospectively, what steps does he anticipate the Government taking to address it?
The problem has been touched upon by various bodies in recent years, including the Leader’s Group chaired by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, who I am delighted to see in his place, as well as more recently by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the other place. My noble friend told the committee that he found that there was a broad consensus among Members that the current House is too big and the overall size should be reduced. Given that there is such a consensus on the problem and what should be done about it, I look forward to hearing from my noble friend, speaking as the Leader of the House, what he plans to do to give effect to the will of the House. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, may I point out to the House that the timings are very tight indeed for this debate? I can help.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth on this very timely debate. He and I gave evidence to the Select Committee of the other place that looked at this issue, and I shall briefly refer to its report because it was rather useful for people outwith this House to look in, although it has to be said that very many distinguished Members of this House gave evidence to that committee. My noble friend referred to some of the issues looked at—for example, the proposal that there should be legislation to expel Peers who have been convicted of a serious offence. I do not think that reform would produce a serious decrease in the size of the House; I would hope not.
The committee recorded strong agreement that action should not be taken in two areas: first, in relation to the introduction of a long-term moratorium on new Peers, and secondly, in relation to the introduction of a compulsory retirement age. It specifically said that it did not think either of those things were appropriate or would receive proper support in either House. The committee went on to say that there seemed to be some widespread support for no longer replacing hereditary Peers in the House of Lords when they died. That has proved very contentious in this House, so maybe there was a certain naivety at the other end of the building on that issue. On the other hand, the committee quite sensibly pointed out that tackling the issue of persistent non-attendance is by definition not particularly useful in dealing with problems of overpopulation in this House. It is a classic non-solution. Finally, it said that it thought that the evidence about introducing fixed-terms appointment for Peers suggested that it would prove to be just as controversial as some of the more major reforms that both Houses have been looking at in recent years.
The chairman of that Committee, Mr Graham Allen MP, said in introducing the report:
“Establishing a consensus about the principles that should determine the relative numerical strengths of the different party groups in the House of Lords, and for codifying such principles, is probably the most contentious of all the issues we considered in this inquiry, but it is also the most crucial to any further progress. We call upon the Government and political parties in the Lords to set out their positions on this matter and to engage in dialogue that will establish a consensus before the next General Election, so that both Houses can act upon an agreed reform”.
My noble friend the Leader of the House may be able to respond to that challenge. I was disappointed that the committee did not see fit to take evidence from my noble friend because on a number of occasions in this House he has given a very effective, robust and rigorous analysis of the issue of active membership of this House, which is not fully explored in the Library note, which is otherwise excellent.
The search for consensus is fascinating in politics, not least in this building. My very good friend Dr Chris Ballinger of Exeter College, who has given evidence to a number of committees, said recently that,
“seeking a perfect reform through consensus is a fast track to inertia”.
I suspect that is where we are again today. Already we can see that Dan Byles’s Private Member’s Bill, which has now come to our House and is based on the previous Bills introduced in this House by my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood, whose Bill was passed by this House, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is likely to be squeezed out in the current Session by the Conservative high command’s insistence on giving precedence to the European Union (Referendum) Bill. Is there really a chance of making progress in this Session—I doubt it—or the next Session, a few months before a general election? Presumably we can now confidently assume that all three major parties will reiterate their previous and repeated manifesto commitments to full reform of this House. It would presumably be perverse if Labour failed to commit itself to legislation which incorporated all the main features of Jack Straw’s White Paper of July 2008, including specific recommendations on the transitional, steady reduction in the size of the House. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in his place this afternoon. He was not only a crucial author of those proposals; I think that he was really the godfather—I mean that in the nicest sense, not the Italian sense.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I just say to the noble Lord that I continue, with him, to seek consensus in this matter.
Lord Tyler
We may both of us lose more hair before that happens; even so, I welcome his support.
There was in both Jack Straw’s White Paper and the Bill a specific, careful, planned reduction in the size of the House. Can we expect those proposals in the Government’s 2012 Bill to see the light of day again? There is a mystery here. I heard just recently in your Lordships’ House a distinguished Member—indeed, a distinguished former Member of the other place—say that the Government’s Bill had been defeated. Not so: that is a myth. It was not defeated. On 10 July 2012, the House of Commons gave the coalition government Bill a record majority at Second Reading of 338 votes. Even more significantly, there was a substantial majority of supporting MPs in all three major parties: 193 to 89 Conservatives; 202 to 26 Labour; and 53 to zero Liberal Democrats.
As we all know, the Labour leadership, understandably perhaps, refused to support a programme Motion—any programme Motion—so the Leader of the House had to announce that no progress could be made. The Prime Minister sought agreement to press on but failed to achieve it. The Bill was pulled, not defeated. Indeed, had Labour not sacrificed its principles and manifesto promises on the altar of temporary expediency, there would now be a reform Act, or one on its way, as a result of the Parliament Act. The problem of the long-term size of the House would have been solved, but by the votes of our fellow citizens rather than by the contrived patronage or blackballing of party bosses.
We can all speculate about the outcome of the next general election in May 2015. Maybe there will be a dramatic swing to the right. Maybe it will end up with a coalition between UKIP and the Conservatives, but I think that that is unlikely. It therefore seems to me that in May 2015, which is not that far ahead, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt and I may well see a consensus in the other place that we should make progress on a Bill with that considerable support. This problem, so well identified by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, may therefore be on its way to a solution, not because of what the parties say but because of what the people say.
Winston Churchill was once a great Liberal—some people think that he lost his way later on in life—and at one point he said, “Let’s trust the people”. I think that that would be my position.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, on having secured this important debate. In so doing, I declare my own interest as chair of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, raises an important issue which has implications for the practical discharge of the work of your Lordships’ House, as he rightly pointed out in his excellent introduction to the debate. It also has an important impact on the external perception of your Lordships’ House and therefore more broadly on the regard and standing of Parliament.
It is therefore vital that we look at the size of your Lordships’ House in the context of what the ongoing role of a second Chamber might be in the 21st century, in a bicameral Parliament where the primary Chamber enjoys the democratic mandate and has reserved for itself specific powers with regard to supply and confidence; and where there is a convention that your Lordships’ House does not frustrate the will of the primary Chamber but, rather, plays an important and active role, respecting the democratic mandate of the primary Chamber; in scrutinising and revising legislation, ensuring that our fellow citizens can live under the best possible laws that have been informed by active consideration in your Lordships’ House; by holding the Government to account, applying itself in a rigorous and fastidious fashion, questioning what the Government are doing and how the Executive are discharging themselves; and, of course, stimulating and initiating debates and inquiries which address concerns of national importance.
To discharge those functions, your Lordships’ House has concentrated on work in the Chamber, but also in Grand Committee and a number of Select and ad hoc Committees, currently over 30, populated by noble Lords who bring unique insights and expertise to their work. It is in that context that we need to consider how your Lordships’ House should be populated in the future. A driving principle of membership of this House has been that it brings experience, insight and expertise to much of the work that it does.
That has been an important and distinguishing characteristic of the composition of your Lordships’ House and it helps us to distinguish it from the other place. Therefore, in considering questions of the future size of your Lordships’ House it is important to understand whether at the heart of that particular question your Lordships and those who are in a position to make appointments to the House are fully cognisant of the current composition of the House and, in particular, what expertise exists within it.
For instance, do we have any clear understanding of the range of expertise that is required in a Chamber of this nature to be able to address issues of complexity in terms of modern legislation? How frequently is the declared expertise brought to bear in addressing in detail—in Committee and in work in the Chamber—the kinds of issues of legislation that your Lordships’ House is faced with, to ensure that the citizens of our country can be certain that they live under the very best laws, which have been thoughtfully considered? How often are we able to refresh that expertise to ensure that we are able to discharge our constitutional responsibilities? How can the House go about identifying the kinds of issues—and therefore the kinds of expertise—that might be required on the horizon to ensure that we can continue to discharge our responsibilities to scrutinise and revise legislation appropriately?
An important example of one of the areas where your Lordships’ House has taken a particular leading role in this Parliament is on the question of the scrutiny of legislation from Europe. I declare a further interest as a member of Sub-Committee B of your Lordships’ European Union Committee. The work of that network of European Union committees is highly regarded. It informs debate in the other place, and of course it informs further consideration among the European institutions and among other member states. How are we to ensure, when considering the size of a future House, that we retain that type of expertise?
Your Lordships’ House has another very important function in this bicameral Parliament. That is to ensure that Parliament, in the broadest sense, is able to reflect the diversity—in age, gender, ethnicity and in geography—that reflects our country as a whole, and which may not always be achieved through the ballot box and our particular electoral system in terms of membership of the other place. It would be a great pity, when considering questions about the size of your Lordships’ House, if those important defining characteristics were lost through the application of arbitrary solutions. That is not to say that the question of size is not an important one, but in addressing that question, your Lordships and others must be sensitive to the fact that your Lordships’ House, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said in his introduction, works well, discharges those important responsibilities, and must be able to do so in the future.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, and I agree wholeheartedly with what he said about arbitrary solutions. I thank, as have other noble Lords, my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth for initiating this important debate. However, sometimes, and increasingly, it seems that debates about our own future are becoming like the story of Penelope’s tapestry in Homer’s Odyssey: great labour, ingenious designs, but of it there never comes an end.
That this House should be comfortable with itself is important. But if the belt fits a little tightly at some times and in some places, is that the end of the world? We did not need too many sharp elbows to get to our places this afternoon; some looking on will be bemused at the idea that a House so allegedly overcrowded looks so empty. What is so urgent or damaging about this alleged problem that it claims our monthly attention? Surely it cannot be that some, as well as not wanting hereditary peers any more, do not want too many more like ourselves. I express my unqualified welcome to new Members of the House on all sides—I am sure they will enrich our work.
Most of your Lordships have recently rejected a reduction in the size of the other place. The House also set its teeth, as my noble friend Lord Tyler said, against the solution of election of a set number of Peers to stock the political Benches of this House. That would be the easiest way to set a cap on the political sides of the House, while preserving through appointment the independent expertise of the Cross-Benchers.
This House is still one of the cheapest in the world. Why are we agonising so much about cost? It continues to be a House of expertise, unpaid and part-time. Few here want to change that. Such a House inevitably needs a larger pool of Members from which to draw to do its work. There are high hopes of proposals for permanent retirement, and I welcome them, although I could not support a payment to leave. Voluntary retirement would be preferable to compulsory ejection of Members who reach a certain age—and I agree fully with the comments of my noble friend in the report of the Commons Select Committee on this issue.
In a country where policy-making and comment on it is ever more dominated by people under 45, while the growing majority of the electorate is—and will continue to be for the foreseeable future—over 45, it seems highly eccentric to seek out one of the few parts of our constitution where the voices of older, more experienced people are regularly heard and to force them out. It is often a little more experience and a much longer view we need in the counsels of the state, not less. So I am against age limits.
The arguments for a formal cap on the size of an appointed House raged three centuries ago over the Peerage Bill in 1719, and were skewered very effectively by Robert Walpole in debates on that legislation, not only by frightening his fellow MPs that, if they voted to limit the size of the House of Lords, a pleasant retirement home would be denied them, but on the more serious basis that a firmly capped unelected House could not be overborne by new creations if it brought a government to deadlock. Creation to secure the Crown’s business was needed or threatened in 1711, 1832 and 1911, and some of us are old enough to remember hearing Tony Benn call for 1,000 Peers to carry Labour’s programme of 1976. Even with the cumbersome blunderbuss of the Parliament Act, an unelected House can still disrupt business, as we all recently experienced. There needs to be an ability to break a cap, and defining that would be difficult.
Nor is a moratorium reasonable for obvious reasons of renewal and political balance. Roughly half the existing life peerages were recommended under the Blair Governments of 1997 to 2007. It is a little chary, in this light, to chunter that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is overegging it. Mr Blair allowed only 49 Conservative Peers in his first two Governments; my right honourable friend has allowed 44 additions to a Labour Party that was already the largest in the House in one as yet uncompleted term. In his first three years, Mr Blair appointed Labour Peers at a rate 50% faster than that allowed himself by Mr Cameron in appointing Conservative Peers. Mr Cameron has, by contrast, been actually restrained.
We have been through a stage of exceptional creation—a missile-building period—and the House will take time to get over the hump of those massive creations. But I think that it can return progressively, as I hope that it will, to the lower rates of creation that were standard in the past. There may well need to be a steady decommissioning of the stacks of Back-Bench ICBMs, waiting in the Bishops’ Bar to come into Divisions—but with patience and a will, it can be done. Even in the quarter century from 1905 to 1929, which included the Lloyd George era, the average was 11 creations a year. In 1929 to 1955, with many changes of Government, it was 12. Those figures are less than the number of those leaving the House in every year so far this century—and, with an average age of 70, sadly, the number of leavers is likely to be steady in the years ahead.
We should be far more relaxed on this score, stop constantly fussing about the matter and turn our attention to other affairs of state, although I think that ingenious heads might come together in the usual channels to consider the active House and the escalating size of Divisions, the main reason why many are called to the House day by day. Pairing would be extremely difficult in this House, partly because of the coalition but also because of the existence of Cross-Benchers. However, a search for a START treaty in the usual channels might bear fruit, if searched for. If some of the Peers who do not intend to take part in proceedings could be slipped from the duty to vote, the House could keep, and draw on, the pool of their wisdom while not flooding the byways of the House for the more humdrum Divisions that punctuate our lives. That task would be difficult but I hope that the Front Benches might rise to that challenge and prefer it to mechanistic and legislative solutions.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, this House owes a debt to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for his assiduous work towards creating a more effective second Chamber. As usual, he has today rehearsed very clearly and effectively the case for reducing its size.
It seems to me that the challenge is clear. In spite of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord True, there is surely overwhelming agreement with the fundamental proposition that this House is too large. The question, therefore, is to find ways not just of agreeing with the principle of creating a smaller House, but to give effect to it. In that sense, this debate is part of a wider discussion upon which hangs the reputation and credibility of the political class.
A noble and right reverend former Bishop of Durham said about Lords reform a few years ago:
“I would rather be a Member of an upper House which works effectively as a revising and scrutinising Chamber than retain membership of one which is not fit for purpose”.
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not quote this in order to offer up this Bench for abolition but rather to make a different point about what will bring about change; namely, that the overriding issue for examination needs to be what makes for the good governance of our country. On that point hang successive submissions from the Church of England in the past 10 years, and I believe it is on this basis that the debate should proceed.
This Bench supports the thrust of the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Norton. We passionately believe that the function and, therefore, the character and composition of this House need to be different from that of the other place. To achieve that, any reduction in size needs to maintain true and impartial accountability and to represent the breadth and diversity of civil society and intellectual life. Therefore, any reduction in numbers will need to have regard to the proportion of independent Members as the pressure for political appointees continues to mount.
We will see nothing but serious dysfunction if these principles are not given effect soon. The coalition agreement appears to enshrine the doctrine that membership of your Lordships’ House should reflect the proportions of votes cast at the 2010 election. Unless there is change, and if this doctrine continues to obtain, we all know that the consequence will rapidly become unmanageable. If the suspicion is to be allayed that the necessary limited reforms of this House are being frustrated in order to create the conditions for more radical reform, surely we need to proceed to action soon. This House is not, and never has been, a Chamber embodying the doctrine of proportional representation—our character, purpose and raison d’être lie elsewhere.
I speak from a Bench whose Members are required to accept the disciplines of a cap on numbers and a final retirement age. Certainly, those limitations have not prevented this Bench playing a full part in the range of policies and laws which come under scrutiny in this House. Indeed, a process of appointment which is time-limited and number-limited enables Members of this Bench to reflect our regional involvement and speak not out of self or party interest but rather reflect the truth that profound moral and ethical questions surround a great deal of the work of your Lordships’ House. From this experience we have consistently argued in favour of measures to allow for the expulsion, retirement and suspension of Members of a reformed House of Lords, believing those measures to be the interests of this House and of Parliament more widely.
However, we need to be open also to reform on this Bench. We have indicated in evidence to the Select Committee on the Clegg Bill that we would be willing to work with government to find ways in which a small Bench of Lords spiritual in a proportionally reduced House could continue to play its full part in its proceedings and offer rather more than is presently possible. More immediately, we have begun to explore the possibility of modification to the Bishoprics Act, which governs the succession of Lords spiritual after a vacancy, in order to make it possible for women who may be ordained as bishops in the next few years to be fast-tracked to this Bench. I am glad to say that the Prime Minister was able to give an encouraging response to the Second Church Estates Commissioner when asked about this recently at Prime Minister’s Questions.
Many of the issues raised by this debate were extensively explored by the Select Committee of both Houses, of which I was a member and which gave pre-legislative scrutiny to the Deputy Prime Minister’s reform Bill two years ago. I cannot remember a single witness to that committee, or a single member of it, arguing that the present size of this House is optimal. What we do here is of vital importance to the nation. We surely cannot tolerate increasing and inevitable dysfunctionality. My hope is that this debate will help us to define some practical proposals around which it will become possible for all of us to gather, and soon.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart (LD)
My Lords, I express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for introducing this debate—and for doing so in a thoughtful way, as is his wont.
I must say, however, that the real question that has to be asked about this House is: does it do its job properly and with effectiveness? The answer has to be that it does. That is increasingly clear. Meg Russell, probably the greatest scholar on this House, has indicated the impact that we have on the legislative process. That impact has grown since the reform of 1999, when there was a self-denying ordinance to some extent. The Select Committees of this House also give great scope, perception and insight to others who are contemplating legislation in these fields. As a member of the Select Committee on the European Union and its sub-committee on external affairs, I am conscious of how well regarded the work of the committee is, not just in this country but in the other member countries of the European Union.
The main problem that we face, which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, comes from the lack of understanding of the role played by this House, which is largely due to the press and media—particularly the press, which used to quote in columns what was said in the debates in the House. In the broadsheets, that gave some weight to our deliberations. I regret that we now suffer mostly from comment that is to some extent derisory and does not convey the practical reformative work that is being done here.
There are modest changes that could be made and they have been largely encapsulated in the Bill produced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman: the changes providing for permanent retiral, ending by-elections of hereditary Peers’ successors, enabling those who do not attend a full Session of Parliament to come back, and excluding serious criminal offenders. Those all seem commonsensical. The probability is that they would not have a massive effect on the Members of this House but they would meet the observations of those who want to see some change. I hope that they might be considered in legislation before the end of this Parliament.
However, I think it would be wise if we looked at the wider functions of this House and its representative nature in a much broader context. We are, after all, facing the possibility of a restructuring of the governance of the United Kingdom. We face the possibility of Scotland becoming independent, and it seems to me that we are tinkering at the margins if we become obsessed about this House before we have understood how the nations of the United Kingdom are to be governed. If there are changes, they might have to be reflected in the structure of the second Chamber.
Consequently, I repeat what I indicated not very long ago in a debate in this House: I think that it would be wise to establish a convention on the future governance of the United Kingdom. That should not be done in a hurry; it should be deliberated upon and attract input from the citizenry of this country so that they can sense that what is being done is based on a consensual decision with the backing of the majority. I do not believe that including reform of the House of Lords in a manifesto will necessarily give that kind of legitimacy. Manifestos list dozens of policies, and what moves people’s minds in elections is not necessarily the small print of manifestos. The structure of our governance is so important that it needs to be considered not in an election period of three, four or five weeks but in a wider context involving expertise and the general will of the British people.
I hope that before the Scottish independence referendum an announcement might be made that such a convention will be established; otherwise, as I have said before, the Scots might think that there are only two choices—independence or the status quo. However, it would also have a much wider impact on the thinking about the effectiveness of our governance.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, on introducing this debate with his usual clarity and intellectual analysis, and on his passionate commitment to this House and the way in which it does its job. It is a commitment shared by all those who have spoken, most notably the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, who enjoined us to look at the quality of the work that we do rather than having an obsession with size.
Size does matter, actually. Political balance matters, and the balance between the political appointees and the independent appointees matters. It matters because the function of a second Chamber, particularly one like ours that is not elected directly, is to ask the directly elected Chamber where power resides to think again. That is a very important responsibility of this House, and it is important that the House can discharge that responsibility, not least when, as we know because of timetabling in another place, much legislation comes to this House without having been scrutinised.
The role of this House is not to overturn or to have the final say, but it is very important that it should be possible for a Government to be defeated in this House so that the other place can have second thoughts—or sometimes first thoughts, because it has not looked at the legislation at all. It is imperative to safeguard that. The quality of the work that we do is not essentially posited on the size of the House. We all agree that we probably need a larger House than we might think at first glance, because of the part-time nature and the quality that is added to our work by the fact that people have interaction with the outside world.
When I joined the House in the Session 1996-97, the absolute membership was 1,204 and the daily average attendance was 381. In the previous Session, 2012-13, the absolute membership of the House was 810 and the average daily attendance was 484. Where was the decision taken that we needed a 25% increase in average attendance to improve the quality of the work that we were doing? This has happened. It has happened because of some of the political dimensions that the noble Lord, Lord True, spoke of, and without an analysis of the need for it to happen.
It is really important to stop, take a breath and think about that. I have a question for the Leader of the House. I asked it twice in Written Questions of his predecessor, and never got what I would call a satisfactory Answer. I asked to which of the political parties that fought the previous general election the pledge that the House of Lords should reflect the votes cast in that election applied. It is quite an important question.
What has been done is that the membership of the House has been changed in line with the two major parties that form the coalition, not by taking a totally proportional view and bringing in minor parties. I do not particularly mind not having the votes cast for the BNP or indeed UKIP at the previous general election represented in membership and appointments to this House, but it is very important that we understand the terms of engagement going forward into the next general election. We need consensus and convention on this. The famous definition of consensus—that it is what the House of Commons votes for—does not do it in this respect. We will not get unanimity on many of these issues, but it is important that they are addressed.
I welcome the Bill that Dan Byles introduced into another place. It is true that not many criminals will be barred, but it brings disrepute to this House if any people who have committed serious criminal offences can return as Members. It would not make a huge difference to numbers if non-attenders were not allowed to attend. However, some of us with long political histories know that there is danger in having a group of people who may not participate all the time but who have the right and the power to participate in moments of great political crisis. If I have not been clear enough in my message about that, I will say only three words—the poll tax. So it is important that the membership of this House reflects those who are active and participatory.
I have no desire to introduce mechanistic or arbitrary solutions to this issue. I do not believe in a moratorium on new Members because I also welcome what the new Members have brought to this House and continue to bring. However, we cannot just continue to expand. I sometimes said when I had the honour of representing the House and acting as its ambassador that I sometimes thought the Government believed that the Chamber of the House of Lords was the TARDIS—it got bigger and bigger inside so that it could accommodate whoever came in. It is not quite like that. This is not only about having enough seats but about having time to speak in debates—a one-minute limit on speeches—and a whole range of issues.
I hope that the Leader of the House, with support from the Government—I am not as pessimistic as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on this—when Dan Byles’s Bill becomes law, will undertake to have discussions with leaders of the other parties about retirement provisions and how we could make progress on reducing the size of the House in a sensible, constructive way that will not damage our performance. However much we know that 800 is not a bad thing at the moment, the outside world finds it difficult to understand those kinds of numbers and we should do something to reduce them.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, a Session of Parliament without a regular debate about ourselves would not be the same. We have become so used to having such debates over the past 15 years, or even longer, and our regular navel gazing has become part of each Session. I therefore thank my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth for introducing the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, hit the nail on the head when he said, “What is the purpose of a second Chamber?”. Once you have the role of second Chamber, you can then decide how that is best fulfilled, and on its numbers. However, deciding on a role for the second Chamber depends on the role of the first Chamber—in our case, the House of Commons. Despite joining Europe and many powers going to Europe, both Houses have evolved to the state they are now in, and perhaps we ought to stand back and say what we really want from them.
It was interesting and a matter of concern to read that, despite the low level of scrutiny of legislation in another place, the number of amendments tabled in your Lordships’ House, and the number agreed, have gone down. The statistics on this from the Library are interesting. In the period 2005-06 to 2010, the number of amendments tabled in this House dropped from around 10,000 to about 2,000. We pat ourselves on the back and say that we are doing a good job, but I do not know whether we are. When I cast my mind back 44 years to when I first came here to the job the House was doing then, and a Conservative or whatever Government of the day were defeated, just as today’s Government are defeated, I wonder whether we are doing a better job than our predecessors. There are more people and we are doing more work, but is it better? I am not in a position to answer.
My noble friend Lord Maclennan made a good point when he mentioned the work of the European Union Committee sub-committees. When he said that, I immediately thought of two reports, one of which was on the common fisheries policy. That report had a marked effect on the thinking of the Commission in Brussels, because most of the ideas set out in it were taken up and brought forward as proposals in EC legislation. The other report is one that I have been involved with: the report of Sub-Committee A on the financial transaction tax. It made our Government think again and led to them submitting a legal objection to the Commission. Those are two instances where our reports have had a marked effect, but I wonder whether in the generality, despite some extremely good work, our reports are getting the attention they deserve.
On the question of our work, another statistic that has both surprised and alarmed me is the number of Written Questions that we are putting down. The rate is on an almost perpendicular upward trend at the moment. Each Written Question costs a lot of money to answer and takes up a lot of civil servants’ time. Why has there been this sudden trend? The population of the House has not grown markedly over the past couple of years, and yet the number of Written Questions has, and that is a potential cause for concern.
My noble friend Lord True mentioned the age profile, and of course he is absolutely right. I agree entirely that it is very good that an older House up here complements the young enthusiasm of the Commons, but a closer look at the statistics shows that we now have only 31 Members under the age of 50. I think that some of us regret the passing of the hereditary Peers in 1999, because at least a lot of young people were brought in, which added to the balance of the House. At the same time, 24 Members of the House are over the age of 90, and 13 of them are active. The great majority of the House, something like 66%, is aged between 60 and 80, and the average age is around 70. I cannot think of any job or organisation in the world that I could have been a member of for 44 years and still be under the average age, and I am extremely grateful that I am still here and able to participate. But perhaps it is something that we ought to contemplate.
As long as we have the Prime Minister’s prerogative to create peerages, we are never going to solve the problem of numbers. I do not think that past Prime Ministers, such as Prime Minister Blair and Prime Minister Brown, did this House any good, and in fact I am not certain that my Prime Minister and the Leader of the Liberal Democrat party and Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Clegg, have done us any good with the number of people they have appointed. That has changed the House quite markedly. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said that the House ought to be politically balanced. To an extent that may be so, but if every five years there is a marked swing in another place, a whole lot of new Peers will have to be created here—
Baroness Hayman
I apologise for taking up time in a timed debate, but I did not intend to say that I thought that the House should be politically balanced. I said that I thought there should be some agreement on the parameters of political balance, and on the balance between political appointees and non-political appointees.
The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that clarification. However, if one follows the argument that one needs political balance, if there is a dramatic swing in 2015, more Peers will have to be created to reflect that balance. If there is a sudden drop in support for the Labour Party—which I fully anticipate—I am sure that some Labour Peers would want to resign from here in order to get that balance, rather than see the creation of new Conservative Peers.
The suspension of the succession of hereditary Peers has been raised, but that would not be effective. Any Government—particularly a Conservative Government, because our party has the most hereditary Peers—would just appoint life Peers, most of whom would be older than the current possible successors to those hereditaries, so that would not be very good.
I have a couple of suggestions for my noble friend on the Front Bench. Why not create the equivalent of the Irish peerage? We could offer people a peerage, but no right to sit in this House. That would be a good thing. Then there are the ex-MPs, who make up 22.7% of this House. I welcome them. Most are Labour, and have kept this House even though they were all part of a party that wanted to abolish it. However, perhaps there ought to be a five-year moratorium after someone has been an MP before they are offered an active peerage in this House.
Lord Dykes (LD)
My Lords, I am sure noble Lords are all grateful for the explanation of the age paradox from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I hope I am correct in saying that the main speaker in the debate so far who has not been worried about size in the future was the noble Lord, Lord True, whose points I can understand. The general sense of the debate so far, as far as I can tell, is that size is a problem and that something needs to be done.
The Bill from Dan Byles MP in another place has 11 very able and senior members of all the parties acting as sponsors, including some of course who are also in favour of an elected House of Lords. When it comes to this House, it will have a very tight timetable for us as well, as it will follow the European Union (Referendum) Bill, with its equally stringent timetable. I hope that there will be ample time for discussion. The Dan Byles Bill is really the intellectual and psychological follower of the four earlier Steel Bills—which were, incidentally, ignored by two Governments, not just by one. If we add Peers who do not attend during a Session and do not apply for a leave of absence under the Standing Orders, ceasing membership would be an important part of any future elements.
All the way through the efforts that I have detected to make rational progress on the successive Steel Bills, as I will call them, the hope was entertained that the Government of the day would pick up the Bill and make it central government business. There is still an opportunity for that and I think more and more Peers would support that aspiration. Although the three or four measures for reducing individual membership seem to be very modest and at the margin, the practical effect would be quite rapid over time. It is crazy that we contemplate the fact that this Chamber is literally too large with some calmness at the moment—although I hope not too much. It is around the size of the entire European Parliament, which represents 28 member states. The latest text of the Bill, which began its Second Reading before June 2010, in February 2009, added the helpful provision of non-attendance producing disqualification.
Whatever the fate of the fundamentalist parts of these ideas—mostly having elected Members in the future—in the Joint Committee’s plans published at the end of April 2012, the stage has now been decisively and helpfully set to bring about a reduction in numbers if this legislation becomes government business. To my mind, the Commons would never have accepted the election plan. Although there was a huge majority on Second Reading of the fundamental reform Bill, ironically it began to unravel almost immediately after that. Many members of the leading coalition party refused to ordain new laws which they feared would inevitably lead to the upper House challenging their unique powers and legislative primacy. Eventually, beyond the inaugural Session of a new elected House of Lords, they would presumably want to turn themselves into an ambitious senate in no time at all. There were articles about this saying that there would eventually be senators in the House of Lords demanding office facilities and staff expenses of £1 million per office to deal with all the correspondence and work that would now arise as a result of being elected. The House will indeed be large and expensive if attendance claims rise, even if, as we hope, they rise because of expanding membership rather than individual claims as the number of days goes down.
This has been a long, drawn-out, painful episode of various bits and pieces. The provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill of July 2009 that covered the suspension, resignation and expulsion of Members were taken out of the text in the final version; hence the reintroduction pledge by my noble friend Lord Steel. He repeated his view then that the Bill did not deal with future composition. The Bill also provided for the end of the hereditary Peers’ by-elections, which were described as farcical by some, but that section was later taken out.
All these matters lead to the fact that a good number of non-Tory Peers have always agreed with Tory traditionalists in both Houses that an elected senatorial peerage would be bound to challenge the superior powers of the other place. In the mean time, the size problem has acquired the ominous characteristic of an almost grotesque situation, with Parliament being unable to make rational progress on these matters, in a perverse and ridiculous setting, which gives rise to very great public dismay. The most recent intake of nominated Peers, we remember, had to be announced deliberately after the House rose for the summer holidays. There was an outcry in the press and it is very difficult for the public to accept the seeming illogicality and absurdity of yet another large increase.
It gives me no pleasure to say these things about the financial side of it but the reality that we now face is that the incidence and weight of the Tory party’s very large tribe of donor Peers gives much offence to the public—I am sorry to say that but I have to—especially among those who happen to believe that the House of Lords does a pretty good job as a revising and improving Chamber, which I feel is definitely the case. Of course, all parties have donors so I will avoid smugness. I will only mention in passing that we Liberal Democrats have donors only from time to time; they do not come along in serried ranks. Labour, too, has a good crop nowadays, which only underlines one of the great weaknesses in British politics, which is the failure in recent times, mainly in the Commons, to reach consensus on vital factors affecting Parliament as a whole.
We should think of the damage that has been done by the terrible imbroglio over the MPs’ expenses saga and our own expenses saga, when the Times took the lead because it was annoyed that the Telegraph had the priority with the previous articles, and the fact that there was not any consensus between the party leaders. I understand the pressures but the competition between political parties is now so excessive that no party can admit that it believes in anything that the other parties are suggesting—apart from the coalition parties, of course. The pressure is very strong.
We should work to persuade people in the Commons to listen to this and to revive the suggestion of £5,000 maximum personal donations with, if necessary, further restrained sums of public money for essential party infrastructure spending. The opposition leader’s offer to break the trade union membership nexus is a concrete, positive step, which might help to get the parties around the table soon, but this has been going on for an awfully long time and it is about time they reached agreement on this matter.
The only time when an independent recommendation for a salary increase for MPs was accepted was when Edward Heath was Prime Minister in 1972. All the others were blocked, once again because of the lack of consensus. This is doing damage because these are parliamentary matters rather than matters of different policies and competition between parties on policy. If we can separate those two things out and see how the Dan Byles text makes progress in our House and goes back to the Commons in unamended or amended form, we can begin to see the beginnings of common sense in size reduction. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to give us some guidance today.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is about 12 years since my noble friend Lord Norton and I formed a group to which many of your Lordships come quite often: the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber. Over the years, my noble friend has with assiduity acted as our convenor, and I have chaired the sessions, and we have had some fascinating discussions. We are all grateful to my noble friend for the clear, forensic way in which he introduced the debate today.
Our group was formed because we believed in a second Chamber that was appointed and not elected and therefore did not challenge the unambiguous democratic mandate of another place. I still strongly believe that there is a real place for such a second Chamber and I believe that we have demonstrated that in recent years. We all know those wonderful lines from “Iolanthe”, looking back to previous eras:
“The House of Peers, throughout the war
Did nothing in particular
And did it very well”.
Well, we have over the past 12 years and more done quite a lot of particular things and done them very well. We live in a time, as has already been referred to, where much legislation comes to us not having been discussed at all in another place. The skill with which the experts in this place analyse and scrutinise is of incalculable importance to the people of this country.
That is why it is important that the reputation of this House should stand high. I believe that it does. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester made an interesting speech, but he referred to our being dysfunctional in some respects. I do not think that we are. There are of course dangers, and my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and others have been right to refer to them, but my noble friend Lord True was also right to refer us to an era when only 12 or 15 Peers were appointed each year. The answer to the problem of size—and it is a problem—lies in three things. The first is an abandonment of any idea of a ratio to the last general election; the second is a degree of self-restraint; and the third is underlining in the appointments that are made the fact that this is indeed a House of expertise.
I welcome as others have done those who have recently joined our ranks. It would be invidious for me to pick out a whole list of names, but I give just four to your Lordships to illustrate the importance of bringing in fresh blood: on these Benches, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who has remarkable experience in commerce; my noble friend Lord Bamford, who has achieved so much in industry; and from the Cross Benches, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, who is already making a real mark in this House and who knows more about the technological revolution than most of the rest of us put together. And then one thinks of the former Governor of the Bank of England, the noble Lord, Lord King, to whom I was speaking yesterday. The appointment of people such as this enriches this Chamber and therefore enriches the counsels of the nation. It is very important that we should continue to do that.
But there must be an abandonment of the ratio idea and there must be a paring-down of the number of Peers who are appointed each year. As someone earlier pointed out, sadly, we lose 12 or 15 Members each year on average. If the number of annual appointments was of that order, we would certainly not be inflating the size of the House. My noble friend Lord Norton in his very admirable speech referred, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to the average attendance now being 484 per day, but we must bear in mind that they are not the same 484 people day after day. If we are to draw upon a wide range of experience and deep reservoir of talent, we must not be over-worried about numbers, although we are right to be concerned. Concern is something we all share. We are concerned about the reputation of this House.
I very much hope that Mr Dan Byles’s Bill will complete its passage through another place, come to this House and be given an expeditious passage. In effect, it was passed here last year. It can then get on to the statute book with the Government’s support and it is right that it should. But I will just make one specific request and one suggestion to my noble friend the Leader of the House, fully appreciating that he cannot comment in detail on the first point that I will put to him. When people are being appointed to this House, let us bear in mind the need for expertise. Let us ask ourselves the question “Do they also serve who only come to vote?”. To appoint people to this House who play really no part in our proceedings and merely vote in the Lobbies is not serving the nation or Parliament as it should.
Apart from that comment, I put two suggestions to my noble friend the Leader of the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was an admirable Lord Speaker of this House. In her just as admirable speech, she suggested that party leaders should try to get together. I agree with that but something else should be done. I say this with a degree of hesitation and reservation because I do not want to see a proliferation of committees, but in the last year of this Parliament there is a real case for establishing a Select Committee of this House to consider the sort of suggestions and comments that have been made this afternoon and to try to draw up what might be a blueprint for the House of Lords as we move through the 21st century.
There will always be a need for a place like this. There will always be a need for men and women of expertise and experience to debate the laws of the land. There will always be a need for those set-piece debates—we do not have enough of them—such as we had on Syria where the enormous and varied experience can bring to the counsels of the nation a true balance and some real worth.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I, too, welcome the debate and particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton. We are indeed fortunate in having such a constitutional expert as a Member of your Lordships’ House. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, while I do not always agree with all the emanations from the group that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, chairs, there is no doubt that it has added very much to our knowledge and enabled us to debate some of the very important issues that we must when it comes to reform of your Lordships’ House.
I tend to agree with the key point made at the beginning by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, that your Lordships’ House has grown, is growing and ought to be reduced. I think I share the following point with a number of noble Lords: while the size of the House is important, much more crucial is the question as to whether it is effective in acting as a check on the Executive and as a revising Chamber, and in adding to the effectiveness more generally of parliamentary scrutiny.
As ever in your Lordships’ debates, most noble Lords who asked that question have tended to come to a view in the affirmative. Of course, we all understand the strengths of your Lordships’ House but we ought to examine its effectiveness in the context of the impact of coalition government. We have a situation where the coalition parties in your Lordships’ House have a political majority over the opposition. I would argue that that threatens the effectiveness of the House. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hill, when he comes to wind up will refer to the defeats that his Government have suffered here but the rate of defeat is much less compared to the period of 1997 to 2010. I know that it is a little early to draw conclusions from the impact of the latest appointments to your Lordships’ House but, certainly from this side of the House, it would appear that the Government are able to win votes which in normal terms they would not have done. The problem with that is that if a Government are no longer able to be defeated in your Lordships’ House on a regular basis, this can no longer call itself a revising Chamber. We need to consider that very carefully.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, on substantive reform in the sense that we surely need to see the outcome of the referendum in Scotland and any constitutional fallout from it. Substantive reform of your Lordships’ House cannot be considered in isolation from either wider constitutional issues or the impact on the primacy of the Commons. At the risk of tempting the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, to get up and remind me of my past sins, in the joint working group chaired by my right honourable friend Jack Straw—the noble Lord is right that I served on that, with its cross-party talks—there was a failure, which the Deputy Prime Minister repeated, even to contemplate how an elected second Chamber fits with a House of Commons when there is a pretty consensual view that we wish to retain its primacy. That failure, in my view, led to the failure of Mr Clegg’s Bill. In the end, that was a failure; it was quite clear from what was happening in the other place that it did not stand an earthly chance of getting through.
The question of size was discussed by the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on which I had the honour to sit. It came up with a proposal to allow Members of your Lordships’ House to retire and it has been enormously successful, as noble Lords will know. I think we have not quite yet reached double figures but one is ever hopeful. The Hunt committee said that the problem with an ever increasing size is that it risks the reputation of the House, that it probably makes conducting business more difficult and that the effect of the additional Members on the resources of the House and its ability to do its job would also be adversely affected.
We are right to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hill, the Leader of the House, what the Government’s intention is with regard to any further appointments between now and the general election. Are the Government intent on implementing what was in the coalition agreement or have they stood back from that commitment? Does the Leader of the House accept that the general view of Members of your Lordships’ House is that there should be very few appointments between now and the general election? Does he agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, that there ought to be a cap on membership, and will he institute cross-party discussions as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler? The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, suggested that there might be a Select Committee of your Lordships’ House and there is an argument in favour of the political parties and the Cross-Benchers discussing these matters in a small group or in a more formal Select Committee. It would surely be useful, in the run-up to the election, for there to be some discussions across the House.
Does the noble Lord, Lord Hill, agree that if the size of the House is limited, in the end there have to be questions as to how to achieve a party balance? It is not possible to have a cap without some general agreement on how the parties should be balanced in your Lordships’ House. That would also need to reflect on Cross-Bencher representation and on the number of Bishops who should remain in your Lordships’ House in the event of such agreement.
Does the noble Lord, Lord Hill, take the point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester that if we see women bishops, as many of us devoutly hope, will there be a way of accelerating them to membership of your Lordships’ House? I am not sure whether this is a question of law or of practice, but no doubt the noble Lord will be able to inform us of that.
My next point is one that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Norton: what advice would the noble Lord, Lord Hill, give to an incoming Government in 2015 faced with a political majority against it? How many noble Lords does he think an incoming Government ought to appoint if we are to keep to the mantra that he has stuck to over the past three and a half years? I must say that I rather warmed to the reference by the noble Lord, Lord True, to Tony Benn’s 1,000 Labour Peers; that has a certain ring to it.
I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hill, about time and the question of whether a fair wind will be given to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on the assumption that she takes through Mr Dan Byles’s Bill. I was rather shocked by the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that the time taken for the European Union (Referendum) Bill might crowd out Mr Byles’s Bill. I do not think that that would be the will of the House; I think that the will of the House would be that the noble Baroness should be given a fair wind.
Lastly, I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hill, about finance. I have been riveted by the debate on the recommendations of IPSA regarding MPs’ pay, but I noted the Prime Minister’s comment that he wished to see the cost of politics reduced. Although I accept that the costs of your Lordships’ House are rather modest compared with the other place, I wondered whether the noble Lord thinks that the Prime Minister making all these appointments is consistent with wishing to reduce the actual amount that our politics cost us.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford) (Con)
My Lords, earlier today this House was debating death, and I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has spoken in both debates. In his choice of debate, my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth has brought us forward a few years chronologically, perhaps to the transit lounge from the departure lounge.
This has been a good debate and I know that we are grateful to my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to raise some extremely important issues. As always, I am reminded of how much noble Lords know, and how well they appear to know every twist and turn of the history of the composition of this House.
I start with a point that I do not believe is contentious—one that my noble friend Lord Maclennan and others made—which is that we perform a vital role and that we do so very well. I start with that point because sometimes, when we discuss our internal matters, we can be in danger of losing that bigger picture. I believe that our scrutiny of primary legislation is as thorough and as expert as ever; I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Cormack on that. Having had the dubious pleasure of taking legislation through your Lordships’ House, I can speak from experience about the rigour of that scrutiny. We may be polite but we are relentless.
The contrast between scrutiny in this House and scrutiny down the other end is remarkable, as a number of noble Lords have said, and I see no sign of any diminution in our performance of that most fundamental role. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on the importance of being able to defeat the Government—a point made also by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. That is what we have in this House. However, we need the addition of new expertise and new vigour from time to time to help us to carry out that role of scrutiny.
Unlike in the other place, all Members in this House can take part in all stages of legislation. All noble Lords can table amendments and, because there is no process of selection, they are guaranteed a debate on each of those amendments, should they wish to have one. Less visible, but, I think, of great importance is the work that we undertake on secondary legislation. Our House gives more time than the other place to scrutinising these rather unglamorous yet often highly significant pieces of legislation—and, again, in this House, all Members can participate fully in all stages of that scrutiny.
Through Oral and Written Questions, Questions for Short Debate and longer debates such as this, the House holds the Government to account, as it does through the work of our Select Committees, involving large numbers of your Lordships in detailed investigations of different areas of government policy. In this context, I thought that the important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, were very pertinent. I know how much we all welcome his appointment as chairman of the House of Lords Appointment Commission.
I am reminding us of the work that we do not to give us a self-congratulatory pat on the back, although sometimes that is not unknown in your Lordships’ House, but to make the important point that not only has the work of the House not been damaged by increased attendance, it has in many respects continued to improve year on year—and long may that continue.
We have talked about numbers this afternoon, and there has been talk, including by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester and my noble friend Lord Dykes, about packing the House and overcrowding. I listened to the figures adduced very carefully, but there are other figures. It is the case that the list of new Peers announced in August was the first political list for three years. I am afraid that I have to disagree strongly with the comments made in that context by my noble friend Lord Dykes. There are only 24 more eligible Members in the four main groups than there were in 2007, and I am not aware that in 2007 people were making the point that there were too many Peers in the House. There have certainly been new Peers created since 2010, but around 100 Members have sadly died or taken leave of absence over the same period. I argue that the figures also show that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been even-handed in his appointments. For example, 39 Labour Peers were appointed in his first year compared with 47 Conservatives, as my noble friend Lord True reminded us.
I think there has been general acceptance this afternoon that we need to refresh our ranks from time to time, rather than freezing the membership at a particular point in time, so that the expertise and experience on which the House relies for its good name can be kept up to date. In fact, I think the real issue is not so much the absolute number of those entitled to vote—a point that has already been made—which has been more constant over the past five years than many people recognise, but the higher level of attendance.
I accept that average attendance has been increasing—it was about 480 in the previous Session—but that is the figure we should concentrate on, not the figures we sometimes read about which do not relate to our day-to-day experience. I recognise that higher attendance means that the House will sometimes be crowded on popular occasions, but it is important to remember that we should not overstate the problem. There is plenty of space in the Chamber and in Grand Committee during the great majority of our business, particularly legislation, and the same is true of debate—there are some empty spaces here this afternoon.
Members generally have time to speak. There has been some reference today to Members having only one minute to speak. They had an average of nearly six minutes in time-limited QSDs in the previous Session, and more than nine minutes in balloted debates. Even during Oral Questions, which I know, probably more than anyone, is a particularly busy time, we have a wide range of participants. Work done by the Clerk of the Parliaments earlier this year showed that in the first quarter, 288 noble Lords asked one or more supplementary questions during Oral Questions. Because more Members are attending, one of my priorities has been to increase the scope for Back-Bench Members to take part in the work of the House. Perhaps most noticeably, we have almost doubled the amount of time we make available for Back-Bench QSDs, and the results have been dramatic. The only noble Lords yet to be offered time for their QSDs are those who have already had a QSD this Session.
Indeed, the supply of time is sometimes exceeding demand. For example, this Tuesday evening, the House rose at 6.20 pm because the Whips’ Office was unable to find anyone to ask a QSD or put forward a Select Committee report for debate after the Second Reading. We have also introduced a new slot in prime time for a weekly topical QSD, which Back-Benchers had said that they wanted. We supported the creation of additional Select Committees, especially ad hoc committees and post-legislative scrutiny committees, so that more noble Lords would have the opportunity to participate in that important aspect of our work.
I recognise that participation in proceedings is not the only aspect of the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. Some noble Lords have suggested that the facilities in the House are not able to cope with the current level of attendance. While that is a matter for the Chairman of Committees, we should not overstate the extent of the problem. We know that there is plenty of spare capacity in our restaurants, for example; indeed, the problem we have is too few people eating in them rather than too many. While desk space for Members has always been at a premium, we currently have more accommodation than before, thanks to the acquisition of Millbank House. Figures presented to the House Committee earlier this year showed that there were desks which had not yet been allocated to individual Members. In terms of research capacity, something about which Members are concerned, noble Lords may like to know that the number of Library staff has increased from 31.5 full-time equivalents in 2007 to 38.5 today.
On the cost of the House—and, indeed, the cost of politics, which was raised by a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath—the cost of the House of Lords has not gone up: it has gone down. The resource budget for the current financial year, including the costs of Members’ allowances and expenses, is £4 million lower than it was in 2010-11. That is equivalent to a real-terms cut of 15%, which is a considerable achievement by the administration, on which we would all want to congratulate them.
There obviously is a cost for new Peers, and I recognise that. My noble friend Lord Norton asked me what it was. It is hard to predict precisely because, of course, it depends on attendance and on how much an individual Member will claim. On future numbers, it is clearly hard for me to predict what any future Government might do on appointments. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath asked me whether I accepted that the mood of the House was that it would not welcome any more new Peers before the next general election. Obviously, I am very aware of the mood of the House in that regard.
A number of suggestions were made by noble Lords as to ways forward. Many of them would require legislation to achieve. I will briefly update the House. We have had a bit of discussion about what we are calling the Byles Bill. As my noble friend Lord Tyler reminded us, there was a government proposal for an elected House that would have dealt completely with my noble friend Lord Norton’s question about size by reducing the House to around 450 Members. However, following the failure of that Bill to emerge from the other place, the Government have made it clear that they do not intend to bring forward any further relevant legislation for the remainder of this Parliament.
There has, however, I am glad to say, been progress on some other issues which have been raised today, particularly in connection with retirement. Here, I share the greater optimism of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, rather than the pessimism of my noble friend Lord Tyler. The House of Lords Reform (No. 2) Bill, more commonly known as the Byles Bill—but which, down at our end of the building, we still rightly think of as the Steel Bill—has been making some progress. I know that we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood for his work over many years in pursuing that objective.
The Byles Bill would make a number of modest but, I think, sensible changes. It would allow permanent retirement and resignation and the exclusion of non-attenders, and would expel those convicted of a serious criminal offence. I am sure that the House would value having a formal system whereby Members could resign or retire with dignity. I should, however, say for the record that I do not believe—I know that this view is shared by the leaders of the party groups and the Convenor, as it happens—that retirement with dignity is compatible with any system of financial incentives to encourage that retirement. This point was also made by my noble friend Lord True.
I know that in the past some noble Lords have raised with me what possible rationale there could be for opposing some kind of payment on retirement. I have two main reasons for opposing it, which I think are shared by the other group leaders. The first reason is one of principle and the second is practical. The issue of principle is, quite simply, that it is an honour to be here, not a job; noble Lords are given an allowance, not a salary. If noble Lords decide that it is time to retire, they should do so, and if they are no longer coming, they should not require an allowance.
The second reason is a practical one to do with the reputation of the House, about which we have heard a lot this afternoon. I think that the outside world would take great exception to the idea that a Peer who has already had the honour of serving in your Lordships’ House would receive a lump-sum payment from the taxpayer for stopping doing so. I hope very much that the Government’s support for the Byles Bill will help it complete its passage through the other place, and I look forward to its progression through this House and, in due course, on to the statute book.
The House could take other measures short of legislation, some of which have been set out in the recent report by the Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and in a paper by the Clerk of the Parliaments. I am not able to pre-empt the Government’s response to the committee’s report. However, some of the issues that were raised in that report are matters for this House alone to determine. For example, the report suggested that retirement from this House could be marked in a more formal way, both in the Chamber and outside. Another proposal was that the leave of absence scheme could be further strengthened to build on the success of the recently introduced practice of the Clerk of the Parliaments inviting infrequent attendees, at the beginning of each Session, to take leave of absence. I am very happy to see whether we can make progress on those points. I welcome any suggestions from noble Lords on what an enhanced retirement ceremony might look like, and on how the leave of absence scheme could be further improved.
On specific points that have been raised with me, my noble friend Lord Cormack suggested the establishment of a Select Committee or some other group to consider possible ways forward. As I am sure he knows, I am always happy to talk to him and other noble Lords. Our challenge is not that there is a shortage of suggestions as to what we might do—we know what they all are and we have discussed them many times. Our challenge is to secure political agreement, not so much in this House but with Members at the other end, and to make progress with them.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, talked about balance in the House—a point I referred to before. It is the case that together, the two coalition parties add up to about 41% of the House. We all know that there are a range of issues where a combination of opinion from the Cross-Benches, Labour and some coalition Peers—on both sides of the coalition—can readily defeat the Government and cause them to think again. A good example of that, which I am sure the noble Lord has been involved with, is the issue that I hope we will try to resolve next week around the lobbying and transparency Bill.
On the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, about a proportion of Peers from the minority parties, I am not convinced that I will be able to give her an answer that she would consider satisfactory, any more than my predecessor did. The best I can say is that that formulation was intended as a general statement of approach rather than a precise mathematical formula. We should not consider it as the latter; that is, in a way, borne out by the practice which the Prime Minister himself has observed since the general election. If the precise formula had been followed, many more Peers from the coalition parties would be joining your Lordships’ House.
My noble friend Lord Caithness asked about the possibility of creating a different kind of peerage—a non-sitting peerage. To do that, we would have to legislate to create a new and different kind of life peerage. Another approach, I suppose, would be to restart the practice of creating hereditary peerages, which would not entitle holders to membership of the House. But I am not sure that I would be able to make much progress with that suggestion.
My noble friend Lord Maclennan raised a point about a constitutional convention. I take the point about the importance of the referendum in Scotland. My view, which I know is that of many noble Lords, is that our focus should be on making sure that that referendum is won by those who want to keep the United Kingdom united and the union together. So I am not keen on crossing bridges which I do not believe we will need to cross. It is also the case, on the narrower aspect of the future of your Lordships’ House, that the three main parties in their last manifestos reached a broad consensus on their preference, which was for an elected House.
A lot of important points have been raised. We are very grateful to my noble friend Lord Norton for giving us the opportunity to consider them again. Some steps we have taken; we all look forward to the Byles Bill coming next year. I know that we will come back to these issues in future, including the one about women Bishops raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. I know that the Government will do what they can to help the church take forward its desire to see women bishops in your Lordships’ House. But pending more fundamental reform that would decisively address the issues that have been raised, we should focus on the important job with which we are all tasked, and which we are performing very well. We are a House that has cut the cost of running itself and has increased opportunities for Back-Benchers to scrutinise the Government—and, above all, we are a House that continues to do its core job of scrutinising legislation rigorously, purposefully and effectively.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken, and to my noble friend the Leader of the House in particular for replying to the debate. I also appreciate greatly the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who is speaking in her third debate today. I thought that she encapsulated the point extremely well—size matters. Many of the speeches demonstrated concerns felt in different parts of the House.
This House clearly performs valuable functions; I do not think that the functions are in doubt. Nor is the fact that the House fulfils them effectively. I think that we do a very good job indeed; that is the great merit of the House. We tend to do the work extremely well, and I think that we should proclaim that fact. But my point is that the growing size of the House does not facilitate us in fulfilling those functions effectively. As I have said, it is only one aspect that we need to address, but it is an important one.
I say to my noble friend Lord Caithness that we will continue to have these debates until action is taken. He himself went on to refer to the problem of numbers, and came up with one or two ideas, one of which I would fully endorse—it is something that I have supported for some time. We need to think through the implications of the fact that we continue to grow. It is that dynamic element that my noble friend Lord True did not really address. Nor, to some extent, did my noble friend Lord Hill. We need to have a clear view as to what we believe is the optimum size of the House—and then, within that, the distribution among the different groupings. As my noble friend Lord Tyler indicated, we have not really had that discussion. That, I think, should be our starting point.
I endorse the comments of a great many noble Lords who have spoken. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hill for what he said, as far as he felt able to go. However, I am sure that he will understand when I say that we will push him to go further. I end with a quote addressed to those who think that things are fine as they are. Burke said:
“A state without the means of some change is without the means of its own conservation”.
Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2013
(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the draft order laid before the House on 2 December be approved.
Relevant document: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are determined to do all that they can to minimise the threat from terrorism to the UK and our interests abroad. Proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to tackle terrorist activities. We propose to add Imarat Kavkaz, also known as the Caucasus Emirate, to the list of international terrorist organisations, amending Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the 13th proscription order under that Act.
Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary believes that Imarat Kavkaz meets the statutory test for proscription and that it is appropriate to exercise her discretion to proscribe it. Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes it is currently concerned in terrorism. The Act specifies that an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it: commits or participates in acts of terrorism; prepares for terrorism; promotes or encourages terrorism, including the unlawful glorification of terrorism; or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. If the test is met, the Home Secretary may then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. In considering whether to exercise this discretion, the Home Secretary takes into account a number of factors: the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities; the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom; the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; the organisation’s presence in the United Kingdom; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.
Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after a thorough review of the available relevant information and evidence on the organisation. This includes open source material, intelligence material and advice that reflects consultation across government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The Home Secretary is supported in her decision-making by the cross-Whitehall proscription review group. Decisions to proscribe are taken with great care by the Home Secretary and it is right that the case for proscribing new organisations must be approved by both Houses.
Having carefully considered all the evidence, we firmly believe that Imarat Kavkaz is currently concerned in terrorism. Noble Lords will appreciate that I am unable to comment on specific intelligence that leads to any decision to proscribe, but I can provide a brief summary of its activities. Imarat Kavkaz, or the Caucasus Emirate, is a terrorist organisation which seeks a Sharia-based caliphate across the north Caucasus. It regularly uses terrorist tactics and has carried out attacks against Russian state and civilian targets. The organisation claimed responsibility for the January 2011 suicide attack on Domodedovo Airport in Moscow that killed 35, including one British national, and a suicide attack on the Moscow metro in March 2010 that killed 39. Since then, there has been continued activity by Imarat Kavkaz, including renewed threats of activity in Russia made during the summer of 2013. The organisation is designated by the US and listed by the UN under the al-Qaeda sanctions regime. Subject to the agreement of this House, the order will come into force on Friday, 13 December.
In conclusion, I believe it is right that we add Imarat Kavkaz to the list of proscribed organisations under Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The Minister explained the statutory power available to the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation that she believes is currently concerned in terrorism and the factors that she has to take into account before exercising her discretion. The United States proscribed Imarat Kavkaz in 2011 after it was linked to the two deadly attacks in Moscow to which the Minister referred—namely at the international airport, when 35 people were killed, and in the Moscow metro, in which 39 people were killed. Imarat Kavkaz was formed in late 2007 and is an Islamic militant organisation based in Russia’s north Caucasus. Its stated goal is the liberation from the control of Moscow of what it considers to be Muslim lands. It regularly conducts attacks against Russian security forces and is linked to al-Qaeda.
We support the order, but I have three points to raise. When the order was discussed in the House of Commons on Tuesday, Diana Johnson MP asked the Minister in the other place about the effects of proscription on the social media, given that Imarat Kavkaz has a number of Facebook pages, and a range of fan pages are directed towards its leader. She asked the Minister to,
“clarify whether Facebook will be prohibited from hosting such fan pages and allowing people in the United Kingdom to access them once the group is proscribed”.
The Minister replied:
“The group’s Facebook page has been referred to the Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit, which has responsibility for assessing such issues. If the site is assessed to be illegal, the CTIRU will flag that up with Facebook directly and have it taken down”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/12/13; cols. 204-05.]
I appreciate that it is only two days since that question was asked but this order, as the noble Lord said, is due to come into effect tomorrow. What, then, is the position in relation to the group’s Facebook page? This is the 13th order of this kind to be laid. Does the Minister know whether previously proscribed organisations had Facebook or any other social media pages and, if so, whether those pages have been taken down?
The consequences for a proscribed organisation are considerable for both the organisation and its adherents. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to or invite support for a proscribed organisation. It is also a criminal offence to arrange a meeting in support of such an organisation, wear clothing or carry articles in public that arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter. A proscribed organisation or any person affected by the proscription may apply to the Secretary of State for deproscription. If the Secretary of State refuses, the applicant may appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission. First, how many separate applications for deproscription have been made to the Home Secretary since the Terrorism Act 2000 came into force? Secondly, how many appeals have been made to, and been determined by, the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission over the same timescale?
Time-limiting proscription was recommended by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, who felt that a proscription order should be subject to a review after a fixed period, following which it could be renewed or would lapse. My final question is: what is the Government’s position on David Anderson’s recommendation?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I hope that I shall be able to answer most of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I appreciate his support for the order. I strongly believe that Imarat Kavkaz should be added to the list of proscribed organisations.
The noble Lord asked a number of questions. The first was about the internet and the relationship of this proscription and others to organisations such as YouTube and Facebook. We have been removing illegal terrorist content from the overt space where it is hosted in the UK or overseas and we have good relationships with those in the industry—for example, YouTube and Facebook. To date, the Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit, which the noble Lord referred to in commenting on the reply in the Commons, has removed more than 18,000 pieces of illegal material. This particular group’s Facebook page has been referred to the Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit. If it is assessed as illegal, the CTIRU will flag this directly with Facebook for removal.
The noble Lord also asked about applications for deproscription. There has been none since 2009, and indeed there have been no appeals to the POAC. There was one successful appeal in 2007-08 by the PMOI as a result of a judicial review of the case, as the noble Lord will be aware.
The noble Lord’s last question was about the recommendation made by David Anderson. We obviously take note of that, and indeed matters have been set up. In response to David Anderson, the Home Secretary said that under the current regime any person affected by a proscription can submit a written application to her requesting that she considers the removal of a specified organisation from the list. The Home Secretary is required to determine the application within 90 days. If the Secretary of State agrees to deproscribe an organisation, she will lay an order before Parliament removing it from the list of proscribed organisations. That is subject to the affirmative procedure, as is this order. The Home Secretary’s consideration of these matters following applications from the groups themselves is an effective process. There is a right of appeal and challenge, should the Home Secretary’s decision be negative. Any valid application for deproscription will be considered by the Home Secretary in accordance with the Act. I hope that that helps the noble Lord.
Lord Rosser
Does that response mean that the Government are not looking at going down the road of what I understand to be his recommendation—time-limiting proscription, which would be subject to a review after a fixed period, following which it could renewed or it would lapse? Are the Government not looking to doing that?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I have described the position, and I have a note here which helped me to do so. It presents the Home Secretary’s role and the Home Office’s view on the best way of dealing with deproscription, subject to application and considered within 90 days. In the event of a negative response there is a right of appeal. That is the current procedure and it would apply to any of the current 14 bodies that have been proscribed through the order.
Legislation: Gender-neutral Language
Lord Scott of Foscote
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what guidance they issue to Parliamentary Counsel with regard to the use of gender-neutral language in the drafting of legislation.
Lord Scott of Foscote (CB)
My Lords, on 8 March 2007 the right honourable Jack Straw, the then Leader of the House of Commons, issued a Written Ministerial Statement. The same Statement on the same day was issued by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, in this House. It related to the use in the drafting of legislation of male pronouns—he, his and him—in context where the individual referred to might change from time to time and might be either a woman or a man. The Statement said:
“Many believe that this practice”—
the practice of using male pronouns—
“tends to reinforce historic gender stereotypes”.
He went on to say that the Government took the view,
“that it would be right, where practicable, to avoid this practice in future and, accordingly, Parliamentary Counsel has been asked to adopt gender-neutral drafting. From the beginning of next Session, Government Bills will take a form which achieves gender-neutral drafting so far as it is practicable, at no more than a reasonable cost to brevity or intelligibility”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/3/07; col. 146WS.]
However, as the Statement expressly recognised, the drafting practice of using an apparently gender-specific pronoun to apply both to men and to women had received the imprimatur of Parliament by the enactment of Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978. Section 6 of the 1978 Act provides inter alia that:
“In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears … words importing the masculine gender include the feminine … words importing the feminine gender include the masculine … words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular”.
Section 23(1) of the 1978 Act made it clear that Section 6 was applicable not only to Bills and Acts of Parliament but also to statutory instruments.
It follows from Section 6 that the use in both primary and secondary legislation of apparently gender-specific pronouns is a use of pronouns that are in law, subject of course to the context, gender-neutral. They are no longer in their effect gender-specific. None the less, the obvious purpose of the 8 March 2007 Statement was to discourage the use in legislation of the masculine pronouns—he, him and his—except, of course, where the individual was known and was male.
There are, however, two objections to the drafting instructions given to government officials pursuant to the 8 March 2007 Statement. The first is an objection of principle. The 1978 Act is not an ancient Act that could be regarded as out of date or overtaken by obsolescence. Section 6 represents Parliament’s considered guidance to the use in legislative instruments of gender-related words. The guidance was followed for many years. It avoided ambiguity in the construction of legislative instruments and brought clarity to the identification of the persons to whom the legislative provisions in question were intended to apply.
It may be that the drafting habit of using in legislation pronouns importing the masculine gender and relying on Section 6 of the Act to enable the pronouns to apply also to persons of the feminine gender as well offends some people’s notions of gender equality. However, it was never more than a habit. That habit could, of course, be adjusted and remedied. If the officials who draft legislative instruments were to be instructed to use from time to time the feminine pronouns—she, her, hers—instead of the masculine pronouns, relying therefore on Section 6 of the 1978 Act to include the masculine, context permitting, why not let Section 6 have the gender-neutralising effect that Parliament intended in enacting the section in question?
In principle it is inappropriate and, indeed, objectionable for government Ministers to instruct their officials to adopt a drafting practice that simply ignores the provision that Parliament, through legislation, has made for dealing with the perceived problem of gender stereotyping.
My second objection, however, is bred from my perusal of statutory instruments drafted, I suppose, in pursuance of the instructions given pursuant to the March 2007 statement. I have had the privilege of being for some years a Member of the House’s Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and I hope the House will bear with me if I refer it to the language used in some of the statutory instruments that have recently come before that committee.
In Statutory Instrument 2013 No. 2828, Regulation 2(2)(b) refers to a child who,
“by virtue of his or her disability”,
cannot be expected to share a bedroom. Regulation 3(2)(b) repeats the reference to “his or her disability”. The child in question might of course be a child of either sex, so the use of “his or her” is correct. However, the Explanatory Notes to the statutory instrument explaining that regulation refer instead to “their disability”, but then use “is”, a singular verb form, as the following verb.
Regulation 4(3) of the same statutory instrument adds a new Regulation 12 to the Universal Credit Regulations 2013. The new Regulation 12(1) states that “A renter”—that is, a singular noun—
“is entitled to an additional bedroom if they”—
a plural pronoun—“satisfy”—a plural verb form—“various conditions”. So there is the use of a plural pronoun and verb form, “they satisfy”, after a singular noun, “A renter”. This language reads very oddly, particularly as it is then followed by the use of “are”, a plural verb form.
Secondly, the Explanatory Memorandum which accompanied Statutory Instrument 2013 No. 2827 and Statutory Instrument 2013 No. 2828 uses in several paragraphs the plural pronoun “their” followed either by the plural verb “are”, which in the context of a reference to a single person makes no sense, sometimes followed by the singular verb “is” which, combined with the plural pronoun “their”, also makes no sense.
Paragraph 7.4 has a sentence beginning,
“The claimant or their partner is a person”,
and so on. It then refers to,
“an adult who is not the claimant’s partner if they are part of the claimant’s Extended Benefit Unit”.
Paragraph 7.5, says that “a severely disabled child”—that is a single person—
“who would otherwise be expected to share is not able to do so due to their disability”.
Paragraph 7.6 refers to,
“any child who meets the qualifying criteria and is occupying the dwelling as their primary residence”.
It goes on further in the same paragraph: “a child who requires”—singular verb form—“their”—plural pronoun—“own room”, and so on. It may also be noted that paragraph 7.20 refers to,
“a child who requires their own bedroom”,
while paragraph 7.23, when referring to a “child”, says,
“They are not reasonably able to share … because of their disability”.
That language, I respectfully suggest, is somewhat absurd.
Thirdly, the so-called Keeling schedule to SI 2013/2827 and 2013/2828 has a number of oddities. In the references to SI 2006/213, SI 2006/214 and SI 2013/376, the masculine pronouns “he”, “his” and “him” are used, leaving Section 6 of the 1978 Act to extend the references to women. But Schedule 2 to the proposed amendments to SI 2006/213 contains in paragraph 2(4) the following gem:
“where a son, daughter, step-son or step-daughter of the claimant who is the claimant’s non-dependant ceases”—
singular verb form—
“to occupy the dwelling as their”—
plural pronoun—“home because they become”—plural pronoun and verb form—
“a member of the armed forces away on operations or subsequently resumes”—
singular verb form—
“occupying the dwelling as their home”—
plural pronoun—
“on ceasing to be a member of the armed forces away on operations”.
What may be noted in particular is the use of “they” and “their”, plural pronouns, although the reference is to a single person, and the contrast between “become”, a plural verb form, and “resumes”, a singular verb form, all in the same sentence.
The next oddity is to be found in amendments made to the housing benefit regulations which provide, in paragraph 13D(2)(12) a definition of “occupiers” that includes in sub-paragraph (b) the following,
“any member of the armed forces who,
(i) is the son … of the claimant,
(ii) was the claimant’s non-dependant before they became a member of the armed forces away on operations, and
(iii) intends to resume occupying the dwelling as their house when they cease to be a member of the armed forces away on operations”.
Noble Lords should note the incongruity of including “they become”, a plural verb form, and “intends to resume”, a singular verb form, in the same sentence.
Another example is the Policing Protocol Order 2011, SI 2011/2744. This statutory instrument refers in a number of places to the “Police and Crime Commissioner”, an individual who may be male or female, and to the “Chief Constable”, who also may be male or female. Paragraph 13 of this statutory instrument states:
“Each PCC and their respective Chief Constable are established in law as corporations sole”.
The statutory instrument refers, in several regulations, to the “Chief Constable”, and Regulation 23(f) refers to the “Chief Constable”,
“planning their policy functions in respect of their force’s … policing responsibilities”.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
If the noble and learned Lord would give way for a moment, this is a time-limited debate and the actual time limit is 10 minutes. As fascinating as his comments are, I think that he has reached the limit. Perhaps he will look to conclude his remarks.
Lord Scott of Foscote
To perorate, if you will. The statutory instrument continues with infelicities to the same extent as those that I have already mentioned.
The clarity of the language of the protocol is certainly not assisted by the use of grammatically inappropriate plural pronouns coupled with references to a single person. In my opinion, it is a matter of great regret that the instructions given pursuant to the 8 March 2007 statement to those who draft government legislation, were ever given. Statutes and statutory instruments ought not only to be clear and free of ambiguity, but surely ought also to stand as models for the correct use of the English language. To prostitute the English language in pursuit of some goal of gender equality is, I suggest, unacceptable. Moreover, it is quite unnecessary. Section 6 makes all apparently gender-specific pronouns in law gender-neutral, context permitting. In any event, there is no reason other than habit why it should always be male pronouns that are used when both men and women are intended to be referred to. By all means let those who do the drafting sometimes use feminine pronouns, relying on Section 6, where the context admits, to include men, or vice versa.
The drafting of which I have given examples—and there are more—is not only unacceptable and unnecessary but is, I suggest, an insult to the lovely English language, which to my regret is the only language that I am able to speak or understand. I therefore ask the Government to take steps to put an end to the appalling drafting of which I have given a few examples and to allow Section 6 to have the effect, and to achieve the gender-neutral interpretation of statutory language, that Parliament always intended it to have.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, has certainly raised an extremely interesting question. I believe that Parliament, in the Interpretation Act, set a rule that is perfectly gender neutral in respect of the use of either male or female pronouns.
It is regrettable that this practice has taken place because statutes and statutory instruments have now become a very fundamental part of our law. I see no reason to suppose that that is likely to reduce to any extent in the future—rather, the opposite seems to be the case. That means that ordinary people, not just the courts and lawyers, have to try to understand these instruments. I would have thought that the cardinal principle is that the instrument should be reasonably clear and written in language that ordinary people would normally use in common speech. I am not sure how many of our statutes really come up to that degree of clarity. Indeed, if one approaches one of the current Bills without any knowledge of its antecedents, the task of trying to find out exactly what it means is quite formidable. To make it more difficult by using rather contrived constructions seems to be contrary to the best use of the statute book.
I notice that the briefing pack kindly prepared for us by the Library includes drafting guidance for the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, which says:
“Some Acts have used ‘they’ or ‘them’ as a third person singular pronoun”.
It goes on:
“This use of the plural pronoun is thought by some to be grammatically incorrect, though it reflects common usage and is well-precedented in respectable literature over several centuries”.
I must say that I was slightly surprised when I read that, but it seems to be fairly authoritative. On the other hand, it does seem that it is not very common usage. Whether it is authoritative and approved by usage may be a matter of interest, but the common situation is that the grammatically correct interpretation would be as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, has described it. I should have thought that we want to give as many good examples of good grammar to our fellow citizens and to ourselves as we possibly can.
I would be very interested to hear from the Minister in due course how this particular practice, which has been decreed by the Leaders of both Houses in directions to parliamentary counsel, contributes to a greater degree of lucidity in our statutes and statutory instruments than would be the case without it.
Lord Quirk (CB)
My Lords, in this interesting debate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, has raised and memorably illustrated a problem which has two sources, one in grammar and the other in political history.
First, in grammar, like many other languages, English lacks an epicene third person pronoun that can have anaphoric reference to an ungendered antecedent—that is putting it in plain language. For literally hundreds of years, we have vacillated between solutions that partly fit the bill, especially “he”, which is third person and singular but not, of course, epicene, and “they”, which is third person and epicene but not, of course, singular. It is the danger of this “they” creeping into legislation that concerns the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, among many others.
I will illustrate this with an example from the policing Bill that is currently going through this House. In one of the Marshalled Lists, Amendment 56LG reads as follows:
“The owner of a dog commits an offence if they … are not able to control the dog in a public place”.
Of course, far more of the amendments employ the traditionally approved solution, using “he”, as in Amendment 58, which says:
“A person questioned … may not be detained … unless … he is a person falling within section 40(1)(b).”
In fact, gender neutrality is only one part of the grammatical problem. We lack also the means of expressing number neutrality. After all, when we speak of “anybody” or “everybody”, we are not concerned with specifically singular entities but, well, with everybody. This is another factor tempting us in the direction of “they”. It is not surprising that many of us avoid the singular/plural mismatch by opting for the plural in both antecedent and anaphora, as in, for example, “Persons who live in glass houses are asking for trouble if they throw stones”.
The second problem issue is political history. When the whole world was solidly male dominated, as large parts of it still are, few people were concerned about the casual assumptions implicit in the generic “he” and kindred expressions such as “mankind” or the Musée de l’Homme in Paris. After all, the word “woman” proclaims that she is merely a subcategory of man, as surely derived from him linguistically as Genesis tells us that Eve was derived from Adam biologically. However, in the past century, when women got jobs outside the home, and then better and better jobs, they started exerting themselves and they increasingly convinced most of us that their grievances included linguistic ones. With striking rapidity, we got used to hearing sentences such as, “Our doctor and her husband were at the meeting”, and we abandoned “policemen” and “firemen” for “police officers” and “firefighters”.
Of course, languages frequently embody glimpses of the past and past beliefs— even the noble Lord, Lord Rees of Ludlow, might speak of “tomorrow’s sunrise”—so, too, with sexist expressions, including our very own salutation, “My Lords”. If the English, brazen “Every man for himself” sounds particularly blatant, we should not forget that in “Chacun pour soi” “chacun” is not “chacune” and that in “Jeder für sich”, “jeder” is spelled with the masculine “r” and not the feminine “e”.
In my view, it was perfectly reasonable for Jack Straw in 2007 to call for an end to any such male stereotyping in our use of English, specifically rejecting the Interpretation Act 1978 and its reiteration of the convention that masculine pronouns are deemed to include feminine reference. If it ever worked, that convention no longer does, and there have been convincing psycholinguistic experiments showing that sentences such as “Anyone parking his car here will be prosecuted” predominantly call up images of a man doing the illicit parking.
To return to the policing Bill, we find that most amendments are thoroughly sensitive in this respect, with anaphoric reference employing “he or she” or repetition—“a person … that person”. But among the minority using the traditional “he”, there are striking cases, especially in Amendments 93 to 95, where the singular masculine pronoun is used no fewer than 18 times. In all of them, the antecedent of “he” is surely a tell-tale phrase: “the judge”. Since we do indeed have a judiciary that is largely manned by men, it is hard to believe that the use of “he” in these amendments really means “he or she” rather than endorsing one particular male stereotype as a fact of life.
At least the amendments show reassuringly little intrusion of the controversial “anyone … they” formulation. Of course, we hear it daily in this House and read it daily in the press, but it has no place in the language of statute, where its comfortably colloquial imprecision is seriously unwelcome.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I want to place on record my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, for putting down this Question for debate today. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I am looking forward to the response of the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, told the House, the drafting of primary legislation has for many years relied on Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978, under which words referring to the masculine gender include the feminine. Section 23(1) of the 1978 Act made it clear that Section 6 was applicable not only to Bills and Acts but to statutory instruments.
That changed on 8 March 2007, when my right honourable friend Mr Jack Straw, who was then the Leader of the House of Commons, issued a Written Ministerial Statement that was also issued as a Written Ministerial Statement in this House by my noble friend Lady Amos.
Along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, English is the only language that I understand and speak, which is much to my regret as we are living in a global world where communication is key. Although I fear that I may not be as eloquent in my delivery as many noble Lords in this House, my accent is a mix of south London with Irish influences and a tinge of the east Midlands.
In preparation for this debate, I asked myself: what is the English language? As noble Lords will be aware, English is a Germanic language and is one of the most widely used languages in the world. It is spoken as the first language by majority populations in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and a number of Caribbean nations. It is often widely chosen to be learnt as a second language, and is one of the official languages of the European Union and the United Nations. In terms of numbers of people speaking English as a first language, it comes third in the world behind Mandarin Chinese and Spanish. However, when combining native and non-native speakers, it is definitely the second most commonly spoken language in the world, if not the most commonly spoken. It is the required language of communication in seafaring, aviation and many other fields.
However, the English spoken by the early Germanic settlers from what is today the Netherlands, north-west Germany and Denmark is different and has evolved over the years into the language that we have today. Our language has developed with influences from Old Norse. A number of English words drew their construction from their roots in Latin, as Latin was the lingua franca of the Christian church and European intellectual life.
The Norman conquest of England in the 11th century gave rise to heavy borrowings from Norman French. All noble Lords will be aware of the use of Norman French in Parliament to signify some of the formalities of Bills passing. Many French words or phrases have crept into the English language, such as mirage, genre, coup d’état and rendezvous. The point is that the English we all speak today is a beautiful language that has a wonderful, rich literature for us all to enjoy, but it has evolved over time. That evolution is a consequence of our development as a nation and as a people, of our history and the influences that have shaped us and our history. It is not a stand-alone, stand-still language. It is growing, evolving, developing and shaping us into who we are today. That is how it should be.
I very much support the initiative undertaken by my right honourable friend Mr Jack Straw in 2007. I read with real interest the paper by Mr Christopher Williams in the Statute Law Review, “The End of the ‘Masculine Rule’?”. It is clear from the paper that we are not the first Parliament or institution in the world to adopt gender-neutral drafting. We follow in the footsteps of both Australia and New Zealand, which were probably the first English-speaking countries to embrace the principle of gender-neutral drafting.
Mr Williams’s excellent paper informs us that as far back as 1983, the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office of New South Wales adopted the policy, and on a national level in Australia it was adopted in 1988. Similar reforms happened in New Zealand in 1985. In Canada the policy was adopted in 1991-92, and with the election of President Mandela and the ANC Government, gender-neutral drafting was adopted in South Africa. Looking at international organisations, the United Nations adopted gender-neutral drafting during the latter half of the 1980s. The International Labour Organisation began drafting its conventions in a gender-neutral way at around the same time. The European Union began the switch in 1998, though you can find examples there where the masculine rule still applies.
My noble friend Lady Corston, when she was the Member for Bristol East in the other place, raised the issue in the Commons on 7 May 1995. It was reported in the Guardian on 9 March 2007 that my friend in the other place, Meg Munn MP, said:
“It may seem a small thing in one sense, but language is important. We have a society in which we believe men and women are equal, so why shouldn’t the law refer to us equally? Many other English-speaking countries do so already”.
I very much agree with the comments of my friend in the other place. You could say that we have not been quick off the starting blocks here. We took more of a long-term view, but correctly made the change in 2007.
I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, will tell the House when he responds to the debate that, moving forward, the changes announced by Mr Jack Straw are here to stay. In saying that, I accept fully that we are not going to go back and start rewriting laws just to change the language, but that, in a sensible and proportionate way as we move forward, gender-neutral drafting will become the norm. I also accept fully that we have to ensure that the legislation we pass does what it says on the tin and that there must not be any inconsistencies. We should work to achieve the maximum clarity in the laws we pass in Parliament.
As I see it, when we have a Bill making a minor change or textual amendment to an existing Act, it would not be sensible to go through and make a whole load of gender-neutral changes to the original Act. But, where you introduce a whole new Bill to put substantial new laws onto the statue book, you should seek to make sure that it is gender-neutral. I do not agree with the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, about the matter of principle, but I agree with him that the legislation we pass has to be clear. He highlighted skilfully to the House some of the issues and problems that we have with the drafting of statutory instruments. I am sure that the Minister will look seriously at them, when he takes this away afterwards because they have serious implications for the Government.
I am also of the opinion that our language evolves with us and reflects on us. As it illustrates who we are, it must make sense and not be difficult to understand. Nowhere is that more important than in the laws we pass. Again, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, for his interesting debate today. I thank all noble Lords who spoke and look forward to the response of the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, on securing this debate, which has been informative and illuminating. It is somewhat daunting to reply to two noble and learned Lords and to the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, who is an expert in language and linguistics of some considerable renown. We were also reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, of the evolution of our language. All that has helped to inform this debate. While I know that some have reservations about the style of the legislation which has resulted from the use of gender-neutral language, I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the motives for making the transition were sound.
For many years parliamentary counsel, who draft legislation, relied on Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, referred. That provision says that words referring to the masculine gender include the feminine, and vice versa. In practice, this means that male pronouns such as “he” were used in contexts where a reference to women and men was intended. This indeed aided brevity, but many people believed that the practice tended to reinforce historical gender stereotypes. The noble Lord, Lord Quirk, gave your Lordships some good examples of that.
The policy of gender-neutral language in legislation was announced by the previous Government in a Written Statement on 8 March 2007, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, said. Parliamentary counsel were asked to use,
“gender-neutral drafting so far as it is practicable, at no more than a reasonable cost to brevity or intelligibility”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/3/07; col. 146WS.]
However, I reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, that we are not abandoning the Interpretation Act. The 1978 Act is still needed for amendments to old legislation that predates the move to gender-neutral drafting. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, referred to that. Parliamentary counsel sometimes still use gender-specific pronouns when amending old legislation to ensure that it remains coherent. The 1978 Act enables masculine or feminine words to be used in legislation to cover both genders but does not contain drafting guidance about how to draft.
Even before the move to gender-neutral drafting in 2007, there was no requirement to use gender-specific pronouns. There are plenty of examples of old provisions that were drafted in gender-neutral terms and without reliance on the 1978 Act. Interestingly, the 1978 Act was a consolidation and may be traced back to legislation first enacted in 1850. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, referred to the 1978 Act as not being ancient, but 1850, while it may not be very ancient, is quite a long time ago.
The move to gender-neutral drafting brought us in line with other jurisdictions which use the English language, where it had been the norm for many years: Ireland, New Zealand, Canada, parts of Australia and the United States of America, as well as the three devolved legislatures. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, included South Africa in that list. With the change to gender-neutral drafting, a range of drafting styles was developed: for example, omitting the pronoun, repeating the noun, replacing the noun with a letter such as the letter P, using defined terms or using “he” or “she”, and so on. Parliamentary counsel have tried to simplify drafting so that it is not ambiguous or too lengthy.
In places, the move caused drafters to reword propositions so that they indeed became shorter and clearer. For example, “the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit” could become simply, “the Secretary of State may”. Before the change, the drafting may have said, “A person commits an offence if he drops litter in a public place”, but now it could be simplified to, “A person who drops litter in a public place commits an offence”. However, we recognise that there are some techniques that people find easier to follow than others, and I have much sympathy with people who do not like techniques such as the use of letters—“P” and so on—to identify different people.
I hope that your Lordships will be pleased to note that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has agreed to revise its drafting guidance to recommend that the approach of using letters to identify people is used sparingly, although it may sometimes be a useful way to distinguish between several people. It will also be considering whether any other adjustments could usefully be made in light of the helpful feedback from this debate.
Etymologists may disagree but the guidance from parliamentary counsel provides that some terms are to be treated as gender-neutral. These include “testator”, “manager” and “actor”, although they have female equivalents. There are also some terms that have always been gender-neutral—for example, Secretary of State and Prime Minister.
Gender-specific pronouns are still sometimes used in legislation that amends older legislation, as it is important for the amended Act to remain coherent. For example, if there is a list of conditions each of which begins with “he”, it would be confusing to start a new condition starting with “the person”.
The guidance also recognises that there must be some flexibility and that there will be some Acts where only gender-specific drafting can be usefully applied. In a case where a person has to be of a particular gender—male or female—gender-neutral drafting does not require drafters to avoid referring to the gender. I think your Lordships would agree that that would be the case for legislation about maternity.
I turn to the specific points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, in his detailed account of various provisions in subordinate legislation. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not engage in what I would call the intricacies of what he has quite rightly outlined, but I reassure noble Lords that the Government remain committed to producing high-quality legislation that is clear, accessible and free from ambiguity. We believe that gender-neutral drafting is perfectly compatible with that objective. It ensures that our law is expressed in a way that clearly covers all citizens without requiring people to consult Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978.
Most of the examples that were mentioned concern the use of “they” as the third person singular pronoun. Although some regard this usage as grammatically incorrect, it reflects common usage, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern said with regard to the brief from the Library, and is well precedented in literature over the centuries. However, the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, referred to the risks of using the word “they” in the singular form. This is noted in the parliamentary counsel’s drafting guidance, and care obviously needs to be taken when drafting any legislation to ensure that it is not ambiguous.
I turn to the Good Law initiative, which the First Parliamentary Counsel is spearheading. This initiative, about which I have spoken before in your Lordships’ House, aims to improve drafting, reduce complexity and make the law more accessible, and I believe that these are the objectives that we all seek. The parliamentary counsel’s initial report aspires to good law, which is defined as necessary, effective, clear, accessible, coherent and, if I am allowed, I would like to add my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay’s word “lucid”. This is a sentiment that I very much hope we share across all sides of the House. With that in mind, the Government acknowledge that the use of gender-neutral drafting must result in legislation that is effective, clear and accessible.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today. I will be taking away what has been said. I know that officials, particularly Good Law initiative officials, will be looking strongly at the points that have been made. The Government take extremely seriously the importance of ensuring that legislation is more accessible and less complex. As I say, I will ensure that full consideration is given to everything that your Lordships have spoken about today.
Lord Scott of Foscote
My Lords, I offer my thanks to the Minister for his very complete answer and my gratitude to everyone who has taken part in this debate.