House of Commons

Monday 16th December 2013 Commons Chamber

Monday 16 December 2013

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 16th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 16th December 2013 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

1. What recent assessment he has made of the security of the UK’s international supply chains.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

The Ministry of Defence undertakes a quarterly assessment of industrial risk covering both domestic and international supply chains. Our key suppliers are under regular review, not only for their financial status, but for their business strategy, sector risk and leverage. Prime contractors are held responsible for the health of their own supply chain, although many of their sub-contractors are also reviewed under the MOD critical supplier process, which monitors the financial resilience of more than 500 domestic and international suppliers.

[Laura Sandys]

Food security is one of the big issues facing the UK, given that we are one of the largest importers of food. When assessing the increasing protectionism and food consumption globally, does the MOD feel that we have a secure food supply chain?

[Mr Dunne]

I am very confident of the food supply chain for mince pies, having visited the factory supplying our troops in Helmand earlier today.

The national security risk assessment rates the short to medium-term disruption to essential resources including food as a tier 3 risk. The UK currently enjoys a high degree of food security in terms of access, availability, resilience and variety of food supply. The main role for the MOD in securing international food supply chains and other critical resources is, in co-ordination with others, to police international sea lanes, which supply the vast majority of imports to the UK of food and other essential resources.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

In the scenario planning assessing the security of the supply chain, has the Minister considered the possibility of the Suez canal being closed? What provision has he made for such a scenario?

[Mr Dunne]

The Suez canal is clearly a vital supply chain route in and out of the Mediterranean. Naval vessels use those channels to take part in some of our regular routine operations on the other side of the Gulf, and the canal is of course an essential part of the security of supply chains for oil resources out of the Gulf. We keep that under continual contingency planning.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

BAE Systems has announced its plan to cease shipbuilding in Portsmouth, which will have an impact not only on its own employees but on those in the wider supply chain. What steps is the Minister taking to support small and medium-sized enterprises through this difficult time?

[Mr Dunne]

Clearly, BAE System’s decision to extract itself from shipbuilding in Portsmouth will have a significant impact locally, but my hon. Friend will be well aware that more than 11,000 people will continue to be employed on the royal naval base at Portsmouth, which will maintain vital jobs for SMEs throughout the supply chain.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

What role can unmanned aerial vehicles play in filling the maritime capability gap, and has the Minister considered the use of UAVs by both Europe and the United States of America for maritime surveillance and intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance?

[Mr Dunne]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the strategic defence and security review 2015 will be the opportunity to review new capabilities in the unmanned space. He might also be aware that the ScanEagle unmanned maritime system is due to enter service in the new year.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Cyber-security attacks constitute an increased threat to the supply chain. How is the MOD working with the industry to ensure sufficient and proportionate cyber-security in the UK supply chain?

[Mr Dunne]

As the hon. Lady might be aware, last July we announced the defence cyber-protection policy, which works in conjunction with industry to develop awareness of cyber-defences across the 13 largest defence contractors and with the SME representatives, the trade associations. We are working closely with industry to develop cyber-defensive capabilities.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

2. How much humanitarian assistance has been provided by his Department to (a) the Philippines and (b) other parts of the world in 2013; and how much funding for such assistance has been reimbursed to his Department to date.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the Royal Navy’s involvement in the relief operation in the Philippines.

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

8. What assessment he has made of his Department’s contribution to relief of the humanitarian situation in the Philippines.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)]

Operation Patwin was the principal humanitarian relief operation to which the UK armed forces contributed in 2013. The armed forces supported Department for International Development efforts using assets including HMS Illustrious, HMS Daring, two RAF C-17 strategic lift aircraft, an RAF C-130 tactical lift aircraft and a logistics support team in the Philippines. The civilian transport in the area improved, and DFID agreed that military support was no longer required after 10 December. The marginal cost to the MOD is estimated at about £10 million. This sum will be reimbursed by DFID under the terms of a memorandum of understanding covering military support to humanitarian assistance missions.

[Mr Hollobone]

The public response to the Philippines aid appeal shows that this is international aid that everyone can support, and our service men and women have done this country proud in the help they have provided to the Philippines. Given that the defence budget is the most challenging of any departmental budget in Whitehall, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that every time Her Majesty’s armed forces assist in a humanitarian response, it will be counted towards the UK’s aid target, not on top of it?

[Mr Francois]

As my hon. Friend will know, there are some complex definitions relating to exactly how such aid is counted, but I assure him that we count it whenever we can. I can also reassure him that the marginal cost of that operation will indeed be recouped from the Department for International Development under the MOU to which I referred.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

I, too, pay compliment to our service personnel who assisted in the Philippines. Some of the comments coming back from service personnel who were there show how grateful and supportive the people were of their efforts, which should be recognised and commended. To probe a little further on the cost, should not that sort of response, which the UK does magnificently, be part of the Treasury’s bill rather than come out of the funds of either the MOD or DFID?

[Mr Francois]

Although I can appreciate the sentiments behind the question, under the arrangements I have described, the marginal cost is paid for by DFID under the auspices of the MOU. The original question related to the Royal Navy, so let me say that the Royal Navy assets to which I referred contributed significantly to relieving the suffering in the Philippines. For the record, the Navy delivered more than 700 tonnes of water and food aid and other assistance and transported aid teams to remote locations, while personnel on board those ships demonstrated their versatility by turning their skills and efforts to constructing shelters, restoring education and economic facilities and delivering immediate medical aid.

[Mr Amess]

The Minister will understand that, as someone who did two weeks’ voluntary service with the Philippine Nurses Association in 2010 as part of the Voluntary Service Overseas programme, I really appreciate the anguish that the Filipino people must be feeling as a result of the typhoon. Will my right hon. Friend congratulate on our behalf the service personnel of HMS Illustrious on delivering 500 tonnes of urgent supplies to far-flung regions of the Philippines?

[Mr Francois]

I am more than happy to do so. Unfortunately, HMS Illustrious personnel will suffer some disruption to their planned Christmas leave in the UK, which we should acknowledge. However, about a third of personnel abroad will be flown back to the UK, with the remainder having their Christmas stand down at a port in the Indian ocean. I am confident that the whole House would wish to join me in thanking our armed forces personnel for the humane, professional and adaptable manner in which they responded. We are immensely proud of what they do.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I add my voice to the tributes already paid to the work of our armed forces in the Philippines. Will the Minister detail the role, if any, of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary in any of those operations and what role he sees it playing in future humanitarian operations in light of its role in the past?

[Mr Francois]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, some ships, such as HMS Illustrious, were diverted on to this task from their deployment as part of Op Cougar. He will know that the RFA provided intimate support to Op Cougar, too. We are very proud of our armed forces personnel, but we are also very proud of those who fly the blue duster.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

Is not one of the lessons of the humanitarian success of the Royal Navy in the Philippines that naval ships are capable of early and effective deployment and that, once deployed, they are logistically self-sufficient? Does that not underline yet again the need for a full, adequate blue water Navy? Next time the Treasury knocks on the door of the Ministry of Defence, will Ministers take the opportunity to point the Treasury in the direction of the humanitarian aspects of military resources?

[Mr Francois]

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we enjoy a close and constructive relationship with Her Majesty’s Treasury, and if he wishes to supplement that relationship at any time, he is welcome to do so. While we Conservative Members appreciate the importance of the defence budget, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will spread that message firmly among his Liberal Democrat colleagues.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Does the Minister think it wise to declare mission accomplished concerning the operation in the Philippines—or, indeed, operations in any other part of the world?

[Mr Francois]

I would not necessarily use precisely those words, but it is fair to say that our armed forces personnel have done good service for Her Majesty and for the people of the Philippines in providing a tremendous humanitarian response at short notice. At the risk of repeating myself, we are immensely proud of what they have achieved on Op Patwin.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

4. What estimate he has made of when service personnel who have suffered amputations will receive Genium prosthetics.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

14. What funding his Department is providing to improve the prosthetics available to military personnel who are amputees.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

First, may I say that I am sure Members on both sides of the House would wish to join me in wishing our troops, wherever they are deployed around the world, a very happy Christmas and a safe new year? That applies equally to the families who support them.

In February, I announced £6.5 million of additional funding to allow all UK service amputees who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan to have access to the very latest prosthetics and, to date, 96 Genium microprocessor knee systems have been fitted to 57 patients at Headley Court. The programme to upgrade earlier prosthetics where it is clinically appropriate is expected to be completed within two years. A couple of weeks ago I had the pleasure of visiting Headley Court and meeting clinical staff and injured personnel who had been fitted with the Genium legs, and I saw at first hand the life-changing effects of these high-technology prosthetics.

[Pauline Latham]

I associate myself with the remarks made by the Secretary of State about Christmas and the troops and their families, many of whom, obviously, will be separated this Christmas.

What feedback has the Secretary of State received from service personnel using the Genium limbs about their effectiveness and whether they deliver greater mobility and control?

[Mr Hammond]

The feedback I have had has been universally positive, and often about the small things we might not think of. Service personnel using the Genium have told me that the most transformative thing is the ability to stand still, which is not easy to do on the traditional prosthetics. Being able to stand still and being able to take a pace backwards are key gains, and there is much greater mobility in negotiating steps and stairs and a general enhancement in mobility. This was a very worthwhile investment of £6.5 million.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on these advances and the speed with which they have been accomplished. What preparations have been made to support NHS prosthetics centres, which will presumably take over support for these personnel when they re-enter civilian life?

[Mr Hammond]

They will indeed; the arrangements we have made embrace the NHS. The NHS is establishing nine centres of excellence specialising in advanced prosthetics across the UK, and as service personnel and veterans pass out of military care at Headley Court, they will be able to choose whether they want to go to a local centre or to one of the nine regional specialist centres, where we expect that over time standards of skill and expertise will match those currently delivered at Headley Court.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I assume, therefore, that someone either in the military or outside the military fitted with a Genium limb will have the latest version fitted to them throughout their life.

[Mr Hammond]

They will continue to be supported as clinically appropriate, and the phrase “clinically appropriate” is very important. The Genium limb is very beneficial for somebody who is in an active phase of their life and we hope many of these veterans and service people will remain active for long periods of their lives. It would not be appropriate for an older person who was less mobile and wished to be less mobile, however. The point of making the money available is so that the clinicians have the scope to prescribe whatever is most clinically appropriate, even when it is the very costly microprocessor knee solution.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

5. What support local authorities have given to implementation of the community covenant.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

I am pleased to say that 98% of local authorities have now signed up to the community covenant. Some 11 have yet to sign, but I am told—[Interruption.] I am reliably told that they have now all agreed and undertaken that they will sign up as a matter of some urgency.

[Andrew Jones]

I thank the Minister for that reply, but can she explain in a little more detail what steps have been taken to encourage those small number of authorities who are yet to sign up?

[Anna Soubry]

I am happy to answer as follows. There has been—[Interruption.] Hon. Members are very keen; it must be the Christmas spirit. If they could just hold their horses for a moment, we might get to an interesting punch line that could steal their joke. In all seriousness, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government have written to the 11 remaining authorities. I also know that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) has spoken at length to Charnwood borough council to ensure that it would sign up. If any local authorities have not signed up by the end of January, I think it might be a good idea for me to ring them and to speak to their leaders personally.

[Mr Speaker]

I think we all agree that that would be a magnificent prospect and that it would bring a prompt end to non-co-operation.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I am proud that Kirklees council signed up to the armed forces community covenant on 29 June 2012, demonstrating the strong bond between my local community and our armed forces, particularly as the Yorkshire Regiment suffered such tragic losses in Afghanistan. Does the Minister agree that communities across the UK should show their respect and support for those who risk their lives for our country by signing up to the community covenant?

[Anna Soubry]

I certainly do. I should like to pay tribute to the Yorkshire Regiment and to Kirklees council. I took the trouble to visit the council’s website, part of whose home page is devoted to an item containing an abundance of information for people who are leaving the armed forces. That shows the council’s commitment, and it is a very good example of the kind of work that could and should be done. I also pay tribute to all those local authorities that have secured some £11 million of funding to ensure that they can deliver the community covenant.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

South Wales has traditionally been a strong recruiting ground for the armed forces, so I am delighted that Councillor Mel Nott, the leader of Bridgend county borough council, has signed up to the community covenant. Has any assessment been made by the Department, in conjunction with the Department for Work and Pensions, of the impact that the stretching of front-line services such as housing and social services could have on the delivery of the community covenant to veterans and their families?

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question; he makes a good point. It is all well and good people signing up, but what matters is the delivery. There will no doubt be a chance later in questions to talk about today’s annual report on the covenant. This is about delivery, and some local authorities are clearly delivering, but there is also concern that some are not delivering in the way that we want them to deliver.

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

On the subject of delivery, the covenant report published today contains a quote from the three service families federations, which states:

“Central Government has asked local authorities to implement many aspects of the AF Covenant with little additional resources in terms of financial support, staff or guidance.”

So, to ensure that we do not end up with central Government pushing extra responsibilities on to local authorities and with the service community being let down as a result, will the Minister undertake and publish an audit of what local authorities are being asked to do for the service community and what funding is being provided for it? At the moment, there is a gap.

[Anna Soubry]

The covenant grant scheme has already provided £11 million in funding to local authorities, often working with their local barracks to ensure that they are delivering on the covenant. I have here a copy of the annual report on the covenant; it has been placed in the Library and it is also available from the Vote Office. Yes, we know that we must ensure that there is delivery, but I shall make two points. First, any audit should be done by the Department for Communities and Local Government. Secondly, this is one of those instances in which local government must deliver, and it is for local people to ensure that their local authorities are doing so—[Interruption.] I appreciate that the hon. Lady might have difficulty in understanding that, but this is not about top-down government. It is about local authorities and communities coming together to do the right thing. It is not about a big bossy Government telling them what to do.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

6. What recent investment his Department has made in the armed forces’ helicopter capabilities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

This Government are committed to providing our armed forces with the helicopter capability required for Future Force 2020. In the equipment plan, published last January, we confirmed that the Department would spend some £12 billion over the next 10 years to ensure that our helicopter capability remained up to date. We have already invested £2 billion since the strategic defence and security review in 2010 on modernising our existing helicopter fleet and bringing into service the Merlin Mk 2, the Wildcat and—a matter of particular interest to my hon. Friend—the Pumas based at RAF Benson in his constituency.

[John Howell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he ensure that the 14 Chinook helicopters ordered by this Government will be put to good use, unlike the eight Chinook helicopters that were left languishing in hangars under the previous Government, despite the shortage of lift capability?

[Mr Dunne]

My hon. Friend is quite right. This Government are getting helicopter capability upgraded and in service, in stark contrast to the Labour Government, who left eight Chinook helicopters languishing in hangars for years.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register.

We know that the UK has strength and depth across helicopter design and development—I have visited AgustaWestland and spoken to other manufacturers—but we need support for the future development of both rotary and fixed wing. In the light of recent reports that the next generation of fighter aircraft may have to be bought specifically from the US or Asia, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that we not only protect the skills in the UK but meet our future defence needs?

[Mr Dunne]

I am intrigued that the hon. Lady is seeking to divert the question to fixed wing from rotary wing. We have a clear strategy to replace fixed-wing and helicopter capability over the next period. On the joint strike fighter, a 15% share of that global programme is being manufactured here in the UK through the BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce supply chains.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

7. What reports he has received on the use of the runway at MOD St Athan by private companies based in the nearby enterprise zone; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I commend my hon. Friend for all the hard work he has put into St Athan, in pursuance of the prosperity agenda. I have received no further reports since I wrote to him on 23 October, but MOD officials continue to work hard with Welsh Government officials to ensure and promote the future of the airfield.

[Alun Cairns]

Does the Minister agree that the facility at St Athan, including the red dragon hangar, offers great opportunities for both military and commercial purposes? Will he update the House on his Department’s work with the Welsh Government to ensure that there is an efficient and effective use of the runway for both commercial and military purposes?

[Dr Murrison]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. As he knows, the Welsh Government would like to extend commercial operations at St Athan to seven days a week from the current five, and they are seeking to appoint a contractor to run the airfield services. The MOD, of course, stands ready to work with whoever wins the contract when that person is announced. He knows that defence is remaining at strength at St Athan, utilising the site transition plan, notably to accommodate 14 Signal Regiment. The plan will have the red dragon hangar vacated for Welsh Government tenants from 2016-17.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Are the efforts to build a joint plan with the Welsh Government going well? Is there a good working relationship between the Department and the Welsh Government?

[Dr Murrison]

There is indeed a good working relationship between the MOD and the Welsh Government. The next step is heavily dependent on the Welsh Government appointing a contractor to take on airfield services. That will enable the airfield to progress in a way that is suitable for commercial tenants. My strong advice is that that work needs to be done very soon, as we are talking about 29 MOD service and civilian employees at St Athan, who need to be looked after properly. If the Welsh Government want this to proceed quickly, it would be in their best interests, and those of all concerned, to get a move on.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

9. What recent discussions he has had with the UK defence sector on the protection of intellectual property.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

Routine contract negotiations involve intellectual property discussions with industry all the time. The MOD’s intellectual property team enjoys a close working relationship with industry. A joint issues working group meets three times a year and it includes the industry trade body ADS.

[Mr Sheerman]

The Minister will know that I chair the all-party group on manufacturing and that we have some fine manufacturers in my constituency. There is a worry in the sector about the close relationship with China. We want to export to China, but many people in the sector believe that China is in the business of economic warfare—it has stolen our IP—and that we are opening up our major sensitive companies to the stealing of IP by China.

[Mr Dunne]

The hon. Gentleman may have a point in relation to other industries, but I can assure him that there is no intent on the part of this Government to encourage the export of defence equipment to China.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

10. What objections his Department has made to applications for onshore wind farms in the last 12 months.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

The Ministry of Defence objects to wind farm applications if they have any detrimental effect on military capability. In the past year we have received 2,200 applications and objected to 284.

[Steve Brine]

I thank the Minister for that answer. EDF Energy proposes to erect 14 126-metre masts on farmland at Bullington Cross in my constituency and the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young). In the impact statement submitted to the council, it said that Bullington Cross

“is an extremely busy aviation site with a high density of both military and civil aviation activity”.

Given that the site is within a Ministry of Defence low-flying area for battleground helicopters, does the Minister not agree that it is totally inappropriate to have the training of our armed forces personnel compromised by turbines higher than Winchester’s great cathedral?

[Dr Murrison]

I know that my hon. Friend and the Keep Hampshire Green group have been tireless in resisting the proposed development. The application remains a live planning case, and the MOD has objected to it because of possible interference with the primary surveillance radars at Middle Wallop and Boscombe down, the precision approach radar at Middle Wallop and the low-flying operations. The MOD aims to be helpful in facilitating renewables through mitigation and pre-application inquiries, but safety and key defence deliverables must have primacy.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

As an aviator who, from time to time, has recourse to Popham airfield, may I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) in his objection to this massive 14-turbine development, and encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to stand firm for all the reasons that he has given about the impact on the precision approach radar at Middle Wallop and Boscombe down and on the low-flying area? There are precious few areas in the United Kingdom where low-flying can be carried out, so I hope my hon. Friend and the Department will remain robust in the face of that unwanted development.

[Dr Murrison]

As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course the Department will be robust. As I have said, we put our key defence deliverables and safety first and foremost. Although we will do what we can to promote renewables, which is a Government imperative, we must in the first instance ensure that our key deliverables and the safety of our personnel in the air and on the ground come first.

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

11. Which urgent operational requirements he plans to bring into the core Ministry of Defence equipment programme.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

The future of equipment bought through the urgent operational requirement process for operations in Afghanistan is currently being considered, with a departmental provision of £1.5 billion to support such equipment over the next 10 years. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we have already decided to bring some 2,000 protected mobility vehicles into the core programme, including 71 Coyote, 325 Husky, 441 Jackal, 439 Mastiff, 169 Ridgback and 60 Warthog vehicles. That represents a significant increase in the Army’s protected mobility capability, which I am sure he will welcome.

[Mr Syms]

I welcome that very comprehensive answer. I am pleased that we will make the maximum use of the equipment that was purchased for Afghanistan and that the Government are determined to increase the capability of the Army in Europe. What cost implications will that have for the core equipment programme, and will it have an impact on other aspects of the programme?

[Mr Dunne]

As I said to my hon. Friend in my fairly comprehensive initial answer, we have allocated £1.5 billion, which is essentially to support the elements being brought back into the core. The original capital cost was more than £5 billion in Iraq, and, I think, £7.6 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. That is of course money that has already been spent, so it is not a continuing drain on the Ministry of Defence budget.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The Government previously announced that the cost of the Vanguard successor programme would be part of the MOD main core equipment budget. I note that today the Minister has published a document on the costings of the assessment phase of Vanguard. It makes reference to the alternatives review. Will he inform the House when the Department will be in a position to tell us the cost of that review?

[Mr Dunne]

I am sure that you would agree, Mr Speaker, that the successor programme could scarcely be described as an urgent operational requirement.

[Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Let me take the House back to urgent operational requirements and the fairly comprehensive answer given by my hon. Friend. Will he update the House on the progress of the Foxhound vehicle, which began life as an urgent operational requirement and is now part of the core programme and performing very well?

[Mr Dunne]

With great pleasure, as my hon. Friend played a key role in commissioning the Foxhound vehicle. As he will recall, it was commissioned under the urgent operational requirement procedure but was always regarded as a core piece of equipment. We are well on the way to delivering 400 Foxhound vehicles to the British Army.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

13. What support his Department is providing to veterans with mental health problems.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that primary responsibility for the mental health of our veterans lies with the national health service. He might also know that I have taken a strong interest in the issue, and I am therefore pleased to report good progress not only in implementing the entirety of the excellent “Fighting Fit” report by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), but in the provision of substantial funding for national and community-based projects to support veterans experiencing mental health issues.

[Mr Raab]

I welcome the Minister’s answer. I also welcome the vital support that the Government are giving veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder through the excellent charity Combat Stress. Its latest review shows that the average referral takes 13 years from leaving the military. There are various reasons why that might happen, but can we do more to get those with PTSD the help they need a little quicker?

[Mr Francois]

I join my hon. Friend in his praise for the work of Combat Stress in helping veterans with mental health problems, including those with PTSD. The value of its work is fully recognised by the Government. Funding of up to £18 million is being provided by the NHS to Combat Stress to provide specialist acute PTSD treatment services to veterans and the MOD funds Combat Stress to provide remedial treatment for eligible veterans in receipt of a war pension, at a cost of approximately £2 million in the last financial year. As the excellent chief executive of the charity, Andrew Cameron, knows, we have been in discussions with the NHS about how we can further provide services for veterans, including access to treatment once they are diagnosed with PTSD. Those discussions are ongoing and we hope to have more to say on the subject next year.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

Minister, diagnosis is one thing, but how much research is done on why those people suffer in the first place so that we can prevent them from having mental health problems? What kind of work is being done in that area?

[Mr Francois]

The King’s centre for military health research, among others, is expert in the field. Professor Sir Simon Wessely is not only nationally but internationally renowned as a great authority on the subject. When veterans present with PTSD, which can be some years after they have left the service, we find that sometimes, because of a trigger event, the symptoms begin to emerge quickly and the challenge is to reach those people rapidly and to begin to give them help when they need it. We are talking to the NHS about how we can do that even better than we do now and we hope to make some further announcements about the progress we are making.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The charity Combat Stress has suggested that reservists are twice as likely to suffer from mental health issues and PTSD than regular soldiers or, indeed, the population at large. Will the Minister confirm that those potential costs have been factored in to the new Army Reserve costings?

[Mr Francois]

It is true that reservists returning from operations have a slightly higher rate of incidence of PTSD than regular personnel, but according to my last briefing on the subject the rate is only about 1% to 1.5% higher. I am afraid that I do not agree with the analysis that it is twice as likely. My hon. Friend might not agree with me, but, if he wants, he can pop down and see Professor Sir Simon Wessely and have a word with him about it.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

In the United States there is widespread successful use of specialist courts for veterans who might suffer from mental health and other problems. That helps to divert them away from committing further crimes. Given the Minister’s personal interest in such issues, will he consider the use of such courts and let me know his view of whether they could be appropriately used here?

[Mr Francois]

I should say from the get-go, as the Americans say, that if it is an issue about courts the Ministry of Justice would normally lead on that. I and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who is responsible for defence personnel, welfare and veterans, will attempt to talk to our colleagues in the MOJ and see whether any lessons can be learned from the American experience.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

16. When he plans to publish the annual armed forces covenant report.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

As I have said, the report has been published today.

[Alex Cunningham]

I look forward to seeing the report. What legal advice has the Department taken about the impact of the Human Rights Act on the covenant, and will it be reflected in the report?

[Anna Soubry]

I am not aware of that being reflected in the report, though if it is, I apologise; my memory may be playing tricks on me, but from my reading of the report, I do not think it is there. I am sorry that I am not being more helpful. If there is any way that I can assist further, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

18. What assessment he has made of the level of competition in the bidding process for the GoCo contract.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made in the House on 10 December, which explained that I have decided to terminate the present Government-owned contractor-operated competition for defence acquisition in view of the fact that only a single proposition was received. I was therefore unable to ensure a sufficient level of competitive tension in the negotiation stage of the process to ensure value for money for the armed forces and the taxpayer.

[Mr Bailey]

What has been agreed with both the Cabinet Office and the Treasury on the freedoms and flexibilities for the Defence Equipment and Support plus alternative option, and when does the right hon. Gentleman think it will it be match fit?

[Mr Hammond]

On the freedoms and flexibilities package, we have agreed that it will be possible to operate outside the civil service pay structures and that there will be flexibility in the appointment process so that we do not have to go through the overly bureaucratic civil service appointment process. The organisation will also be able to engage some private sector strategic support for specific areas of the business where we know weaknesses exist. On match fitness, we envisage a process that will take three years in round terms to get DE&S plus to the level of the competent and qualified organisation that we would like to see.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Most commentators say that the Secretary of State has botched the GoCo process, wasted two years and squandered millions of pounds, yet he does not seem to be any closer to resolving the problems with procurement. Does he agree?

[Mr Hammond]

No, I do not, as the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear. Defence acquisition is one of the most complex business areas in the country. It has a long history of challenge, as has been recognised under both Governments, and we are working on what I hope will be a long-term solution. The Gray report was commissioned by the previous Government, and we have sought to maintain a thread of continuity from the thinking that underpinned it. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to proceed to a GoCo at this time, but I believe that the exercise has been extremely valuable in informing this process, and it is clear that DE&S is making incremental progress, even though the step change that we were hoping for with GoCo was not able to be delivered.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

20. What recent discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts on security in the Baltic region.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

I have regular discussions on Baltic security with my NATO counterparts. I met them at the NATO defence ministerial on the 22 and 23 October, I visited Estonia on 2 December and I attended a meeting of the Northern Group in Helsinki on 3 December. The Northern Group consists of the northern European NATO Allies with the addition of Sweden and Finland.

[Harriett Baldwin]

At those meetings, did my right hon. Friend discuss with his Baltic counterparts the recent Russian military exercise called Zapad 13?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is obviously aware of the issues that are of concern to our Baltic and Nordic colleagues and the subject of Zapad 2013 did indeed come up. The stated intention of the Zapad 2013 exercise was to repel terrorists threatening Russia and Belarus. To that end Russia claims that it deployed 11,900 troops and 180 items of military equipment, including 10 tanks, 40 aircraft and 10 ships. Some of our Nordic and Baltic colleagues see that as a slightly excessive response to a terrorist threat exercise, but Members of the House will understand that the Baltic states in particular continue to express unease about a large-scale Russian exercise close to their borders.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

If Zapad 13 was a great success, it was nothing by comparison with Steadfast Jazz, the NATO exercise that occurred at more or less the same time. Leaving aside the question of who thinks up these daft names, does the Secretary of State agree that security in the Arctic in particular is a matter of huge concern for the future and not one to which we have yet given a great deal of attention?

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and I have to agree with him on the names. I have always assumed that they are chosen by a computer—if it is a person, something should be done about it. He is absolutely right to identify that we have huge strategic interests in the Baltic and, in particular, the Arctic, because a significant percentage of the UK’s primary energy supply now comes from Norwegian territorial waters in the Arctic, where significant strategic issues will play out over the coming years and decades.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

21. What research his Department has commissioned since 2010 on gender discrimination and sexual harassment in the military.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

As an equal opportunities employer, the armed forces are committed to a working environment free from harassment and discrimination. Substantial progress has been made since the 2006 Equal Opportunities Commission report on sexual harassment in the military and, as I am sure the hon. Lady knows, the 2009 Watts Andrews report into equality and diversity in the Army was published last week. The UK has the first female two-star military officer, Air Vice-Marshal Elaine West. Since her appointment, a second female RAF two-star appointment has been made. The short answer to the hon. Lady’s question is no, but it is obviously a serious subject that we take seriously.

[Mrs Moon]

As the Minister will be aware, the numerous surveys that have been carried out among female members of the armed forces show that on a daily basis they experience sexual harassment and gender harassment. What steps will she take to ensure that we drive out this pernicious underestimation of the capability of female members of the armed forces and put in place the equality regime that our military should be operating to?

[Anna Soubry]

It is a serious subject, and certainly one that I take seriously. The armed forces continuous attitudes survey for this year indicated that 10% of personnel believe that they have been the subject of discrimination, harassment or bullying in a service environment in the past 12 months, which unfortunately is 2% higher than in 2012. It is a serious matter, and one that I will always be happy to discuss with the hon. Lady.

[Mr Speaker]

Roger Williams—not here.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

My first priority remains the success of our operations in Afghanistan. Beyond that, my priorities are to complete the Ministry of Defence’s transformation programme; to build confidence within the armed forces in the Future Force 2020 model; to make progress in growing the reserve forces; to reinforce the armed forces covenant; to maintain budgets in balance; and to reform the defence procurement organisation so that our armed forces can be confident of being properly equipped and trained.

[Mrs Moon]

My Bridgend council recently added to its military covenant a recognition of the service of the nuclear test veterans and called for the development of a fund for those veterans and their descendants in times of need. The idea was put forward by Councillor David White, whose father died when he was four, as he had been at Christmas Island and was one of the nuclear test veterans. What steps will the Ministry of Defence take to give that additional support and recognition to nuclear test veterans?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

This is a somewhat complicated subject, and certainly one of some controversy. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) recently secured a debate on the subject. At the moment, the Government have no intention of setting up such a fund. We believe that the existing provision is there. Again, I am more than happy to have a discussion with the hon. Lady to explain what I think is the very good case that the Government make on the matter.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

T3. As we approach the end of combat operations in Afghanistan, support for armed forces veterans will become more important than ever. What action is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that veterans charities benefit from LIBOR fines funding?

[Anna Soubry]

We are very much aware that, as a result of withdrawal from Afghanistan, there is a concern that a number of our charities might not get the sort of generous support we have seen from the public by way of financial donation. That is one of the reasons why the LIBOR funding is so important. I am delighted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that an extra £10 million will be available from 2015 each year for the next 25 years.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

May I join the Defence Secretary in sending Christmas and new year wishes to members of our armed forces past and present and their families, whether abroad or in this country?

Once again the media are reporting concerns about a major defence issue based on a document obtained from the Ministry of Defence. Will the Secretary of State update the House on the planned privatisation of the Defence Support Group, which provides equipment repair and maintenance for our armed forces? Will he confirm that the US Government have raised significant concerns about intellectual property and that the sell-off is causing understandable nervousness in the Army?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, this Government do not comment on leaked documents. I can confirm, however, that the Defence Support Group is an important maintenance supplier to the British Army and that we are in discussions about the possibility of selling that entity, as has been made clear to him and to the Members of this House who have facilities in their constituencies. A decision will be taken in the first quarter of next year. We have had initial interest in this opportunity and we are well on top of the issues that have recently been identified in the press in relation to intellectual property and foreign IT.

[Vernon Coaker]

Well, there we have it—again. We have seen this one before and we all know how it ends. Despite warnings from Labour Members, the Defence Secretary pressed ahead with his fundamentally flawed plans for a GoCo before being forced to abandon them last week when it became clear that they would not work. Rather than go through that again, why do not the Government delay putting the Defence Support Group out to tender to allow a proper analysis of the implications of selling it off and to help to ensure that we do not end up with another GoCo no-go debacle? This is about our national interest and security; does not the Defence Secretary agree that we need to get it right?

[Mr Dunne]

The Defence Support Group provides maintenance and repair to platforms used by the British Army. It is entirely analogous to the maintenance and support repair facilities provided to surface and sub-surface ships in the Navy and to all the air platforms in the Air Force, which are all provided by private contractors, many of whom were put under contract under the previous Government.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

T4. I strongly welcome the improvements already made to the care of veterans, but do Ministers agree with the Prime Minister that more can be done in this area? Do they also agree that the Chavasse report written by Professor Tim Briggs, which has the support of the surgeon-general and others, points the way forward to even better care of veterans and reservists through better co-operation with the NHS and Defence Medical Services?

[Anna Soubry]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, because I know that Professor Tim Briggs is his constituent, and that is why he so ably puts forward this report, which of course has much merit. Professor Briggs has met the surgeon-general, and we look forward to the report bearing fruit in due course.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

T2. Last time I asked the Secretary of State a question about the reserves, he said that he had a better track record than me as Secretary of State, although as I have never been Secretary of State I could not have a better track record in that regard. When and why did the Government’s policy change so that reductions to regular forces are no longer contingent on an uplift in reserves recruitment?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not wish to disappoint the hon. Gentleman or the Secretary of State, but frankly I have no recollection of that exchange, and I expect that my experience is widely shared in the House.

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I may be suffering from early onset whatever, but I do not think that at any stage I have suffered from the delusion that the hon. Gentleman was ever Secretary of State for Defence. I have made it clear in answer to similar questions in the House that Defence is not funded to maintain a regular force at the scale of 94,000 through to beyond 2018. We are required for budgetary reasons to draw down the regular force as we build the reserve force, and that is what we are doing.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I welcome the update to Parliament on the United Kingdom’s future nuclear deterrent published today, which states:

“The Government policy remains to maintain a continuous at sea deterrent and proceed with the programme to build a new fleet of ballistic missile submarines.”

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will in no way entertain any squalid deals with any other party if what is needed for continuous-at-sea deterrence is four submarines and if another party, conceivably the Liberal Democrats, tried to argue that three would do?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend may note that some people have even suggested that two submarines could provide some sort of deterrent, but the Government and the Prime Minister have made clear their commitment to continuous at-sea deterrence and to delivering the number of submarines required to provide proper at-sea deterrence, not some jumped-up, import alternative.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

T5. My constituents who work for the Defence Support Group at Sealand in north Wales share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) about this possible sale. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) does not need to comment on leaked documents; could he just tell the House whether or not the American Government have made any representations to him about the dangers of such a sale?

[Mr Dunne]

What I can say is that the activities at Sealand cover ECBU—the electronic and components business unit—which we have indicated would not form part of the sale, so it is most unlikely to apply.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

As we approach the next strategic defence and security review, may I invite the Secretary of State to consider leasing the V-22 Osprey—a multi-mission tilt-rotor aircraft—from the United States? Its unique design means that it moves faster and goes further than a Chinook and I hope the Secretary of State will agree that it provides enormous expeditionary capability, including the refuelling from the carrier of the joint-strike fighter.

[Mr Philip Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right that the V-22 is an exceptional platform and incredibly impressive, but he will also know that operating an additional fleet of any kind imposes a huge burden on defence. Strangely enough, I am not approaching SDSR 15 on the basis of looking for additional commitments other than those that are already well known.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

T6. Press reports suggest the Prime Minister is increasing support for armed forces children in schools, which is, of course, welcome, but today’s armed forces covenant report says that “the need for more comprehensive, affordable childcare…needs to be addressed.”What does the Department propose to do about that?

[Anna Soubry]

Our child-care proposals in any event are providing the sort of support that one would hope for. Again, I believe there is an understanding at the local level and that, as the covenant rolls out, people will understand that they are making a commitment when they sign it. I believe we will see progress on this.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Earlier this year, the Royal British Legion was unable to secure a road closure for Armed Forces day in the village of Bulkington in my constituency. However, the good news is that that will be achieved next year, following the adoption of the community covenant by authorities across Warwickshire. What can be done to ensure that common sense prevails in such situations in future?

[Anna Soubry]

There is the community covenant, but I would be more than happy to make a phone call if it might help in any way.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

I am sure the Secretary of State is concerned, as are many people, about the new statistics on near air misses involving fast jets. The Ministry of Defence committed in 1998 to installing collision warning systems on Tornado aircraft, but it has not yet done so. Does the Secretary of State regret that? Will he also confirm that the Typhoon does not have a collision warning system installed? Are there plans to do so and when will that happen?

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure those four questions will be pithily replied to by the Secretary of State, who is dexterous in these matters.

[Mr Philip Hammond]

First, a collision warning system on the Typhoon is currently under test and if that test is successful, we would expect to roll it out. The Typhoon is a platform with a very long life ahead of it. There is also now a plan to install collision warning equipment on Tornados. The hon. Gentleman has raised this issue in the House before in relation to the very regrettable Tornado accident in his constituency in July 2012, and I have, in consequence, looked at whether, if the original procurement had gone ahead, we would have expected that equipment to have been installed on Tornados by the time that accident occurred. The answer is that we would not have expected it to be installed by that stage.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has done some sterling work to make sure that we get much better value for money from the defence budget. What role does off-the-shelf procurement have to play in that and what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to make sure that it becomes more of a default approach?

[Mr Hammond]

We have been clear that there are some areas where we need to protect UK sovereign capabilities for reasons of strategic advantage or in order to protect strategically important industrial capabilities. In all other areas we will look to procure in the way that is most effective for delivering defence.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be pleased to know that I have looked at “The United Kingdom’s Future Nuclear Deterrent” report, which he has just placed before the House. Page 5 gives me great concern, however, because it seems to assert that the programme is on track and on budget, and then goes on to predict savings thereafter. Those two things seem to me possibly to be in conflict. Will he assure me that there is no commitment to spending money beyond this Parliament in 2016, in relation to making the main-gate decision, when the new Parliament will have the right to decide the future of the whole programme?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes. Some £3 billion has been earmarked for spending before the next election, and the expectation is that that will have been committed, but that is the total commitment that will have been made at that time. That includes money that will not be disbursed until some time during the next Parliament, but which will have been committed.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rebasing of British troops from Germany represents a further opportunity to give a much-welcome boost to the UK economy?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

Yes, I very much welcome the rebasing. It will indeed boost the economy in the country overall, and not least in my own constituency. It is likely that in training and efficiency measures, it will save about £240 million a year. That will be of great benefit to the country in pursuing the prosperity agenda, and it will of course give surety to our troops, which is vital going forward, so I very much welcome it. Our German friends and colleagues are of course being taken along with the programme: they understood that it was coming, and they are very much on side. We pay tribute to the presence of the British Army in Germany for all these years.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

In written answers to parliamentary questions, the Government have said that they have had 10,000 applications for Arctic Star medals, of which 4,000 have now been processed. One of my constituents is the daughter of such a veteran who is seriously unwell. I am grateful to Ministers for expediting her application, but I ask them to do everything they can for other next of kin in a similar position to make sure that veterans get the recognition that they deserve?

[Anna Soubry]

Absolutely. As all my predecessors have said, if any hon. Member has any difficulty at all, they should write to me and we will make sure that we speed up the process. If hon. Members have any difficulty they should contact the Minister—at the moment, it happens to be me—and we will do everything we can to speed that up, because that is very important.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

In respect of the defence estate, we are very keen to get on with building new housing on the surplus Ministry of Defence land at Craven Hill in Bicester, but there appears to be some confusion about where the new housing will go and where tank transporters will be stored. Will my right hon. Friend please intervene to make sure that that is sorted out as soon as possible? We want to ensure that he gets a financial receipt for his Department.

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I have, indeed, already done so. I think that there has been a miscommunication and a misunderstanding by Cherwell district council. We are clear that our proposals for the possible continued use of part of the land for military purposes will not have any negative impact on the wider proposed housing development. We hope to be able to proceed with the sale imminently.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Now that the MOD has taken back responsibility for the disposal of RAF Kirton in Lindsey from the Homes and Communities Agency, will the appropriate Minister meet me and representatives of the town council to be assured that the MOD will not make the mistakes in that transfer that it has made in other parts of Lincolnshire?

[Dr Murrison]

I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss his constituency issue. I hope that he is not criticising the level of disposals that we have undertaken. We must satisfy our target, which he will know is to have 37,624 living spaces by the end of this Parliament. That is on track, and it is a huge success.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Last, I think that we will hear from a Hampshire knight. I call Sir Gerald Howarth.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. With the EU defence ministerial Council taking place this week, will my hon. Friend reassure the House and the country that, for the United Kingdom, NATO remains the cornerstone of this nation’s and, indeed, Europe’s defence? Will he resist any attempt by some of our pathetic European partners to try to rival NATO in the defence of Europe?

[Dr Murrison]

It is my guess that this will be the last question, so it gives me great pleasure to wish my hon. Friend a very happy Christmas and, I hope, a Eurosceptic new year.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. NATO remains the cornerstone of our collective defence, and I am certain that he will be satisfied with the outcome of the December Council meeting at the end of this week.

Petition

Monday 16th December 2013 Commons Chamber

Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con): The Dudley clinical commissioning group is currently consulting on changes to urgent care provision in the borough of Dudley, with the public consultation closing on 24 December. As a result of proposals by the CCG to close Dudley borough walk-in centre at Holly Hall clinic on Stourbridge road in my constituency, a number of concerned constituents have been in touch with me.

Accident and emergency services across the country are feeling the pressure caused by patients arriving at A and E departments because they feel they have no viable alternative. The Government have been clear that patients should be able to access good quality, out-of-hours NHS services without having to go to A and E departments. To support that, they have recently taken action to expand the role of GPs and to improve out-of-hours care. They have announced nationwide pilots to extend GP opening hours from 8 am to 8 pm, seven days a week, and agreed a new GP contract that will give millions of elderly people a dedicated GP who is personally accountable for their care.

The Government have also maintained that it is up to NHS commissioners to secure high-quality services that will meet the health care needs of local communities, driven by what is in the best interests of patients. The Holly Hall walk-in clinic provides a vital out-of-hours service to patients when they cannot see their GP, and many Dudley residents have expressed their support for the centre to remain open. It is unclear whether the out-of-hours services on which hard-working people rely would be maintained if the centre were to close. It is therefore my belief, and that of the petitioners, that closing the walk-in centre would not be in the best interests of Dudley patients.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Dudley South,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that proposed closure of the Dudley Borough Walk-in Centre at Holly Hall Clinic, 174 Stourbridge Road, Dudley DY1 2ER, by Dudley Clinical Commissioning Group should not go ahead; further that the Petitioners believe that, with its 08:00 to 20:00 opening hours, seven days a week, the walk-in centre currently provides a vital out-of-hours service for hardworking people in the Dudley Borough and the wider Black Country, especially on weekday evenings and at weekends; further that the Petitioners believe that the accessibility of the walk-in centre service contributes significantly to a reduction in the number of Accident and Emergency visits which reduces pressure on local A&E services such as those at Russells Hall Hospital.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to urge Dudley Clinical Commissioning Group to keep the Dudley Borough Walk-in Centre open.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001313]

North Korea

Monday 16th December 2013 Commons Chamber

15:34

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on North Korea following the execution of Jang Sung-taek.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this issue to the House’s attention and commend her for her tireless work as vice-chair of the all-party group on North Korea.

We are deeply concerned to learn of the execution of Jang Sung-taek. It is yet another example of the horrifying and surreal brutality of the North Korean regime, which presides over what Carl Bildt, the Swedish Foreign Minister, has called an “empire of horror”. We remain deeply concerned about the impact of that unpredictable regime on regional stability.

Jang Sung-taek’s execution and the reports of executions of people associated with him reinforce our significant concerns about North Korea’s appalling human rights record, which we assess to be one of the worst, if not the worst, in the world. The United Kingdom has consistently raised concerns about the severe and systematic human rights violations carried out by the North Korean Government, including reports of executions; the lack of any sort of basic judicial process; the severe curtailment of all freedoms, including freedom of thought, movement and religion; the systematic use of torture; and the horrific stories emanating from the gulags.

The United Kingdom has been at the forefront of raising those concerns in international forums. This year we co-sponsored two human rights resolutions in the United Nations. We also supported the introduction of a UN commission of inquiry, which will report to the Human Rights Council in March 2014. In October, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office sponsored a visit to the UK by the inquiry panel. The panel heard harrowing accounts from North Korean refugees about systematic abuses of even the most basic human rights. I met the panel and confirmed the United Kingdom’s full and unequivocal support for its work. I am pleased that parliamentarians had the opportunity to meet the panel and discuss its work.

Given the opaque nature of the North Korean leadership, the implications of Jang’s execution remain unclear. Our embassy in Pyongyang reports that the situation on the ground is currently calm. We will continue to monitor the situation closely, not least during the anniversary of Kim Jong-il’s death tomorrow. We are alert to the possibility that the regime may use that as an opportunity to bolster public support for its leader.

It remains to be seen whether the execution will strengthen Kim Jong-un’s power or whether it indicates political instability and a struggle for power. We are in close contact with the United States and the Republic of Korea, and we will speak to other members of the six-party talks in the coming days.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the Minister for that reply. As he said, Jang Sung-taek’s execution was just the most high-profile of many. For some six decades, the North Korean people have suffered intolerably. People are incarcerated merely for their beliefs, or for speaking a few words that the leadership objects to. Children are treated as prisoners from birth, and those who try to escape the regime risk not only imprisonment or worse for themselves but punishment for up to three generations of their family. An incalculable number of North Koreans have been, and continue to be, worked to death, frozen to death, burned to death, gassed to death or tortured in the most unimaginable ways. In short, the North Korean people are the most persecuted on earth.

Just because this terrible situation has persisted for so long—over three generations—cannot be a reason for the international community not to address it as a priority. Millions live at or near starvation while international charities say that food aid, if accompanied—and there are the means—will reach them. What more will our Government do to help them through the Department for International Development and otherwise? Food should never be used as a weapon of war.

Given that a major weapon in ending Stalin’s reign of terror was the role that this country played by broadcasting the BBC World Service and breaking the Soviet information blockade—the same has been done more recently with the Burmese information blockade—and given the Foreign Secretary’s role in setting the World Service’s strategic objectives, will the Minister consider extending the BBC World Service to the Korean peninsula?

Having read Amnesty’s recent report on the expansion of North Korean prison camps, which are incarcerating some 300,000 people, and following the recent spate of executions—including that of Jang Sung-taek—the show trials, force-fed propaganda, and an ideology that has starved 2 million to death, and bearing in mind that the UK is now home to the largest number of North Korean refugees outside South Korea, should we not do all in our power, both as a country and as a leader in the international community, to help end North Korea’s reign of terror?

[Mr Swire]

My hon. Friend’s almost fantastical description of North Korea is, alas, not fantastical but only too true. To call it an Orwellian nightmare would be a cliché and would not give a clear enough indication of the horrors vested on the people of that country by its leaders.

I think the United Kingdom is playing an important part. My hon. Friend will be aware that we fully support the United Nations Human Rights Council agreement to establish a commission of inquiry. That was a unanimous vote—which is unusual on such issues—and was proposed in a resolution presented by the EU and Japan, and co-sponsored by more than 40 countries. As my hon. Friend knows, that commission will look at all those issues, particularly the prison camps as well as other matters such as human rights abuses, and report back in March 2014.

My hon. Friend asked about food aid to North Korea, which is understandable given the reports emanating from that country about food shortages. There are even some alarmist reports about how people are going about eating, which, again, are too horrific to recount. The United Kingdom does not currently have a bilateral development programme in North Korea, and neither do we provide money to international organisations specifically for use in North Korea. However, some non-earmarked funds that we provide to organisations such as the World Food Programme may be used for humanitarian programmes in that country. Our embassy in Pyongyang uses some of its bilateral funding for small-scale humanitarian programmes such as nutrition for nursing mothers and greenhouses for children’s homes, although that remains under regular review.

My hon. Friend also asked about the ongoing issue of the BBC and broadcasting to North Korea, which I know is something that the North Korea all-party group has discussed and a matter that Lord Alton of Liverpool has been pushing hard. The BBC has been in touch with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about the issue—or vice-versa, I should say. It is primarily an issue for the BBC, which has, of course, full editorial, operational and managerial independence. We understand that it is not currently persuaded that a Korean language service would be an effective value-for-money use of available resources. Nevertheless, our embassy in Pyongyang is working with BBC Worldwide on an initiative to broadcast BBC drama, nature and science programmes on North Korean television. We believe that that has the potential to expose significant numbers of North Koreans to aspects of the outside world from which they are normally totally isolated.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his response and the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for raising this issue. The House is united in its condemnation of the North Korean regime, and we share the view of the Foreign Office that this execution is another shocking illustration of the brutality of the North Korean leadership. We also echo concerns about the shocking levels of hunger and poverty in North Korea, as well as the many human rights abuses.

It seems likely that the execution was intended as a show of strength by Kim Jong-un, and to the wider world it has also been taken as an indication of his insecurity and volatility. It comes after a year that has seen an even more provocative and unpredictable stance from Pyongyang, including nuclear threats to the USA, and the declaration of a state of war with South Korea. Recent satellite images published by Amnesty International indicate that the largest prison camps are continuing to expand. The international community responded calmly and—crucially—with a united front to attempts to escalate tensions earlier this year, and it is important that that consensus continues.

Given that an urgent question has been granted today, the House must turn its attention to what can be done in the immediate future to try to address the situation. Have the Government made any assessment of the possible implications of the execution for the North Korean leadership and the wider region? The Minister mentioned that discussions have already taken place with the USA and the Republic of Korea, but have any conversations been held yet with Chinese officials, or will that happen in the near future? It has been reported that Jang Sung-taek had been building trade links with China, prompting some speculation about a change in economic policy. What is the Minister’s assessment of such reports, and of the nature of North Korea’s current relationship with China? I was in the Republic of Korea earlier this year, and my understanding is that the relationship is under some strain. Was North Korea discussed during the Prime Minister’s recent visit to China?

More generally, can the Minister elaborate on what influence he thinks China can potentially exercise? Given that both the United Kingdom and China were recently elected to the United Nations Human Rights Council, what action does he think the council can take, and, most crucially, what prospect does he envisage of any response at all from North Korea? As he said, the UN commission of inquiry on human rights in North Korea is due to report in March. Will he tell us what recommendations the Government would like it to make?

Given the unanimous support for UN security resolutions, which has already been mentioned, will the Minister be taking the matter up with the UN Security Council, and what does he think could be achieved by his doing so?

[Mr Swire]

I thank the hon. Lady for the spirit of consensus in which she framed her questions. We are clearly very much on the same page.

The hon. Lady made an assertion about the implications of, or the reasons for, the execution. I must pause to think about that. There is a total lack of clarity in regard to what the execution was about, and an equal lack of clarity in regard to the implications for what will happen next. I have read a number of reports this morning, and each of them is speculative, so the answer is ‘we do not know.’ Whether we will ever know is also a legitimate question, but as things stand, we simply do not know.

The hon. Lady asked whether the Prime Minister had raised the matter in China during our recent visit. The answer is yes, and, as she would imagine, it was also raised during the visit of President Park of the Republic of Korea during her recent state visit. The hon. Lady asked what more China could do. China has a 900-mile border with North Korea, it has a very real and present interest in North Korea, and we believe that it has a key role to play in the country’s future. She also asked what kind of relationship the current North Korean regime had with China. Again, we simply do not know, because we do not understand the thinking behind the leadership as it stands.

The hon. Lady asked what the British Government would like from the commission of inquiry. The commission will report to the United Nations in March 2014, and, as she will understand, it would be inappropriate for us to comment on the recommendations before we have seen the full report. I believe that the unanimity shown by the United Nations Human Rights Council and its reporting will be extremely important in respect of what we do next. We would like the six-party talks to resume as soon as possible, but at this stage I cannot envisage their resuming until we see some sort of gesture of good will from the regime in Pyongyang. Such a gesture would be more than welcome; at present, as the hon. Lady and the House will know, such a gesture is very much absent.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I must emphasise that the Second Reading debate on the Care Bill, which is to follow, is very heavily subscribed. We are therefore somewhat time-constrained, which renders pithiness from Back and Front Benches alike imperative.

[Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Given that the United Kingdom remains a member of the armistice commission which was established at the end of the Korean war, can my right hon. Friend give an unequivocal assurance that, in the event of further military provocations from the north and a military response from the south, the United Kingdom Government will use their position as a member of the commission to do their utmost to ensure that military action by both sides does not escalate out of control?

[Mr Swire]

My right hon. Friend talks about a military response. We are doing everything in our power to avoid any regional instability or military response by any side in the region. There are several worrying areas in that part of the world, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is contributing to the general instability. We work closely with our partners in the six-party talks and liaise closely with both the Republic of Korea and our American allies, and we shall continue to do that.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

Will the Minister have slightly more robust conversations with the BBC, encourage it to look at the issue of transmitters into North Korea and point out to it that BBC documentaries and drama, however entertaining they may be, are not really the answer? What is needed is the World Service and access.

[Mr Swire]

The hon. Lady will no doubt be aware that we have these discussions with the BBC. As I say, my noble Friend Lord Alton of Liverpool has been leading on this, and the BBC has taken a view and is communicating it to him. There are reasons to do it and there are reasons not to do it, but at the end of the day, the BBC has the independence to decide where and to whom to broadcast.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

I share the expressions of distaste, even disgust, that we have heard, but I wonder if I might be forgiven for saying that we have to keep some sense of realism. Is not the truth that for the foreseeable future the best we can hope for is to pursue successfully a policy of containment and deterrence?

[Mr Swire]

My right hon. and learned Friend, who speaks with considerable wisdom, is entirely right. Yes, containment is important, but equally we want the DPRK to halt its programme to develop nuclear capability in violation of every known international agreement. That is what this is about. We do not want North Korea to become a nuclear state. We cannot act unilaterally to prevent it, but we can act together with our partners in the six-party talks.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I share the Minister’s horror at the execution last week and I condemn the death penalty in any circumstances anywhere, but it has served to highlight the abuse of human rights throughout North Korea. Have the six-party talks at any stage included a discussion about human rights? When they are resumed, will he ensure that human rights are brought into the equation?

[Mr Swire]

It is almost impossible to conceive any discussion involving the abuses of the regime in Pyongyang not including its horrific abuse of human rights—as I said in my opening remarks, perhaps currently the worst of any regime anywhere in the world.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to start breaking down barriers in North Korea is through contact with the outside world? Will he use his position therefore to encourage contacts with South Korea in Kaesong? Furthermore, will he encourage the BBC to consider broadcasting into North Korea—it would be not a cost-effective, but a diplomatic decision—and encourage maximum contact with China through trade?

[Mr Swire]

Yes to the last point. I have just accompanied the Prime Minister to China on the largest ever prime ministerial-led trade delegation anywhere—it included more than 150 companies—so UK-Chinese bilateral trade is incredibly important. I believe that I have addressed the BBC issue. On my hon. Friend’s other point, I would say: that is why we have an embassy in Pyongyang. Some people say, “If you can’t penetrate the mind of the regime, why have an embassy in Pyongyang?” He has answered that question: a chink of light is better than no light at all. The fact that we have a diplomatic presence in North Korea is welcomed by Seoul and Washington, with whom we work closely on these matters. It is important that whenever we see a chink of light, we try to widen it to expose to the people of North Korea that there is a better world out there. I do not believe that the regime can keep them downtrodden forever.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister lay out his thinking about the parallel process of the six-party talks and the other avenues the Foreign Office is pursuing in trying to resolve this issue?

[Mr Swire]

The correct place to resume negotiations is through the six-party talks. That is key. It brings in all the interested parties in the region and, obviously, the United States. Without those talks, I do not believe that sufficient progress could be made, and as I said earlier I do not think it is possible for those talks to resume without a gesture from the North Koreans, but obviously that gesture is sadly lacking.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Given that we already send food aid to some pretty unpalatable regimes around the world, could we ask the Department for International Development to look again at the issue of North Korea?

[Mr Swire]

I have already said that the situation is currently under review, and I will certainly raise it again with colleagues in DFID. I think there are reasons why we do not give food aid to North Korea, not least because of the great difficulty of ensuring that it ended up in the right place. I will make a commitment to my hon. Friend, who takes a keen interest in these matters—and rightly so—that I will speak to my DFID colleagues on the issue he raised and I will get back to him.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It is difficult to envisage any people anywhere in the world who would not benefit more greatly from the BBC World Service than the people of North Korea. The Minister said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) that there were reasons why the BBC had decided not to broadcast into North Korea. Will he now share those reasons with us?

[Mr Swire]

The BBC takes a view about where its resources are best employed and about how people can best access its broadcasting abilities. At the end of the day, whatever representations we make to the BBC, it quite properly makes the final decision on where it wants to broadcast. That is how the BBC is enshrined in charter, and it is how it should remain.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Do not recent events in North Korea demonstrate the need for a clear, continuous and candid dialogue between the Foreign Office and the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister’s recent visit to China was extremely welcome in thickening and deepening the UK’s relations with that country?

[Mr Swire]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was encouraged by the levels of access that the Prime Minister and his ministerial team were granted by the Chinese authorities. Political and diplomatic relations are now good, while bilateral trade is, of course, extremely good and inward investment is good. It is critical, as my right hon. Friend says, that China continues to play a lead role in trying to resolve what has been for many decades now an impenetrable problem of this rogue despotic regime in North Korea, treading on the lives of its people. This cannot go on indefinitely. It is up to all of us in the international community not only to prevent some of the regional instabilities created by this situation, but to do something for the people who are living there in the most horrific circumstances.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

About 20% of North Korea’s Christians are in jail. What discussions did the Prime Minister have on his recent economic visit to China about leaning on North Korea in order to gain a relaxation or easement of the persecution of Christians?

[Mr Swire]

The hon. Gentleman, who always speak up for Christians, is right. Alas, it is not only the Christian community in North Korea that is so downtrodden. We raised our general concerns about this issue and human rights in North Korea with officials from the North Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs most recently in November 2013. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that making significant progress on human rights and the protection of minorities such as Christians is difficult, because the North Korean Government refuse to enter into meaningful discussions on these matters.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

What assessment does my right hon. Friend make of reports of widespread public indoctrination sessions occurring in North Korea? Does that not reinforce the point that greater outside influence must be brought to bear if we are to see change in this despicable regime and change for the people of North Korea?

[Mr Swire]

My hon. Friend will no doubt wish to discuss that at the meeting of the Conservative group on North Korea that I believe is taking place tomorrow. He mentions indoctrination, and I have to say that the levels of indoctrination that go on there are almost surreal—incomparable with any other regime or country in the world. It is truly horrific, with almost every aspect of the Korean people’s lives being the result of indoctrination. That is why, as I said, we maintain an embassy because any chink of light is better than no light at all, but it is a long haul and it is difficult work.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

The Minister will be aware that many North Koreans in touch with families in South Korea have reported not only that the number of indoctrination sessions has increased, but that targeted individuals are being forced to write letters of loyalty to the leader, Kim Jong-un. Does that not suggest that Jang’s execution is part of a wider campaign to consolidate power as the economy continues to fail?

[Mr Swire]

There are indeed reports that Jang has taken the blame for the desperate state of the economy, and there are also reports that this is the work of the military and not of the leader, but all these are just that: reports. We could indulge ourselves all afternoon by speculating about the reasons behind this. The answer is we do not know. The one fact of which we are certain is that the people of North Korea are suffering in a way that some of us can only guess at, and some of us would not wish that treatment to be vested on even our worst enemies.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

To what extent is North Korea sharing nuclear weapons technology with Iran?

[Mr Swire]

We remain extremely concerned about proliferation of any sort. There has been evidence in the past of trade between North Korea and Iran which is why it is so vital that everybody adheres to the sanctions regime that is currently imposed.

Points of Order

Monday 16th December 2013 Commons Chamber

16:00

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In last Thursday’s business questions I asked for a statement on funding for 18-year-old students. I said that further education colleges such as my local college would be £800 per student worse off but that sixth-form colleges would not be affected. I have since been advised that sixth-form colleges will also suffer a loss in funding, so I want to apologise to the House for the erroneous information I gave last Thursday and to put the correct information on the record.

[Mr Speaker]

That is most gracious of the hon. Lady. The matter stands there.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure you will agree that Members should always use temperate and moderate language in our exchanges in the Chamber in order, if nothing else, not to offend our constituents. Therefore, can you provide a ruling on whether it was in order for the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) to use the word “bigot” when referring to a Member of the House of Lords and by implication Members of this House when discussing the same-sex marriage Bill? May I ask that your office write to the hon. Gentleman to ensure that his sesquipedalian tendencies do not fall foul of the House again?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and his courtesy in giving me notice of it. I ought perhaps to say to the hon. Gentleman that I trust he informed the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) of his intention to raise this point of order—and I am grateful to him for his nod of assent. I heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Rhondda last week and I did not intervene. I do not think the hon. Gentleman was using the word “bigot” in application to a particular individual and the record at column 360 of Hansard confirms this. I should, however, add that even had he been doing so, I do not feel that accusing others of holding strong opinions on the basis of prejudice rather than fact is altogether uncommon in exchanges in the House and I am not inclined myself to view its use in that way as unparliamentary. That said, I do remind all Members of the need for courtesy and moderation in the language they use in debate and the need to respect the good faith of those on the other side of the argument. I hope that is helpful to the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) and the House both today and for the future.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Thursday, a Minister from the Department of Energy and Climate Change made a speech to the Solar Britain trade association in which he said:

“we are putting in place the framework to drive even more investment in solar power.”

This morning I met people from Sharp of Japan in my constituency, who informed me that they were withdrawing from production of solar panels in Wrexham and that 615 jobs in my constituency would be lost. Have you received any indication, Mr Speaker, that a Minister of the Department will be coming to the Chamber to explain how it is that they are so out of touch with the industry that they purport to represent?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman will keel over in shock when I advise him that I have received no such indication from any Minister. The hon. Gentleman is a legendarily wily parliamentarian and he knows how to deploy his opportunities to make his case. What he has just raised is not in any meaningful sense a point of order; it is a point of debate, to which I suspect the hon. Gentleman might wish to return, possibly through the medium of an Adjournment debate, and his ambitions may at some point be realised.

Bill presented

House of Commons Members’ Fund Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Peter Lilley, supported by Mr Clive Betts, Mr Brian H. Donohoe, Richard Harrington, David Mowat and John Thurso, presented a Bill to consolidate and amend provisions about the House of Commons Members’ Fund.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 January 2014, and to be printed (Bill 145).

Care Bill [Lords]

Monday 16th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Third report from the Health Committee, on After Francis: making a difference, HC 657, and the Government response, Cm 8755.]

Second Reading

[Mr Speaker]

I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

16:05

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Our health and care system stands for compassionate care, or it stands for nothing. That was the vision when the NHS was founded 65 years ago: that anyone and everyone, regardless of background or income, should receive the best quality health care and be treated with dignity, compassion and respect. Because we have made much progress in delivering that vision, the NHS rightly remains the single biggest reason people are proud to be British. This Government want to keep it that way, which is why we are determined to root out poor care whenever and wherever it exists. Tragically, it does exist, both in the NHS and in private provision. In recent years, we have heard of patients being left in their own excrement at Mid Staffs, of patients left unchecked on trolleys for hours on end at Tameside, and of blood on the curtains and catheters on the floor at Basildon. All are issues that could and should have been dealt with by the last Government. Tragically, those problems were swept under the carpet, with devastating consequences for families across the country.

Today it gets worse, because the same people who failed to face up to those problems as Ministers will troop into the Lobby to try to vote down the very measures that will stop them ever happening again. People watching this debate will be asking one simple question: what more will it take for Labour to learn the terrible lessons of these tragedies? How many more people will need to suffer before the Labour party, the party that is rightly proud to have founded the NHS, comes to its senses and recognises that, on its watch, targets mattered more than patients and good news mattered more than good care?

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman casts those allegations around widely. Will he name the Ministers against whom he is making them?

[Mr Hunt]

I will absolutely go on to name the problems and the Ministers involved, if the hon. Gentleman will just be patient.

Hon. Members should not simply take my word for this. This is what Mid Staffs campaigner Ken Lownds, a former Labour party member, says about Labour’s decision today:

“It’s shocking and deeply depressing that Labour have learnt nothing from Mid Staffs. Their decision to oppose the Care Bill is a slap in the face for the campaigners and relatives who have fought for years for these measures that deliver a safer, more transparent and more compassionate NHS. Once again they have let patients and whistleblowers down by putting their political interests ahead of patient safety.”

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has come here to introduce the Second Reading of a very important Bill, yet it has taken him only two minutes to start casting aspersions on the previous Labour Government. When is he going to start acting like a Secretary of State?

[Mr Hunt]

The reason I am talking about this is that the hon. Lady’s party has decided to oppose the Bill. Let us look at the measures in the Bill that Labour is opposing.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hunt]

I will make some progress, then I will give way.

Labour will today vote against measures that will help to implement 61 of the most important recommendations made by Robert Francis. Many of these will be policed by the new chief inspector of hospitals, appointed to be the nation’s whistleblower in chief, whose duties will be enshrined in today’s legislation, which Labour are voting against.

[Andy Burnham]

How can it be appropriate to introduce a debate on such fundamentally important issues as the way we care for older people with such narrow, petty, partisan, point scoring efforts? May I just say to the Secretary of State that he should not stand there and misrepresent the position of the Opposition? We will not oppose the Second Reading—we have tabled a reasoned amendment, because we do not believe his proposals for a cap are what they seem, but we will not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. He should get his facts straight before he comes to that Dispatch Box.

[Mr Hunt]

The right hon. Gentleman needs to read his own amendment, because it says that he “declines to give” the Bill “a Second Reading”. If he is changing his position now, that is the fastest U-turn in history.

Let me go on to say why it is so important that the Labour party supports today’s Bill and does not, as the amendment says, decline to give the Bill a Second Reading.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Hunt]

I am going to make some progress. The new chief inspector of hospitals will act as Ofsted does with schools and, as with Ofsted, will inspect and rate hospitals using simple language that the public can understand: “Is my local hospital safe? Is it caring? Is it responsive? Is it clinically effective? Is it well led?” We will also make sure that the same scrutiny is directed at services outside hospitals, so the Bill makes provision for a chief inspector of social care and a chief inspector of general practice.

Ministers in the previous Government were repeatedly asked to strengthen the regulatory system and repeatedly ignored those requests. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says, from a sedentary position, that that is rubbish, but this is what Barbara Young, the chair of the Care Quality Commission at the time and now a Labour peer, told the Francis inquiry about the inspection system that the right hon. Gentleman introduced:

“The annual health check was so flawed in so many ways that I went and saw the Secretary of State. It was nonsense. And having argued that with the Secretary of State, I was told firmly that we weren’t permitted to change it. I was very unhappy about that.”

Well, today—

[Andy Burnham]

rose—

[Mr Hunt]

No, I am going to make some progress. Today he had a chance to show that he had learned how wrong—

[Andy Burnham]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State to misrepresent the views of the previous Government and previous Ministers, and refuse to take interventions? He has just said that I refused to change and strengthen the regulation system of hospitals in England—that is factually incorrect. I brought forward a new system for the registration of all hospitals in England in autumn 2009, on the back of recommendations from the CQC. Again, he should get his facts straight at that Dispatch Box.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I make two points in response. First, every Member and every Minister must be responsible for his or her comments in the Chamber—the accuracy and appropriateness thereof. I am afraid that, however angry people feel, on either side of the argument, these are matters of debate. Secondly, the situation would be greatly helped if the Secretary of State now, immediately, turned his mind to the presentation of the argument in support of the introduction of the Bill, which is, ordinarily, the matter upon which one anticipates a Secretary of State will focus his remarks. This is not an occasion for a historical legerdemain; it is an occasion for the presentation of the case for a Bill, to which I know that, without delay, the Secretary of State will turn his mind.

[Mr Hunt]

I am delighted to do so, Mr Speaker, and I know that you would think it was legitimate of me to hold the Labour party to account for its decision if it is voting against today’s Bill or declining to support it, as its amendment clearly states.

However, today is a day to rise above party political considerations, as Mr Speaker has just said, and recognise that putting these things right is overwhelmingly in the interests of patients. If the Labour party continues its stubborn refusal to support legislative underpinning for a new chief inspector of hospitals, which is in today’s Bill, how will it ever be able to look patients in the eye again? Perhaps the most shocking thing about Mid Staffs, which is one of the reasons we have so many provisions in the Bill, was not just the individual lapses in care but the fact that they went on for four long years without anything being done about them.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Hunt]

I am going to make some progress.

When problems are uncovered, action must be swift. Robert Francis cited confusion over which part of the regulatory system is responsible for dealing with failing hospitals, so this Bill makes it clear where the buck stops. It is the CQC’s job to identify problems and instigate a new failure regime when it does so. Monitor and the Trust Development Authority will then be able to use powers to intervene in those hospitals, suspending foundation trusts’ freedoms where necessary to ensure that appropriate action is taken. If, after a limited period, a trust has failed significantly to improve, the Bill requires a decision to be taken on whether the trust needs to be put into special administration on quality grounds—and, yes, where necessary, a trust special administrator will be able to look beyond the boundaries of the trust and consider the wider health economy. As we know from Lewisham, that is not easy, but we will betray patients if we do not address failure wherever it happens.

[Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

Why, when the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have clearly set out the four tests that have to be met for any downgrading of hospital services, is he now introducing this clause? Those greater powers will totally undermine the clinical commissioning groups that his Government set up to meet local clinical and health needs, and not to balance the books for people outside their area.

[Mr Hunt]

I recognise that the right hon. Lady campaigns hard for her constituents. The four tests set out by the Prime Minister were never designed to require unanimous support from local CCGs for necessary changes. If we had to secure that, it would be virtually impossible to make any major reconfigurations. Where there is a failing hospital, it is important to resolve and address situations. There are exceptional occasions when that cannot be done in an individual trust’s area. The change in the law will not apply retrospectively to Lewisham, but it is right to ensure that, if we are to learn one lesson from what has happened in recent years, we deal much more quickly with failing hospitals, and that applies to South London Healthcare NHS Trust as well. Governments and the NHS must never again sit on coasting or failing hospitals for year after year without doing what it takes to sort them out. That is why this year, for the first time, we have put 13 hospitals into special measures. How utterly inexplicable but sadly predictable it is that the Labour party, which failed to sort out those problems, is today refusing to back the changes that mean those mistakes can never be repeated.

Another lesson from the Francis inquiry is that we need to create a culture of openness in health and social care so that, rather than being bullied and intimidated, doctors and nurses feel they can speak out about problems. The Care Bill will introduce a duty of candour as a requirement for registering with a CQC. That means that honesty and openness must come as standard for every organisation. We are also introducing a new criminal offence that will apply to care providers that supply or publish false or misleading information. Directors and other senior staff involved in committing the offence will be held to account. In addition to the Bill, the professional regulators have agreed to place a new strengthened professional duty of candour on all doctors and nurses. The Government are on the side of openness and transparency in our health care system.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I am sorry that the Secretary of State has not made any reference to part 1 of the Bill, which is about care and support. I hope he will come on to it, because it is so important. Perhaps he will also explain why Francis’s recommendations on a duty of care are being applied to organisations but not to individuals?

[Mr Hunt]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we considered that matter carefully. We decided that the best way forward is to strengthen the professional duty of candour on individual doctors and nurses through their professional codes. After extensive consultation, which was supported by the medical profession, including the British Medical Association, we decided that that was a better way of ensuring that we had the right outcomes and did not create a legalistic culture that could lead to defensive medicine, which would not be in patients’ interests.

If supporting the Francis measures in the Bill is too awkward or embarrassing for Labour Members, can they not see the merits in the parts of the Bill that deal with out-of-hospital care? I am talking about not just vulnerable older people, but carers, for whom we need to do more. We need to do much more to remove the worry that people have about being forced to sell their own home to pay for their care.

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Mr Hunt]

I want to make some progress.

At Committee stage, we intend to table amendments to enable the creation of a £3.8 billion better care fund in 2015-16. That represents the first significant step any Government have ever taken to integrate the health and social care systems.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

rose—

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Mr Hunt]

I will give way in a moment, but let me make some progress first.

I commend the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for championing integration, although he chose not to do anything about it when he was in office. How, then, when a Government take steps to do that for the first time, can he possibly justify not supporting it?

[Hazel Blears]

At a time of austerity, when there is very little public money around, the need for innovation and creativity is much greater. On reflection, does the Secretary of State regret not being more ambitious in the Bill about the full integration of health and social care in order to maximise the impact for those who need care and support—unlike my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Health, who has talked about whole person care and full integration?

[Mr Hunt]

With the greatest of respect to the right hon. Lady, who, I know, played a good role in the G8 dementia summit last week, the Bill is extraordinarily ambitious. Nearly £4 billion is going into a merger of the health and social care systems. The previous Government had 13 years to do something about this and they did nothing. We are delivering. I hope, if she believes in this, that she might at least support the Bill in the Lobby tonight and not decline to support it, as her party’s amendment suggests.

The fund will ensure joint commissioning and the seamless provision of services, preventing the nightmare of people being pushed from pillar to post with no one taking responsibility. It has led to the unprecedented step of the NHS and local authorities working together in all 152 local authority areas to plan joined-up services.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Mr Hunt]

I am going to make some progress.

Thanks to our reversal of Labour’s 2004 GP contract, vulnerable people over 75 will have an accountable, named GP responsible for making sure they get the wraparound care they require.

The collapse of Southern Cross showed the risks to people’s care when providers fail, so through the Bill we are introducing provisions to help ensure that people do not go without care if their provider fails, even if they pay for their own care. The CQC will monitor the financial position of the most difficult-to-replace providers in England to help local authorities provide continuity of care in a way that minimises anxiety for people receiving care.

We also need to improve the training of health care assistants and social care support workers. For the first time, health care assistants will have a new care certificate to ensure they get training in compassionate care and the Bill allows us to appoint a body to set the standards for that training. That means that the public can be assured that no one will be assigned to give personal care to their loved ones without appropriate training or skills. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is responsible for care and support, will have more to say on those elements of the Bill when he closes the debate and I thank him for his outstanding work on raising standards in that area.

We also need to address the funding of care. At the moment, people fear being saddled with catastrophic costs and even having to sell their home at the worst possible time to pay for their care. The Care Bill significantly reforms the funding of care and support, introducing a duty on local authorities to offer a deferred payments scheme so that people will not be forced to sell their homes in their lifetime to pay for residential care.

We will also introduce a cap on people’s social care costs, raising the means test at which support from the state is made possible and delivering on the recommendation of the independent Dilnot commission.

[Andy Burnham]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Hunt]

I am going to make some progress.

Some 100,000 older people will benefit financially and everyone will be protected from the catastrophic cost of care.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

rose—

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Hunt]

I will give way to my hon. Friend.

[Andrew George]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He says that everyone will be protected, but of course the cap on care costs is not a cap on “daily living costs”, as the Bill puts it. Will he therefore confirm that the £70,000—or whatever figure the cost ends up at—will not be the end of the costs for many people going into residential care?

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend is right. We followed the recommendations of Andrew Dilnot, who did not think that the cap should apply to hotel costs, and, indeed, the policy that the Opposition followed in their national care service White Paper. We think that it is reasonable to cap the care costs. There is a cost issue—we would like to be more generous, but by the end of the next Parliament this proposal will cost nearly £2 billion. People who would like a more generous system must be obliged to tell us where they will get the extra funding.

[Andy Burnham]

rose—

[Mr Hunt]

The right hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak later.

We want to be one of the first countries in the world where it is as normal to save for one’s social care costs as it is for one’s pension, and this Bill’s provisions make that possible. The deferred payments scheme, with a threshold of £23,250, on which we openly consulted, excludes only the wealthiest 15% of people entering residential care. How extraordinary it is that Labour should play politics by feigning concern for the richest in society, when they failed to do anything for the poorest over 13 years when they had the chance to do so.

[Kate Green]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Hunt]

The Government’s response to the tragedy of Mid Staffs has been widely welcomed, which is why the Opposition’s stance today is so disappointing. Robert Francis welcomed our measures as a

“carefully considered and thorough response”

to his recommendations that will

“contribute greatly towards a new culture of caring and making our hospitals safer places for their patients.”

The BMA said that it supports

“the Government’s commitment to put patient care first and foremost”.

The Patients Association said that it believes that this

“is a move towards restoring the faith patients have in the NHS.”

This Government would prefer to proceed on vital matters such as this with cross-party support, but I must warn the Opposition that we will do what is right for patients, whether or not we have their support. If they are today refusing to learn those lessons by not supporting this Bill, the country will draw its own conclusions about their fitness to run the NHS. They will know that for Labour it is all about politics, and it is politics before patients every time. We, on the other hand, profoundly believe that if we focus on patients, our NHS can be the safest, highest quality, most compassionate and fairest health care system in the world, and we will stop at nothing to make that happen. I commend this Bill to the House.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I should give notice to the House that there will almost certainly have to be quite a tight time limit, but I await the conclusion of the Front-Bench speeches before determining what that time limit should be. I mentioned to the House that the amendment has been selected.

16:27

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I beg to move

That this House, whilst affirming its belief that the Care Bill [Lords] is a modest step towards a better social care system that protects some people from catastrophic costs, and welcoming the new rights for users and carers that the former Labour Government initiated, notes that the Bill’s deferred payment scheme will result in people continuing to have to sell their homes to pay for care; disagrees with the Government’s assertion that their proposals will cap care costs at £72,000 given that self-funders will face far higher bills; further notes that it includes provisions which could put NHS hospitals at risk of having services reconfigured without adequate consultation and without clinical support; further notes that the Bill fails to include measures to address the current crisis in care and meet the needs of the UK’s ageing population, including a genuinely integrated NHS and social care system; and therefore declines to give a Second Reading to the Care Bill [Lords] because it is an inadequate response to the scale of the challenge facing social care and fails fully to implement the recommendations of the Francis Report.

The Bill began as a response to the Dilnot report and a reform of social care, but has since taken in major new measures on the NHS. It deals with issues that matter greatly to millions—issues to which that very thin speech we have just heard did not do justice. Worse, it was an inappropriate attempt to turn an occasion such as this into the latest stage of the Secretary of State’s political smear campaign. I refuse to sink to his level, and instead will deal with the important issues before the House today. For clarity, I will take the issues separately—social care, then health.

Providing good care for all older and disabled people and finding a fair way to pay for it is the greatest unresolved public policy challenge of our times. The failure of successive Parliaments to face up to it has left in place today a care system in England which is underfunded, overstretched—[Interruption]—and in danger of being overwhelmed—a malnourished, minimum wage service where care is given in 15-minute slots, with barely time to make a cup of tea, let alone have a meaningful conversation or make someone comfortable.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Members can hardly say “Ah!” after the performance that we just saw at the Dispatch Box. On the important issue of social care that my right hon. Friend is coming to, he knows that 100 or more of my constituents turned up on a Friday evening to talk to me about that. They want to hear from us today what we are going to do to fix the culture of low pay and poor conditions in social care, so will he say what he thinks local authorities can do, especially given the level of cuts that they face from this Government?

[Andy Burnham]

The issues are huge. They affect every family in this country and the worries they have about how they will look after their mum and dad in later life. They did not hear any answers from the Government this afternoon. I hope my hon. Friend will hear a few from me. I know that she has campaigned on the use of zero-hours contracts in our care system. Is it not a sad reflection on both sides of the House that today in England around 300,000 care staff are working on zero-hours contracts? They do not have the security of knowing what they will earn from one week to the next, so how can we expect them to pass on a sense of security to those they care for? Is not the message that we are sending to people who work in our care service, particularly young people coming into the service, that looking after someone else’s mum or dad is the lowest calling they can answer, when really it should be the very highest?

[Julie Hilling]

Would my right hon. Friend have been as shocked as I was yesterday when I met the carer of a woman who will be 99 next week and discovered that she has a five-minute call at tea time and a 10-minute call at bed time?

[Andy Burnham]

I would like to say that I would have been shocked, but I know that the system just gets worse and worse each year as the pressure builds and corners have to be cut, and it is older people and their families who are paying the price. How can any “care” be given in five minutes? Of course it cannot. It does not make financial sense in the long run, because we have a care system that does not provide people with support in their own homes, buts leaves them to drift towards hospital, leaving our acute hospitals increasingly and unsustainably full of frail older people.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I am slightly confused, because we have been called to the House today to debate the amendment tabled by the right hon. Gentleman, which states that this House

“declines to give a Second Reading to the Care Bill”,

but I thought I heard him tell the Secretary of State for Health earlier that he is not opposing the Bill’s Second Reading. Will he please clarify that?

[Andy Burnham]

I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman had been here long enough to know the difference by now. We will not oppose the Bill, in the sense that we will not vote against it on Second Reading, but it contains measures to which we simply cannot give a clear endorsement, as I will go on to explain. That is the purpose of our reasoned amendment. We will not oppose the Bill’s passage on Second Reading, which is why I objected to the Secretary of State misrepresenting my position.

[Andrew George]

I was going to make a similar point. Is it wise to bring forward an amendment of the type the right hon. Gentleman has tabled, bearing in mind the rather partisan nature of the debate we have had so far? What we really wanted was a debate on the Bill’s contents. Does he not now regret having brought forward such an amendment, because it has precipitated our going down into the gutter of partisan politics?

[Andy Burnham]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, which is why I am not opportunistically opposing the Bill. I have tabled a reasoned amendment to put on the record the very serious concerns people have about funding for local authority care in England, the way the new cap will work and, in particular, the proposed clause on hospital reconfiguration—the Lewisham clause. I cannot let those concerns pass without making clear our position on them from the Dispatch Box. That is why we have taken that stand. That is why I am seeking to introduce my remarks in a non-partisan way.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Burnham]

No, I want to make some progress.

I described the care system we have in England. Surely we can do better. In the last Parliament, the previous Government began a serious attempt at reform. I give this Government credit for continuing some of that work. The Bill contains many proposals originally put forward in my White Paper “Building the National Care Service”, published in February 2010. What most people will remember from the pre-election period was the clash between the parties on funding solutions, but what they might not have realised is that beneath the rhetoric there was much common ground on other matters. I hope that people will welcome that, just as we welcome some of the measures that are carried forward into the Bill.

First, stronger legal rights and recognition for carers are well overdue. For far too long, informal and family carers have been invisible to the system and taken for granted. That simply cannot go on. If statutory services are to be sustainable in the 21st century, they must learn to value informal care and carers and help them do more to help their loved ones. Secondly, we welcome efforts to simplify the social care system. Better information and advice will make a difference to some people. Unifying social care legislation in line with the recommendations of the Law Commission review initiated under the previous Government is sensible and overdue. Thirdly, the idea of a cap on the overall costs of care that individuals can face establishes the important principle that people should not lose everything they have worked for because of their vulnerability in later life.

I am happy to say that those are all important steps forward that we would not seek to oppose. However, let me be clear—this answers the points raised by Government Members—that this Bill is not equal to the scale and the urgency of the care crisis in England. It fails to implement the Dilnot report and does not provide a lasting solution. It does little or nothing to improve care services now or to reduce the costs of care for most people; in fact, it is likely to make things even worse. That is why we have tabled a reasoned amendment to draw the House’s attention to two major problems with the Government’s approach. First, prioritising funding a cap over and above protecting existing council budgets means that the care system will continue to go backwards and get worse, not better. In short, the Government are promising future help instead of helping people right now. Secondly, the proposed £72,000 cap is not what it seems; it is a care con.

On funding priorities, the Government are failing to face up to the scale of the funding crisis facing councils right now. In the cross-party talks on the Dilnot report, Labour stated a clear principle that the cap and the council baseline must be considered together as equal priorities. That was supported by Andrew Dilnot himself, as the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) may remember, because he was also party to those talks. As a first step, we called on the Government to use some of last year’s NHS underspend to tackle the care crisis—and, by extension, to ease pressure on A and E—instead of handing the money back to the Treasury. The Government have not listened to that, and this Bill makes matters worse for local authorities by placing new, unfunded and uncosted burdens on them. The fact that it restricts the eligibility of those in substantial or critical need of support is, in itself, a clear admission on the Government’s part that the support system overall is being scaled back.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

I spent 30 years making assessments of people who were in care and addressing the care that they needed, often while working in hospitals to get them discharged. After 30 years, the same problem exists: there is not enough money in local government to pay for the care to get people home early to have the rehabilitation they need at home, with the quality of care to make sure that they do not deteriorate further and end up back in the hospital system. This Bill will not tackle that fundamental underlying problem.

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This Bill promises far-off help for people while services are getting worse right now, because the Government have failed to address the crisis in local government’s ability to fund social care.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Andy Burnham]

I shall in a moment.

What are the direct and practical effects of those cuts to council budgets? First, councils have cut eligibility criteria, so more people are exposed to care charges in a way that they were not before. Secondly, those care charges are now rising above inflation year on year, so more people are exposed to higher charges. This means that they are now more likely to pay right up to the new cap that the Government are introducing. That will not feel like progress to the public, and that is why we are making our reasoned objection to the Bill.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees it is important that we are accurate about these matters. He suggested that the Bill “restricts”—that is the word he used—eligibility for substantial or critical care. Does he accept that it does not do that, and that any council that wants to have more generous eligibility can continue to do so?

[Andy Burnham]

I do not disagree with the approach of setting national eligibility criteria and taking a national view, so I agree with the Minister on that. The problem, however, is that if the Government legislate for just critical and substantial levels, they are sending a very clear message to local government that they believe they can only afford to fund it at those levels. Surely the criteria would have been set higher if they were funding local government better.

The truth is that when this Government came to office, many more councils in England were providing social care at “moderate” level. That has been slowly cut back and now only about 23 councils are still providing support to people with moderate needs. It is a fair bet that those councils will soon be unable to provide moderate care and shrink back to providing only critical and substantial care.

[Norman Lamb]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that more than 100 councils were setting the eligibility criteria at “substantial” when his party left office? Is he saying that a future Labour Government would fund eligibility criteria at moderate level? If so, how would he fund it?

[Andy Burnham]

That is a political point; let me deal with it. When we left government, 38 councils were providing some free care to people with either low or moderate needs. I correct the figure I gave a moment ago: it is, in fact, 15 councils that are now doing that. The care system is being scaled back. Therefore, people are more liable to charges and are more likely to have to pay them, because support is being withdrawn from people in the home.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Andy Burnham]

I was about to explain that those charges are increasing quite quickly, but first I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who has done so much to raise these issues.

[Barbara Keeley]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and I am surprised and disappointed that the Secretary of State would not give way.

My local council, Salford local authority, is one of the many that are reluctantly having to cut their eligibility criteria this year. Salford tried to stick with the moderate level and this is the third year of cuts. The council has lost £100 million over the past three years and it will lose another £75 million before the Bill’s reforms are implemented. That is a 20% cut in adult social care. How can any of the Health Ministers, whose southern local authorities are not affected in the same way, think that our northern councils can afford this?

[Andy Burnham]

Those are the facts. The councils that are still trying to provide support to people with moderate needs are not all, but by and large, Labour councils. They are still trying to do that, but they have lost significantly more per head under this Government than councils elsewhere. The situation is about to get a lot worse, because NHS England will meet tomorrow to consider a major change to the NHS resource allocation formula, which will reduce the weighting given to health inequality and increase the weighting given to age. That will have the effect of taking more money out of Salford and Wigan and giving more money to areas where healthy life expectancy is already the longest. The Government are making it impossible for people who want to do the right thing.

[Mr Jeremy Hunt]

Local authority budgets were indeed cut to deal with the deficit, so will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he would reverse those cuts—yes or no?

[Andy Burnham]

The Secretary of State may remember that when he came into government he stood on a manifesto promising real-terms increases. He and the Prime Minister have stood at the Dispatch Box every week since the election saying that I said that we would cut the NHS, but that is not the case: I stood on a manifesto promising protection for the NHS in real terms. I said that if there were to be real-terms increases they should be given to social care instead, because it would be “irresponsible”—that was the quote—if the Government overfunded the NHS only to let social care services collapse: it would be a false economy, because it would push more and more older people into hospitals, and hospitals would stop functioning.

Do you know what? That is happening right now. The Secretary of State’s cuts to social care are forcing more and more older people into hospital. That is why he has an A and E crisis—because hospitals are full. On his watch there has been a 66% increase in people aged over 90 going into A and E via blue-light ambulances. If he is proud of that, that is up to him, but I certainly would not be.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am not surprised that the Secretary of State wants to change the subject, because if that decision is confirmed tomorrow my clinical commissioning group will lose £29 million—13% of its budget for hospital care. It has some of the poorest health outcomes, but that money will go to places where life expectancy and health outcomes are much better—in other words, Tory-controlled areas. That is a disgrace, coming on top of the closure of fine hospitals such as Charing Cross and emergency hospitals. That is the truth about what this Secretary of State is doing and I am afraid that all we have heard today is political spin.

[Andy Burnham]

The Secretary of State began by quoting the principles of the NHS. I was always led to believe that one of the principles is that the NHS should respect need—that funds should follow those in greatest need. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says, “Absolutely.” In constituencies in parts of London, the midlands, the north-west, Yorkshire and the north-east, male life expectancy is 10 years lower than in other parts of the county. There is real need in those communities, but they will be the biggest losers if the change goes ahead. I believe that it is immoral to take money out of those communities to hand it to areas where life expectancy is already longer.

I hope that NHS England is listening to this debate. Quite apart from the morality of whether the change should be made, how is it that a quango can distribute about £80 billion of public money to our constituencies while we seemingly have no locus whatever in such a decision? Should not the Secretary of State be at the Dispatch Box either to defend changes that he makes or to say that such changes will not go ahead, so being accountable to this House? Instead, a quango—the biggest in the world—seems to be about to take money out of some of the most deprived parts of the country.

[Kate Green]

I was very disappointed that the Secretary of State would not give way to me, because he did not once mention the position of disabled people in his opening remarks. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that councils being forced to raise the threshold to “substantial” or “critical” will pile up costs for disabled people and their isolation? They cannot get access to moderate levels of care, go out to work or volunteer in their communities, but are shut at home unable to participate. That is bad for them, and it is a false economy.

[Andy Burnham]

I could not agree more. I would guess that disabled people listening to the debate today will be very worried about what they are hearing. The change will restrict support for them, and it is a false economy. If they cannot go out to work, how on earth does that help them or, indeed, anybody? The change will have an impact on disabled people, with some losing their support.

I was going on to make the point that disabled people and older people are already paying much more for care as a result of changes in recent years. As research by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) has shown, they are paying almost £740 more a year for vital home case services compared with 2010, up on average by almost £50 a month. That is a hidden cost of living crisis, because who sees that older people have to pay more out of their bank accounts? It goes unnoticed by the media and large parts of society, but the most vulnerable people in society are bearing the brunt.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned older people. Does he accept that although health inequalities are very important in setting funding formulas, age is one of the greatest predictors for establishing need? It is absolutely vital to include such factors as age and rurality in deciding funding formulas, and it is precisely to remove the politicisation of such decisions that we are handing them over to another body.

[Andy Burnham]

The hon. Lady must have misunderstood me. I am not saying that age is unimportant; I am saying that age is important, but so is need. In my view, those two must have equal weighting in the system, as they do at the moment. As I understand it, the proposal is to deprioritise need or deprivation as part of the funding formula, which will have the effect of removing funding from communities in which the expectancy for a healthy life is already shortest. I do not believe that that is defensible, and I would be surprised if she found that it was.

[Dr Wollaston]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Burnham]

I shall do so once more, but then I must make some progress.

[Dr Wollaston]

The right hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. The point is that we are discussing the Care Bill and how need relating to age is the single greatest predictor of someone’s need. I accept that health inequality is a very important factor, but the formula currently does not take enough note of age-based need and multiple long-term conditions.

[Andy Burnham]

I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Lady. Some older people in my constituency probably do not have as good a quality of life in later life as some in her area, because there are ex-miners with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other things, who have very extensive needs caused by the dangers they were exposed to during their working life, and that places a burden on our health service. Of course, people are more likely to be living with chronic disease in more deprived areas, and both those things have to be recognised in the funding formula. If the change goes ahead, it will cause great volatility and move a lot of money around the system, but it will not allow areas such as the one I represent to invest in the home-based, high-quality, integrated services that the Secretary of State said he wanted.

To return to the costs of care charged by councils, let us call the hikes in charges what they are—stealthy dementia taxes that seek out the most vulnerable people in our society. The more vulnerable someone is and the greater their need, the more they pay. People who are paying more for care under the current Government and often receiving a worse service will not be convinced by the Secretary of State’s claims for his Bill today. It will feel like a con, and that feeling will only intensify when people understand more about the proposed cap.

Although we welcome the principle of a cap, this one is not what it seems. It is set at £72,000, despite Dilnot warning that a cap above £50,000 would not provide adequate protection for people with low incomes and low wealth. The Health Secretary has repeatedly said that people will not have to pay more than £72,000 for care.

[Mr Jeremy Hunt]

indicated assent.

[Andy Burnham]

The Secretary of State is nodding, but I hope he will be honest enough to admit today that that is simply not the case. In reality, the average pensioner could pay more than £150,000 for their actual residential care home bill—£300,000 for a couple—before they hit the so-called cap. I will explain why. It is because the cap will be based on the standard rate that local authorities pay for a care home place, not the actual amount that self-funders are charged, which is often much higher than the council rate. It is estimated that in 2016-17, when the cap is due to start, the average council rate for residential care will be £522 a week, and the average price of a care home place will be £610 a week. That is because self-funders pay more than councils. However, that will not be taken into account when the cap is calculated.

[Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Will the shadow Secretary of State confirm to the House that the use of notional costs, which he is describing, was not a Government proposal but one of the Dilnot commission’s recommendations?

[Andy Burnham]

I remember that the right hon. Gentleman showed a good deal of support for the Dilnot proposals, as did we, but they worked as a clever package. They were carefully constructed to ensure that the system would work, be progressive and provide support to everybody. They have now been pulled apart and different figures have been introduced.

[Paul Burstow]

indicated dissent.

[Andy Burnham]

The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but a £72,000 cap is not what Dilnot recommended. That is the Government’s problem. As I said before, the cap will not cover hotel and accommodation costs, either. When both factors are taken into account, an average person in England will take almost five years to hit the so-called cap. Based on average stays in care homes, that means that six out of seven elderly people will have died before they reach it.

If that were not bad enough, people are about to find out that the promises that they will not have to sell their home are also a con. The ability to defer payment for care was one of Andrew Dilnot’s central proposals designed to stop people worrying about selling their home while they were alive. He said that old people would be able to borrow from the local council and repay care bills from what they left behind. The Government initially said that they would implement that proposal and introduce what they called a universal deferred payments scheme. I remember when they used to call that type of proposal a death tax, but things have seemingly moved on for the better.

However, on the day when Parliament rose for the summer recess, the Department sneaked out a consultation document saying that pensioners would not qualify for any help under the universal deferred payment scheme until their savings and other assets, such as valuable possessions, had been run down to below £23,250. That new condition will prevent almost half of those who would otherwise have been able to take advantage of that apparently universal scheme from accessing it.

[Norman Lamb]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that was exactly the same proposal as his party’s Government put forward just before they left office?

[Andy Burnham]

Just as the Government’s proposal is not the Dilnot report, it is not my national care service proposal. I had a range of different proposals, and that one has to be considered in that context.

As the Minister knows, I proposed a universal approach in which everybody would contribute on the NHS principle—I seem to remember that he and I were in some agreement about that. That was a deferred payment, but this proposal is different. The Government are talking about a universal deferred payment scheme in which people will pay from what they leave behind, but—and this is the point—it will not be available to everybody. That was the promise the Minister has broken.

[Grahame M. Morris]

My right hon. Friend is making excellent points. On deferred payments, this proposal has been presented as something new, but is it not the case that about 90% or 95% of local authorities currently offer a similar scheme?

[Andy Burnham]

They are offering a similar scheme but at the moment they are not allowed to charge interest on it. That brings me to the next part of what is wrong with these proposals. What the Health Secretary has not said today is that interest will be charged on his proposed deferred payment scheme, which is not universal because it is not available to everybody. A loan to cover the average length of stay in a care home—two and a half years—would clock up extra costs of £3,500 in interest alone. That interest would not be included in the cap but would be outside it. Again, people will not feel that what they are paying is related to a cap.

[Mr Jeremy Hunt]

rose—

[Andy Burnham]

I noticed that the Secretary of State was not very good at giving way, and I hope in future he will bear that in mind.

[Mr Hunt]

I am most grateful. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the impact assessment for his policy stated that interest would be charged under his own plans?

[Andy Burnham]

I was proposing a fundamentally different policy in a national care service. I ask the Secretary of State politely whether it is about time he stopped trying to say that everything is about the past? Why did he not stand there, explain and justify his own policy? Would that have been a good thing for him to have done today, instead of leaving it to me to explain what he is proposing?

[Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)]

In the interests of explaining his policy, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the answer to the question posed by the Secretary of State and the Minister was, “Yes”?

[Andy Burnham]

I say again, with all respect to the Chair of the Health Committee, that I was proposing a fundamentally different scheme to that in the Bill. I was proposing a universal all-in scheme, and several steps were put forward to get us to that. The right hon. Gentleman knows that because the Conservative party and those on the Government Front Bench put posters up about that scheme before the last election. Does he remember that? [Interruption.] He nods, right—that was my proposal, but it is not the Government’s proposal, which is different. I proposed various steps to get to my scheme. Is it about time the Government started answering for their proposal, rather than for mine?

[Barbara Keeley]

My right hon. Friend is being generous in giving way, and I guess we ought to move on shortly. There is all this harking back to our policies, but I understand—I was here—that steps were taken towards Labour’s national care service, including the Personal Care at Home Act 2010 that would have helped 400,000 people, not the 100,000 who will be helped by this Bill—if, indeed, it ends up being 100,000. Is my right hon. Friend, like everybody else, totally disappointed with the Government’s lack of ambition to help people?

[Andy Burnham]

I completely agree, and it is unfair that older people have not been given a full picture. People need proper information to plan for the future, and they have not been getting that today. People need the facts. Spin is of absolutely no use to them whatsoever, but that is all that is on offer from this Secretary of State. The truth is that in the end, the Bill will not stop catastrophic care costs that run into hundreds of thousands of pounds, or stop people losing their homes. It will not improve services now as it promises only a vague review of the practice of 15-minute visits, and strips the Care Quality Commission of its responsibility to inspect local authority commissioning, which is often responsible for such things.

[Mrs Moon]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Andy Burnham]

I will make some progress and turn to part 2 of the Bill and measures related to the NHS. It would help to get a few facts clear. The Secretary of State seeks to denigrate Labour’s record at every opportunity, but let me remind him that the Labour party left an NHS rebuilt with the lowest ever waiting lists and highest ever public satisfaction. The previous Labour Government introduced independent regulation of NHS hospitals for the first time, prompted by previous scandals at Bristol, Alder Hey and the Shipman murders. The Secretary of State should cast his mind back a little further before coming to the House and making unfounded allegations.

As Robert Francis rightly acknowledged in his report, there was no system of independent regulation before 1997. It was the independent regulator that first uncovered the failings at Mid Staffs and, later, at Basildon. As the party that introduced independent regulation in the NHS, Labour has no problem with strengthening it and providing legislative backing for the appointment of chief inspectors for hospitals, general practice and social care, but let us be clear: those were not recommendations of the Francis report.

The Secretary of State accused us of not supporting the Francis report. We do support the report; it is the Government who are not implementing its recommendations. Just as part 1 of the Bill fails to implement the Dilnot report, part 2 fails to implement the Francis report. One of the report’s central recommendations was for a statutory duty of candour for individuals, but the Government are proposing that it should apply only to organisations. How will an organisational duty help individuals to challenge an organisation where there is a dysfunctional culture? It will not, and we urge Ministers to think again. They also need to clarify whether the duty will cover the most serious incidents, and whether it will apply to all organisations that provide NHS services, including outsourced services.

My main objection to part 2, however, is that it embodies the huge contradiction that now sits at the heart of Government health policy. The Secretary of State talks of independence for the Care Quality Commission in the same way as the Health and Social Care Act supposedly legislated for the independence of the NHS, but this is the Secretary of State who has taken to ringing up hospital chief executives who are not meeting their A and E targets. The Secretary of State nods, but that is not “independence of the NHS”. This is the Secretary of State who holds weekly meetings with the supposedly independent CQC, Monitor and NHS England. What precisely is the Government’s policy on independence? People are becoming confused. Clause 118 makes it clear that the Secretary of State wants more control: he wants sweeping powers to close hospitals without proper consultation and clinical support.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

Does my right hon. Friend recall that in the case of the failing South London Healthcare NHS Trust, the trust special administrator got his financial projections wrong? He massively overspent his own budget, and failed to point out the consequences for the solvent Lewisham hospital, which was in a different trust and which, as a result, did not consult on them. Does my right hon. Friend imagine that there is any way in which such a consultation could take place and produce good outcomes in just 100 days?

[Andy Burnham]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend. She and the people of her community stood up to an arrogant Government, and won a victory for every community that was worried about the future of its hospital. One would have thought that, following humiliation in the courts, the Government would have backed off gracefully, but no: here comes the Secretary of State again today, like someone who, having been caught breaking in through the back door, has the brass neck to return and try to force his way in through the front. Well, we will not let him get away with it. We give him notice that clause 118 is wrong, that it is an affront to democracy, and that we will oppose it every step of the way.

Hospital reconfiguration should always be driven by a clinical case first and foremost, but clause 118 paves the way for a new round of financially driven closures. It rips up established rules of consultation and the clinical case for change. It allows the Secretary of State to reconfigure services across an entire region for financial reasons alone, which means that no hospital, however successful, is safe. The House needs to stand up to this audacious power grab by the Executive.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

The clause introduced in the House of Lords gives extra powers to the trust special administrator. Are we not now faced with a complete contradiction? Rather than clinical commissioning groups commissioning services, the TSA will commission long-term services, and there has been no proper consultation. In Mid Staffordshire and North Staffordshire, for example, we have had a consultation procedure that has taken no account whatsoever of services in North Staffordshire.

[Andy Burnham]

That illustrates the confusion that is currently at the heart of the NHS. No one knows who is in charge of anything. What if CCGs and the boards of foundation trusts disagree with the conclusions of the TSA? How will that be resolved? Were we not told that doctors were sovereign? Were they not supposed to decide everything? Was that not the big call when the Government introduced their Bill? It seems that that is no longer the case: everything can be done “top down” by the Secretary of State. It takes power away from every Member and could be used as a back-door way to railroad through unpopular changes.

The real danger of the proposal comes when it is seen in the context of the competition regime created by the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Of course, it is sometimes necessary to make changes to local health services beyond just a failing trust. That is best done through partnership and collaboration, but such sensible changes are now being blocked by the market madness imposed by the Act. We recently saw the ludicrous spectacle of the Competition Commission intervening in the NHS for the first time to stop the sensible collaboration between Bournemouth and Poole. Since when did competition lawyers decide what was best for patients?

[Mr Jeremy Hunt]

What has that got to do with the Care Bill?

[Andy Burnham]

One reason the Lewisham clause is so worrying is that simple collaboration between hospitals to solve financial problems is no longer an option to ease financial pressures. That is what it has got to do with the Care Bill. The Government are making a case for all hospitals standing or falling on their own, and in that context, the weakest can be picked off by the Secretary of State and closed without consultation. Given the financial pressures on many organisations, this special administration process is likely to be used on an increasing basis, putting more hospitals at risk. That should send a shiver though every community represented in the House today.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government seem to have adopted a drip, drip, drip strategy to discredit the NHS? I can remember him proposing a national care service some months before we left office, but the Conservatives rejected it.

[Andy Burnham]

They did, and they put those posters up at the election to try to scare older people—I do not know how they thought that was appropriate, in the same way I do not know how their contributions today have been appropriate.

What my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) says is exactly what is happening. People are not daft. They can see what is going on. They saw a Government legislate to place the market at the heart of the NHS in a way that means we now have the Competition Commission making decisions and forcing services out to open tender. We also have a Secretary of State who does not waste a day running down the NHS—“uncaring nurses”, “lazy GPs”, “coasting hospitals”; everything undermined, everything wrong—rather than celebrating good care. That is the agenda. They are softening the NHS up for more privatisation.

That will be the big choice come the next election. The Secretary of State can spin whatever lines he wants from that Dispatch Box, but that is the choice: a public, proud NHS under Labour, or a fragmented market under the Conservative party. I know which side of the debate I am on, and that is the choice we will put to people.

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

Independent sector treatment centres—the right hon. Gentleman’s party started competition!

[Andy Burnham]

Across the NHS, people are spending millions on competition lawyers thanks to the Bill that the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) and others passed. That is being cited as the major barrier to the integration that the Secretary of State claims he wants. Let me quote the NHS chief executive to back up that point. He recently told the Health Select Committee:

“What is happening at the moment…we are getting bogged down in a morass of competition law…causing significant cost in the system and great frustration for people in the service about making change happen… In which case, to make integration happen we will need to change it”.

By which he meant the Health and Social Care Act. It could not be clearer. It is the biggest barrier to the integration of care and support for older people. That is understood across the NHS, but the Bill does nothing about it.

Instead, the Government have left an NHS bogged down in competition law. How did it come to that? Who voted for that change? Who gave this Prime Minister and this Health Secretary permission to do something that Margaret Thatcher never dared—put the NHS up for sale? The answer is no one. Ministers talk the talk about integration, but they have legislated for fragmentation and privatisation, and the Bill does not change that. Only Labour will repeal the Health and Social Care Act, and that will be the big choice, as I say. We will bring health and care together, creating a public service working for the whole person. That is the only way we can reshape health and care services around individuals in their own homes.

In conclusion, the Bill makes some sensible changes that we will not oppose, but as our reasoned amendment makes clear, it falls far short of the durable solution that England needs. Social care in England is getting worse, not better, and the Bill does nothing to change that. It will not stop people having to lose their homes and savings to pay for care, and in the end it deceives older people about the amount they might have to pay for care, which is fundamentally wrong. Older people deserve better, and it will fall to Labour to have the courage to deliver it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. As hon. Members will be aware, many people have indicated that they would like to contribute to the debate, but we have limited—albeit a long—time available. I must therefore impose a 10-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.

17:09

[Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill. I do not propose to follow the shadow Secretary of State into a discussion of competition policy, as there will be plenty of other occasions for that; it is not germane to this Bill. The reason I welcome the Bill is that it begins to look at health and care from a different point of view from the one with which those of us who have participated in health and care debates in this Chamber over a long period are familiar. When a Bill comes before the House, it usually starts off by describing the function of one bit of the bureaucracy—perhaps creating a strategic health authority or re-creating a different bit of the bureaucracy somewhere else on the landscape. This Bill starts in a quite different place.

Clause 1 talks about the “well-being” of individuals and suggests that if we are to build a health and care system that meets the needs of patients and users for the 21st century, we should, instead of thinking of it as a bureaucracy planned from the top down, think about the service that is delivered to individuals who rely on these services. Clause 1 talks about the needs of individuals, and later clauses place an obligation on local authorities to do needs assessments for those individuals.

Clause 2 introduces something that the health and care system has talked about since 1948, but almost never put real resource into, which is preventing the need for the delivery of health and care services, and particularly of acute health care. This Bill’s emphasis is on the needs of individuals and on the need we each feel as individuals to avoid unnecessary health costs and care. None of us wants to be a patient in an intensive care unit if it is avoidable. That is why clause 2 talks about the importance of prevention and avoiding the need for care.

[Mrs Moon]

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is possible to carry out lots of needs assessment—goodness knows, I carried out many of them in my day—but that unless care is available to allow a patient to be discharged from hospital, it does not matter how many needs assessments have been done? In fact, the longer patients are in hospital, the greater their needs will be—they will not be able to walk, their incontinence will increase and so forth. What is important is to put the cart before the horse and make sure that the funding of community-based care is there. It is not there at the moment.

[Mr Dorrell]

I shall come on to that point, but to react directly to the hon. Lady’s point, surely it is much better to intervene before the patient arrives in hospital in the first place, preventing the avoidable episode of care. The hon. Lady talks about discharge, and she is, of course, quite right, but how much better is it to prevent the case from arising in the first place, which is what clause 2 is about?

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I think that is precisely the point my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) was making. The money simply is not there in local government. When 20% of the adult services budget has been lost, the services are not there and the care managers are not there to do the assessment to decide whether to keep people at home or to help them get out of hospital. The service back in the community, after people have come out of hospital, is not there either. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that money has to go back in?

[Mr Dorrell]

Of course I accept that if we have more money, we can do more, but I do not think that that exempts us, particularly given the public finances we inherited in 2010, from the obligation to see how we can get more for the £125 billion of taxpayers’ money that is already committed to health and social care in England.

That brings me to clause 3. The only way to deliver person-centred care and early intervention to prevent avoidable cases, is to reinvent care on a much more integrated model between the national health service and the social care authorities. That is why there is the obligation in clause 3 to consider integrating health and care. In that way we will not think of the NHS as one bureaucracy and social care as another, but instead think of it, as Mike Farrar said when he was at the NHS Confederation, as a care system that provides medical support when necessary, rather than as a medical system that provides care support when it has got the money—that is how not to do it.

[Andy Burnham]

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the NHS chief executive stood before him and his Committee saying that the competition legislation was the biggest barrier to achieving the vision he is rightly describing; he and I agree about the vision of person-centred services in the home. If the NHS is saying that before his Committee, why does he say that the competition regime is irrelevant? Is it not fragmenting care, rather than integrating it?

[Mr Dorrell]

I did not say it was irrelevant; I said it was not germane to this Bill—and in the seven minutes remaining to me, I am not going to cover that. All I will say to the right hon. Gentleman is that the difficulty with competition policy that the NHS chief executive talked about is a difficulty that health care systems around the world—in north America and in continental Europe—are finding as well. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, however, that we need to look at how competition policy can be aligned with the policy prescriptions I am describing.

I now want to list the fourth key premise upon which this Bill is based; in what must be a short speech, I can list only four. It is around the well-being of individuals; it is around early intervention and prevention; it is around integration; it is also, critically, for the first time in statutory form, around doing needs assessments that take account of the needs not just of the individual person, but of their carer and social context as well. In that way, the support that is provided to individuals takes account of the context in which they live, rather than treats them as individuals divorced from the carers and people who care for them when the statutory social worker is not there.

The Opposition spokesman said this is an enormously ambitious set of objectives, and I entirely agree that the objective of redefining the delivery of health and social care in a way that matches the aims set out in the first three clauses and clause 10 around carers is ambitious. The objective is to re-imagine care so that we think of the health and care system not as being primarily around acute hospitals, but as a system designed to meet the needs of that majority of people who are the main focus of those who work in the service—people who primarily have a care need with an occasional medical or clinical requirement. In other words, this is about thinking about the system from the front end rather than viewing it from the top of the bureaucracy. I commend this Bill because I believe it sets that framework in statute.

I also commend the Government because they are not just setting out these aspirations as commitments in law. It is one thing to change the law. It is another thing to change the way the service is actually delivered on the ground. The most effective step the Government have taken to achieve this re-imagination of care is the £3.8 billion that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talked about. That is £3.8 billion voted into the NHS but available only if the service at local level delivers the joined-up, person-centred care that is set out in the first three clauses of the Bill. So this is not just a set of wordy aspirations; it is a set of aspirations supported by the resources necessary to deliver the change in the care model that the Bill describes. The £3.8 billion is the catalyst that will allow us to deliver the objectives.

With respect to those on the Opposition Front Bench, it is wrong to say that it is only £3.8 billion out of £125 billion. The £3.8 billion is the minimum that the law will require to deliver integrated care within a locality, through the health and wellbeing boards that are much beloved of the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and which were legislated for by the Government. This is an important step forward. If the health and wellbeing board in a locality can see a way to use health resources to deliver a changed model of care that puts more focus on prevention and on individuals through the delivery of more joined-up services, there is no constraint in the legislation, as I understand it, to prevent more than £3.8 billion from being used for the delivery of that objective.

Resources are important in this regard. This is partly about the £3.8 billion from the taxpayer, but it is also about individual resources. It is about individual users having their right set out in the Bill to engage with their personal budgets and with direct payments, enabling them to make real choices about how joined-up, person-centred care will work best for them. It is the curse of these health debates to imagine that we can gather 650 people together in this Chamber and work out how we are going to deliver £125 billion-worth of care in a way that will work for an individual old lady in her own home. That is nonsense; we need to engage the people themselves in the decisions on how the resources are used. We also need to assure them that they will not be exposed to catastrophic personal losses by making their own contributions to their care. That is why I welcome the fact that, despite what the right hon. Member for Leigh says, the Bill gives effect to the basic propositions set out in the Dilnot report.

The Bill sets out the vision of person-centred, joined-up, integrated care, and the Government have set out plans to commit resources to turn those fine words into deeds. Also, through the establishment of an independent Care Quality Commission, the Bill will provide independent assurance about the quality of care that is provided right across the health and care system. The right hon. Gentleman claims credit, as he is entitled to do so, for the fact that the previous Government took the first faltering steps down the road to introducing proper regulation of health and care provision, but he cannot possibly believe that the Care Quality Commission that he bequeathed was fit for purpose. If he does, he is the only man in the kingdom to do so. I welcome the fact that this Government are putting in place new management and, importantly, a new statutory framework so that the aspirations that might have motivated the Labour Government to set up the CQC will now be delivered in reality.

17:22

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

I should like to begin by quoting one of the Alzheimer’s Society’s ambassadors, Arlene Phillips. Talking about her father, who had Alzheimer’s, she said:

“I did everything I could to care for my dad when we discovered he had dementia. Unfortunately, the efforts of one person—or even a family—aren’t always enough. It soon became clear to me that while I could keep Dad safe when I was by his side, I couldn’t be there every minute of every day.”

The words of Arlene, and thousands like her, should provide all of us in the House, irrespective of party, with the greatest incentive to act to support those people who are suffering and need care and, crucially, their carers and families, who are the backbone of the social care system in this country.

A society should always be judged by the way in which it looks after the most vulnerable people in its communities, and it is safe to say that, over the years, we have all failed that responsibility. Today is an opportunity for us to acknowledge that, and to point out that, even today, in a modern 21st century developed industrial nation, we are still failing the people who ought to get a great deal more support and care from us than we are currently in a position to give.

The Bill is a small step forward, rather than the giant leap for mankind that I would have liked. One of the central issues is a lack of ambition. We face the biggest social challenge that any of us could possibly see, yet the Bill’s provisions, some of which are well meaning, do not, when taken together, add up to a whole system’s series of changes that result in a basic reconfiguration. The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) spoke about that, and I pay tribute to his championing of integration, change, re-engineering and being ambitious. I do not see that in this Bill.

Instead, I see some perverse incentives. If we are talking about the well-being duty and the duty to prevent, reduce and delay somebody’s need for care, how can we say that we are going to support only people with substantial and critical needs? How are we going to engage the system further up the chain, with people who are beginning to suffer, perhaps beginning to have memory problems and beginning to need social care? How are we going to incentivise the system to invest in the new commissioning in clause 5, which talks about diversity and shaping the market? How are we going to get the system to focus on that if all the focus, after £2.85 billion-worth of cuts in social care, is on how we might manage to look after the people with substantial and critical needs? We should be focusing far more upstream in the system.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

As my right hon. Friend has said, the backbone of care in this society is provided by friends and family. Should we not be moving towards a system that incentivises the people currently giving care to continue to do so for as long as possible by supporting them at the lowest level, not at the highest level?

[Hazel Blears]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point. I am pleased that the Bill strengthens support for carers. I draw the House’s attention to the Bill introduced by the other Member for Salford, my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), which seeks to make sure that carers have the right to stay in work and the support to be able to do that. We must consider the cost to our economy of people having to give up work in order to care. We have talked a lot today about perverse incentives and false economies, and that has absolutely been a false economy for a long time.

I wish to say a word about diversity of provision and commissioning new models of care that can help with prevention. In my city we have been working on that for a long time, and I look forward to showing the Minister some of our examples when he visits. Social adVentures is a social enterprise that helps people with mental health problems, and one of its projects is “garden needs”. It has taken control of a garden centre, and people with dementia and people with mental health problems are now attending. The way it is keeping people active in the community and able to do many more things than they would if they were isolated and at home is amazing. Unlimited Potential is another fabulous social enterprise, which stands on its own two feet, is not grant-dependent and is able to invest more money back into the community. Last week, I had the pleasure of launching a website called Really Useful Stuff, which is just what it says on the tin—it is a website where people can get aids, adaptations and kinds of social care that are modern, innovative and creative. Those are just a few examples of what is already happening in the community.

I say to the Minister that at a time when money is tight, and will be, no matter which Government are in power, the imperative to innovate and be more creative with the funds we have has never been greater. Therefore, investing, in particular, in the social enterprise sector, which often has these great ideas, and in enabling those ideas to get to scale so that provision can be made across the country, is really important. Another company in my constituency, 2ergo, has recently developed an app for the iPhone where people can see what provision is available in Salford for care, respite care and activity, and how to book it. They can book it over their iPhone—families can do that; they can help the people they are caring for. So this use of new technology is now developing apace, and, again, we have to take advantage.

I commend the Government for organising the G8 summit last week in London—an amazing event where we gathered support from countries across the world. I hope that next year we will be able to expand that to a global event examining dementia, not just one involving the G8 developed countries. Part of that G8 meeting was about how we get more research. I would like to see far more research on the quality of care. There is a lot, but not enough, research on the bioscience, but hardly any research on the interventions we do, particularly for people with dementia. We all know that “singing for the brain” has a great reputation. It helps cognitive development, as do art, drama and reminiscence work. There is no evidence base behind that, so if we are to have a better system of social care, we need better research into therapeutic interventions that work. That will enable commissioners to commission packages of care that they know will make a difference. If money is tight, we need to spend it on things that we know will be effective, and I ask the Minister to support that.

The Alzheimer’s Society has also done a lot of work on dementia-friendly communities. That is not expensive. It is a matter of mobilising the good will of local people, shops and arts centres. In Salford, a taxi firm has trained 400 drivers to look after people with dementia. Such care does not cost a lot of money if we can mobilise ordinary people in their communities. In Japan, 4.5 million people are signed up to be dementia friends. Our ambition is to have 1 million such friends. Again, I push the Government to be more ambitious to see what more we can do.

Clause 5 is about not just diversity and shaping the market, but quality, and that is an area about which we all feel passionate. How can we in this country tolerate a situation in which those who do the most difficult job in caring for our friends and family are actually some of the least regarded workers? It is utterly unacceptable to have zero-hours contracts in the social care sector. The carers who care for my dad come in for 15 minutes. They will do more if they can. They have to ring up to be assessed when they have done 12 minutes. They get no payment for travelling and no expenses for their petrol. They came out one Sunday. They started at 8 o’clock in the morning and went home at 9 o’clock at night, but because they only had five hours of 20-minute slots, they got paid only for five hours. Members should try being out on a Sunday for 13 hours and going home with five hours of minimum wage payment. It is an absolute disgrace and a scandal that we tolerate that in this country. I hope the Minister will assist in bringing such practice to an end.

I want to say something about my own local authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South mentioned the fact that Salford has recently had to change its eligibility criteria from moderate to substantial and critical. We were the last authority in Greater Manchester to have to make that decision, and it was heartbreaking. Our social services have always merited four stars. When I was a councillor 30 years ago, cuts were bad, but we always prioritised social care and nursery care for children. The decision to change the criteria was not made lightly, and the cuts have been absolutely horrendous.

Let me again say to the Minister that we need creativity and imagination to deal with this matter. I want to draw the House’s attention to my unpaid interest in social finance, which appears in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. We have a real opportunity to draw extra funds into the social care system. If we could have a social investment bond that aimed to keep people with dementia in their own homes for longer, we would save the NHS a fortune. People with dementia are admitted to hospital more often. They stay longer in hospital and many more of them die there. If we could mobilise social investment to offer a reward for keeping people in their own homes, funded by the savings to the NHS, we could bring in some new money, not just what we are getting from local authorities.

[Norman Lamb]

I am very interested in the right hon. Lady’s proposition, and would be happy to talk further with her about it.

[Hazel Blears]

I am grateful to the Minister for that. In these difficult times, we all have a responsibility to look at creative and innovative ways of funding and to try to carry them through. The whole area is becoming very exciting. It was the legacy that the UK agreed to take on from the G8 meeting last week. We are global leaders. We have 14 bonds in this country; America only has one. For once, we are well ahead of the United States, and I am delighted that the Minister wants to discuss that issue.

All of us could talk for at least 20 or 30 minutes on that issue. As I come to the end of my contribution, I will just say that the Bill is a step in the right direction. I am disappointed—I say this to the Minister in the kindest way I can—that we have not been more ambitious. If we want to move towards whole-person care, we will have to be much bolder than we have been. I remember when we said, “We are at our best when we are at our boldest,” and that applies in this case. Nevertheless, over the next few weeks and months, I shall keep holding the Government to account, holding their feet to the fire and pushing them on to see what more we can do. We all feel a personal, deep and emotional responsibility for the most vulnerable people in this country who look to us to care for and support them at a difficult time in their lives.

17:35

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

I think that the whole House would agree with the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) that we must all try to ensure that our constituencies and communities are, so far as is humanly possible, dementia-friendly. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, not least in my capacity as the Commons chair of the all-party group on carers. I trust that the House will understand that that is why I intend to focus my comments specifically on carers’ needs. Other parliamentary colleagues will talk in detail about other aspects of the Bill, such as the national eligibility threshold, personal budgets and other important issues relating to the social care system. They are all important, but in the time available to me I want to focus on the needs of carers. I may well not be able to say all that I would like to say in the time available, and in those circumstances I will put the full text of the speech on my website, www.tonybaldry.co.uk—even those of us who have been in this place for 30 years can keep up with new technology.

I welcome the Care Bill and the fact that it contains significant new rights for carers, including stronger rights for an assessment of their needs and a clearer entitlement to services for carers and those for whom carers care as a result of any such assessment. I also welcome the fact that as well as introducing new rights for carers the Bill consolidates their existing rights. Over the years, a number of Bills have enhanced carers’ rights. All the recent ones have been private Members’ Bills, taken through the House with the support of organisations such as Carers UK and the all-party group on carers, so I welcome the fact that this Bill consolidates carers’ rights in a single piece of legislation. Clause 1 sets out the well-being principle, which is a hugely welcome overarching duty that will place individual well-being at the heart of the new reformed social care system.

The Bill has, of course, already enjoyed detailed consideration and scrutiny in the other place. It is to the Government’s credit that they have already introduced a number of further concessions, not least those for young carers, following the hard work of parliamentarians and the National Young Carers Coalition. Good progress has of course been made to enhance the rights of young carers through an amendment to the Children and Families Bill, which delivers four key improvements for young carers: the simplification of the legislation on young carers’ assessments; the extension of the right to an assessment of needs for support to young carers under the age of 18 regardless of whom they care for; the fact that it has been made clear to local authorities that they must carry out an assessment of a young carer’s needs for support on request or on the appearance of need; and the provision of appropriate links between legislation for children and for adults to enable local authorities to align the assessment of a young carer with an assessment of an adult they care for. The amendment works closely with the provisions in the Care Bill that focus on a whole-family approach to support, and that is all welcome progress.

There are three further issues, however, that I hope Ministers will consider as the Bill makes progress. First, it places new duties on local authorities to provide information and advice services, which are very welcome and will enable carers to access vital information and advice earlier. As part of the enhanced right for carers, the Bill places a new duty on local authorities to undertake a carer’s assessment for all carers. It is also good news that under clause 2 local authorities must have regard to the importance of identifying carers in their populations with unmet needs with the aim of early intervention and prevention of future needs, but the clause does not mention the NHS. Neither the Care Bill nor the health and social care legislation places any responsibility on the NHS to identify carers.

Ministers might say that there is a co-operation clause, clause 6, that requires health bodies to co-operate with local authorities on all clauses in the Bill, including the that on identifying carers, but the way that clause is drafted gives rise to serious concerns that the onus will remain on local authorities. That could well mean that carers will receive very little help from health bodies in certain parts of the country. It is a matter of common sense that for many carers their point of contact with the wider world and the person with whom they will discuss their wider caring responsibilities will be health professionals, such as their GP.

Macmillan Cancer Support estimates that there are nearly 1 million carers of people with cancer in England, half of whom are not receiving any support as carers, notwithstanding the substantial impact on their lives. It is a matter of common sense that carers of people with cancer come into contact mainly with health professionals who are simply not identifying them as carers, which as a consequence means that only 5% of the nearly 1 million people caring for people with cancer receive a carer’s assessment. Half of carers of people with cancer are not receiving any support in return for giving an average of almost 15 hours of care each week. As the number of cancer patients is likely to double from 2 million to 4 million over the next 15 years or so, so too will the number of carers.

Part of the reason why carers of people with illnesses such as cancer are not receiving any support is that three in five people providing unpaid care to loved ones with cancer do not consider themselves to be a carer. They thus lack awareness of carers’ rights, such as the local authority carer’s assessment, which is crucially important because it is the gateway for carers to get statutory support. There needs to be an explicit requirement in the Bill for health bodies to identify carers with unmet needs, with the aim of early intervention and support. Neither the Care Bill nor the Health and Social Care Act 2012 sets out any responsibility for the NHS to identify carers, which is surprising, given that this was something the Government specifically called for in their care and support White Paper, where they outlined the requirement for

“NHS organisations to work with their local authority partners . . . to agree plans and budgets for identifying and supporting carers.”

The first point that I therefore wish to impress on the Minister is that the Bill should specify that local authorities need to work with health bodies in order adequately to identify carers with unmet needs and provide sufficient services for them, and that there should be a duty on the NHS to identify carers. GPs need to see support for carers of their patients as also being part of their job, because in supporting the patient’s carer, GPs are also supporting the patient. There is, I suspect, a need for a national framework, or guidance, on how the NHS can better identify and support carers.

The second point that I wish to raise is a difficult one. The Government are introducing new and much appreciated rights for carers of adults through the Care Bill, and for young carers in the Children and Families Bill, but parents of disabled children under 18 are not included in either Bill. It is worth reminding ourselves of the recommendations of the Law Commission to strengthen the rights of parent carers in line with other carers, and to consolidate these rights in new legislation.

I appreciate that at a time when we are enhancing and hopefully improving special educational needs in the Children and Families Bill, the question arises whether every parent whose child receives a statement of special educational needs should be considered a parent carer, and I suspect that Ministers would probably respond that in straitened financial circumstances it simply is not possible to give financial support to a child with special educational needs through that system, and at the same time give financial support to their parents as parent carers.

On the other hand, I hope Ministers and the House will appreciate, as I am sure we all do, that for a parent of a seriously and severely disabled child, or a child with serious and severe learning difficulties, those responsibilities as a parent and as a carer can completely take over their life, with little respite. I hope that there will be an opportunity in the Public Bill Committee to consider whether it is possible to give targeted support to parent carers whom, as a matter of common sense, I think we would all recognise merit consideration as carers.

My third point is that the Bill perhaps needs greater clarity to ensure that carers are not wrongly charged for services provided to the person they care for. I know that ministerial colleagues have said that this is not their intention, but I suggest that that is not yet clear enough. Social workers and carer support workers will in due course have to use this legislation to decide on the one hand what is a carer’s service, and on the other what is a service for an older and disabled person. I suggest that this needs to be defined with greater clarity so as to prevent confusion or disputes. I would suggest that we should remove from local authorities any ability to charge for carers’ services. Not surprisingly, many carers are shocked to find, given the support and contribution they are making to caring for a loved one and the amount they are saving the state with the care they provide, that they are being charged for carers’ services.

I hope that during the passage of the Bill through the Commons, the Government will give consideration to these three points relating to carers, but I re-emphasise that overall the all-party group on carers very much welcomes the significant new rights for carers in the Bill, including stronger rights to an assessment of their needs and a much clearer entitlement to services for them and those they care for as a result of such a carer’s assessment.

17:45

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

The Care Bill already seems like a wasted opportunity. I worked for four months, alongside right hon. and hon. Members of this House and Members of the other place, on the Joint Committee that scrutinised the draft Care and Support Bill, and I pay tribute to its members for their work. We now have a Bill that contains some measures that are welcome but others that are seriously flawed.

I will talk first about the burdens the Bill places on local authorities and argue that they must be resourced by the Government. Some people—Ministers or Government Members whose southern local authorities are not being cut in the same way that ours are, for instance—might think that perhaps times are okay, but there could not be a worse time to place extra financial burdens on local authorities. Indeed, the situation for my local authority, Salford city council, will be even bleaker in 2016, the planned date for implementation of the Bill’s reforms. As I said earlier, Salford has already lost £100 million in funding since 2010, and it knows that it will lose another £75 million by 2016. I hope that the Minister is listening—he does not seem to be—because funding for adult social care in Salford has fallen by 20%, from £67 million in 2010 to £53 million this year.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has already alluded to the fact that that is the picture up and down the country. The Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities has said that Stoke-on-Trent has been hit the hardest, but the impact is on constituents across the country.

[Barbara Keeley]

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Changing eligibility from “moderate” to “substantial” this year will mean that the number of people in Salford receiving council-funded care packages will fall by 1,000, to 7,500. To give credit to Salford city council—my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) has already done so—it held off making the eligibility cut until the third year of Government budget cuts, but now it must join the nine out of 10 local authorities setting eligibility at the higher level. I am afraid that the Secretary of State’s earlier claim that they do not have to set it at that level will have sounded very hollow indeed.

Talking of things that sound hollow, the new rights for carers set out in the Bill will sound very hollow to carers in my constituency at a time when many of them are losing the few hours of support they have that give them a break. I want to cite the example of an elderly couple in Salford who have cared for their adult son for over 30 years and who have relied upon respite care for a rest or a break. At the last review of their son’s care package, the respite care element was reduced, which has had a detrimental effect on their physical and mental well-being. They are now not even sure whether they can carry on caring for him. I fear that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles and I will hear many more such cases as 1,000 people in Salford lose their care packages over the next year.

Many organisations involved in social care have raised fears about the crisis in care and their view that the eligibility level should be set at “moderate”, rather than “substantial.” Over the past five years, the number of people over 65 receiving publicly funded care has fallen from 1.2 million to less than 1 million, and for people aged 18 to 64 it has fallen from £570,000 to £470,000. That is a serious fall in the number of people receiving care. Some of those who have lost publicly funded care have funded the care themselves, but in other cases the care workload will have fallen on unpaid family carers.

The number of unpaid carers caring for more than 50 hours a week has increased by over a quarter in the past 10 years. As my right hon. Friend said, Carers UK has told us that 1 million carers have given up work to care, which costs the Exchequer £1.3 billion a year in extra carer’s allowance and lost tax receipts. I believe that reliance on unpaid family care with those heavier carer workloads might also have an impact on the health of those carers, particularly those caring at the heavier end.

The Government plan to set the national eligibility threshold at “substantial”. The Care and Support Alliance says that this means that 105,000 working age disabled people will be left without the support they need to live independent lives. That issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), and she is right to do so. We focus an awful lot on adult social care and older people, but we need to think about working-age disabled people as well.

[Norman Lamb]

I absolutely respect and appreciate the hon. Lady’s concern for carers; she has campaigned vigorously on their behalf for a very long time. Does she accept, though, that when her party left office, 108 councils set “substantial” as the eligibility criterion for support from local authorities? Do we not all face the same incredibly difficult financial circumstances and have to examine the innovation that the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) talked about? There is not simply a pot of magic money that will appear if ever Labour returns to government.

[Barbara Keeley]

I do not agree at all. These cuts are far too swingeing, and there is nowhere else for my local authority, Salford, to go. After 20% cuts, the £100 million loss of funding that we have sustained cannot be found with any amount of innovative thinking. Ministers are now at the point of kidding themselves. I am sure that the Minister, like all his predecessors, goes round the country and is shown all kinds of examples of innovation, but innovation without funding will not work.

The eligibility issue interacts with the cap on care costs. The vast majority of older people will fail to benefit from the £72,000 cap on care costs; it will help only those with the most complex needs. As has been said—we need to keep repeating it—a cap set at £72,000 ignores Andrew Dilnot’s warning that it would work only if it were set at a much lower level and if the underfunding of social care were addressed. It is clear from the Government’s own impact assessments that the number of people whose costs will be capped are a tiny minority. It is estimated that just over one in 200 people aged over 65 will be helped in 2016 and that fewer than one in 200 will be by 2026. It is an incredibly sad reflection of this Government’s ambition that they will have spent the whole of a five-year Parliament—in fact, longer than a five-year Parliament—introducing measures on the long-term funding of social care that eventually help only one in 200 people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles talked about being ambitious; this is not ambition.

On the support needs of carers, I will repeat some of the things that we heard from the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry). Full-time carers are more than twice as likely to be in poor health as people without caring responsibilities. I point out to the Minister that this Bill does not do enough to support those full-time carers. The Government have said that carers are the first line of prevention in that properly identifying and supporting them prevents the escalation of demand on statutory services. Given the A and E crisis, we need that prevention. However, identification of carers is not happening and the Bill does not do enough to change that. Macmillan Cancer Support, which has been carrying out surveys on this, tells us that 70% of carers of people with cancer come into contact with health professionals, who are the people who should be identifying them and signposting them for information and advice. Only 5% of that group of carers receive a carers assessment, and only one in three of those surveyed by Macmillan had even heard of a carers assessment. It is meaningless to suggest to people that they have a right to something they have never heard of and are not going to get.

In Salford, we have a project run by the Carers Trust centre to identify carers within the primary care system. I want to pay tribute to the work that the centre does and to mention its manager, Dawn O’Rooke, who is leaving this month after several years of work in this field. Over the years, the project has established a network of links within GP practices to identify carers. Last year, GPs made only 300 referrals to the carers centre, yet we have 23,000 carers in Salford, over 5,000 of whom will be caring at the heaviest levels. The Carers Trust tells us that, nationally, GP practices are identifying only about 3% of carers, but it should be 10% or more. Health bodies must be required—this Bill is the place to do it—to take on the task of identifying carers and referring them for advice and support, because carers are mainly seen in health settings and not by local authorities. The figures I gave about people losing packages mean that 1,000 fewer people in Salford will be seen by, or go anywhere near, the local authority because the person they care for is not getting a care package.

The Minister is aware of my private Member’s Bill, the Social Care (Local Sufficiency) and Identification of Carers Bill, which had clauses to tackle that issue. I am happy to show them to him again and explain how he could go about tackling the issue in his Bill. The clauses would ensure that NHS bodies have procedures in place to identify carers and ensure they receive information and advice. The Government’s own care and support White Paper stated that there is

“still an unacceptable variation in access to tailored support for carers”

and that NHS organisations should

“work with their local authority partners...to agree plans and budgets”.

The right hon. Member for Banbury made that point. Why are there not more robust measures in the Care Bill to make sure that this happens? As things stand, it will not happen. The NHS has been going through an agony of reorganisation and is now going through an agony of finding efficiency savings, and its staff do not have the time, unless they are directed to the right procedures, to take this task on.

As has rightly been said, clause 2, with its requirements for local authorities to provide preventive services, makes no explicit mention of the NHS, and the only duty on NHS bodies is one of co-operation. Anyone who has tried to work in local authorities on co-operation with health bodies, as I did years ago, knows that it does not go anywhere when there is no budget and no duty. Without effective procedures and systems within health bodies, the identification and signposting of carers will stay as it is now—patchy and inconsistent. It is questionable whether cash-strapped local authorities will be able to assess the needs of large numbers of carers alongside giving information and advice to self-funders and doing a lot more assessments. They will not be able to do that in any way that makes it a worthwhile exercise for carers, and carers will not bother with it if it is not doing anything for them. Indeed, the Joint Committee on the draft Bill received many comments via its web forum from people who said that local authority assessments are of little practical help in their caring role.

GPs and other health professionals are best placed to help carers when they start caring, which is when they most urgently need help and advice. During carers week here, I met carers who told me about a whole variety of things that they needed help with but nobody helped them. Nobody told them that there were schemes to help them with the cost of parking at the hospital. One mother had to buy a hospital bed and nobody told her where to find one; she was looking for one on eBay. She had no advice and support on that whatsoever. GPs deal with dementia patients, stroke patients and patients with cancer. The GP and primary health care team is best placed to establish whether there is an unpaid family carer or whether they live in another town or city. The GP can then refer them to sources of advice and support and, if they are local, give them regular health checks. A new duty on the NHS professionals is the only thing that would make it easier for social care and health services to work together to support carers. I believe that that is wanted by Members in all parts of the House.

Given everything that we are talking about, carers are clearly being placed under ever greater strains. It is essential that the Bill is used to ensure that carers are identified and signposted towards the support they need. It is clear from all the statistics that unpaid carers are the most vital providers of care in this country. I urge Ministers not to miss this chance to improve the support that we give them.

17:57

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

I greatly welcome much of what is in the Bill. I am slightly disappointed by the tone of some—not all—Labour Members, who seem to suggest that the challenges our society faces with social care are in some way new. I looked after an old lady from 2003, during the economic boom times, and became very well acquainted with her care package, care needs and care challenges, and the challenges faced by her social workers. Back then, social workers were expected to get across London in 20 minutes, which was obviously impossible, so the care time that they had with my friend was severely cut down; in fact, sometimes it was 15 minutes, a figure that we have already heard. There was also a massive challenge in terms of raising the status of the profession of social work. Those challenges existed back then, during the boom times, and they still exist now. It is very brave and ambitious for the Government to be making such significant steps in unifying health and social care at a time when the economic situation is very difficult.

Other Members have dealt with the care and support aspect of the Bill more eloquently than I can, and I am sure that others will too. I want to focus my brief remarks on part 2, which is about the response to Francis and care standards.

I think that one lesson we have learned following the Mid Staffs scandal is that making rules does not necessarily mean making change. I remind the House of the 2002 “Code of Conduct for NHS Managers”, which states:

“As an NHS manager, I will observe the following principles: make the care and safety of patients my first concern and act to protect them from risk;…be honest and act with integrity; accept responsibility for my own work and the proper performance of the people I manage”.

Following the unravelling of scandals in Mid Staffs and elsewhere, it is very hard to understand how NHS managers were adhering to that code of conduct, which was written for them, and why none of them has faced the consequences of not doing so. That is a salutary lesson: we need to be wary that putting things in writing does not always mean that they will happen culturally. People have remained unaccountable for a serious breach of that managerial code of conduct, many of whom, I am afraid to say, continue to work in the NHS today.

As the Bill progresses, I want to see more detail on how the contractual obligation for a duty of candour, which is welcome, will be enforced. I understand the desire for a statutory duty on individuals, but I share fears that it may oversimplify the blame culture that this House has discussed at length. Having seen what happened with our hospitals’ complaints system and the cover-up of blame, I am very worried that a statutory duty on an individual clinician could be abused, such that blame could be parked at a clinician’s door by a management system that does not want its own failings to be highlighted. That could lead to unfortunate false allocations of blame by the system in which clinicians work.

If a contract’s duty of candour is not met, what will be the consequences? It is an issue that there have been no consequences for those who have breached things written down in guidelines and codes of conduct. It is important to understand in more detail what the consequences will be of a breach of contract.

I would particularly like to know whether managers, organisations such as NHS England, and Department of Health officials will have the same duty of candour. The reason why scandals such as Mid Staffs have been allowed to go on and on is that it was not just the hospital that was complicit in it; the entire system around the hospital should have been acting in patients’ interests, but it did not.

Some have faced consequences for their actions—their actions were good, but the consequences have been diabolical—namely whistleblowers. I know and understand that real reform of how we treat whistleblowers and enable whistleblowing will require changes to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. If a whistleblower has been found to be correct in raising concerns in the NHS and those concerns are recognised, I would like to know why any future employer would choose not to employ them. If an employer is a good employer, they would welcome a whistleblower into their ranks as someone who would not go native and accept appalling care when others might do so and who would also have the moral fortitude to stand up and talk about failings when others might not. The test of a good employer is how well they employ people who have been proven to be whistleblowers.

People such as Eileen Chubb and David Drew have sacrificed their careers to highlight bad care, but they have not seen the systemic changes for which they made those sacrifices and they are still suffering the consequences. Surely that is a part of NHS and health culture that the Bill should seek to change.

I welcome the fact that the Care Quality Commission will be looking at the issue of whistleblowers and I welcome James Titcombe’s involvement in the CQC. As someone who thought that the CQC brand was so damaged that it should probably just be scrapped and we should start again, I have to say that I think David Prior has made remarkable progress, given what he started out with, in beginning to turn this monolith around.

Statutory independence of the CQC is very long overdue. I think that everyone in the House has been concerned about the fact that the CQC’s mission seemed to be reputation management for itself and the NHS, and not a brave and courageous stand on behalf of the patients it was supposed to be protecting. In order to ensure that the CQC remains independent from Government—independence in words is fine, but independence in culture is what really matters—it might be illustrative to look back to the era before the CQC and other regulatory bodies were in place, when royal colleges used to send their members into hospitals. They would do so not to inspect hospitals as such, but for reasons of medical training. However, by getting a granular view of the training on offer they could see whether or not it was sufficient. If not, the royal colleges could, under bodies such as the hospital recognition committee, withdraw training from a hospital, which gave the inspection teeth. It was the royal colleges that went in—often without any pay at all; just enough to cover expenses—and interviewed junior doctors and consultants individually, and problems naturally came to light because the interviews were often confidential.

A Wigan hospital fell foul of an inspection in 2001 and its chief executive did not take kindly to it. Funnily enough, just after the inspection took place, the chief executive, who was quite close to Alan Milburn and the then Prime Minister, went into the Department of Health and abolished the system whereby professional clinicians could get a granular view of what was going on in hospitals, replacing it with the postgraduate medical education training board and then the medical training application service, which was disastrous. The more we can put those who do not have an interest in bolstering the Government of the day—namely the professionals, clinicians and members of the royal colleges—on the ground and doing granular investigations, the more confident we can be that the CQC will be independent.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am not sure that I share the hon. Lady’s enthusiasm about the transformation of the CQC; nevertheless, some progress has been made. Does she share my concern that clause 85 proposes to dilute the CQC’s powers with regard to investigating the commissioning of adult social services and social care by local authorities? Is that not a step backwards, particularly if the hon. Lady is concerned about the issue of 15-minute visits and the impact that has on quality?

[Charlotte Leslie]

I am afraid that the quality of care and social care could be the next boil of scandal to erupt as we gain a more granular view of what is going on. Organisations need not just more effective tick-box inspections, but more effective granular inspections. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman: I think the CQC is taking great steps forward. I am very sceptical, but I am cautiously optimistic of progress and will continue to look at what the CQC does.

I will make progress, because I do not want to prevent other Members from contributing to the debate. Essentially, the Bill can only put down regulation. One of my favourite things is to warn against systems so perfect that nobody needs to be good, yet this House really only has levers to change systems. We cannot always enable people to be good, but we can devise systems that enable them to be good. This House is attempting to turn around a massive cultural tanker and it is unrealistic to think that we can do so through the scope of a single Bill. I think, however, that the Bill takes very important steps forward in a very difficult context. I am disappointed that it is not supported throughout the House, although I think that constructive amendments and changes to it will be welcomed in the interests of the patients we are all here to serve. I heartily recommend the Bill to the House.

18:08

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Members on both sides of the House agree that we need to reform and improve how we provide care to those who need it. In the words of the Law Commission, our current legal framework is a complex and confusing patchwork of legislation that is in desperate need of modernisation. However, the premise on which part of the Bill is based is simply outdated. It tries to focus the debate on residential and nursing care costs, which directs our view of care on to issues of the previous century when this should be a Bill for the landscape of the 21st century.

Only a small percentage of older people need to be in residential or nursing care and, thankfully, most of them for only a relatively short period at the end of their lives. Most people want to stay in their own homes if they can. Consequently, it is right to develop care services that make that happen, such as ExtraCare homes, whose options for meals and support for residents can change as their needs change.

Our care system is there not just for when people hit crisis point; it should be preventive, ensuring that those who need moderate care and support can receive it in their own homes. Yet, as we have heard time and again in this debate, because of the Government’s savage cuts to local authority funding, 85% of local authorities now provide care only to those whose needs are assessed as substantial. If the level is also set at substantial in relation to the proposed national eligibility criteria in clause 13, people with moderate care needs will continue to be ignored. Their needs will inevitably move to severe, which will mean even greater cost to both the individual and the state. My hon. Friends have given examples of that.

As has already been said, the vast majority of care in this country is given by family and friends, who provide not just physical care but emotional support. Most do so willingly, but many would benefit from some support through the provision of low-level services, such as a sitting service to allow them time to themselves, or a cleaning service to allow them to concentrate on providing more personal help. Put simply, a small amount of support for those whose needs are at a lower level would lever in a large amount of care by families, who would also be enabled to continue to provide support over a longer period, so saving on much more expensive services.

[Robert Flello]

On the theme that my hon. Friend is developing, quite a lot of carers are almost borderline in their need for care themselves. What is her view of the fact that without that extra bit of support for carers’ needs, there may be the double hit of two people needing care from the state?

[Meg Munn]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I managed care services when, not the previous Government but the one before that, brought in a health and social care Act. Within the first six months, we found that every single person who ended up in residential care did so because of carer breakdown, as the carer was not getting support. That is why this support is such an important part of what we should deliver.

Care services must be personalised: they have to be about choice, as well as need. If we are to make such personalisation a reality, we need further integration of our health and social care services. The duty on local authorities under clause 3 to promote the integration of care and support with health services does not go far enough in that respect. Indeed, a recent survey of health and wellbeing boards found that most local authorities have not identified integrated care as a priority. Clearly, we must do more to drive forward the development of integrated care. Without such an approach, we will return to the days that I remember well, when there were fruitless arguments about whether a service such as bathing was required on social or health grounds.

The integration of health and social care services is crucial to ensure that we provide carers with sufficient support. As a patron of Sheffield Young Carers, I feel privileged to have seen at first hand the selfless role that even very young carers undertake in our communities, and they should be valued.

As has been said by the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), the Bill places a duty on local authorities to have regard to the importance of identifying carers, but that is not good enough. Some 80% of carers have contact with a health care professional, and it makes absolutely no sense to leave the NHS out of the duty to identify carers.

That matter is especially worrying as regards young carers, who quite often need a lot of support. The Children and Families Bill will strengthen young carers’ rights by providing that when a child is identified as a young carer, the needs of everyone in the family should be considered. That of course presupposes that young carers will be identified in the first place. If we do not place a corresponding duty to identify carers on health authorities, we risk young carers falling through the gaps, and we cannot continue to leave them without support.

My remarks would be somewhat lacking if I did not refer to the funding or, perhaps more accurately, the lack of funding that underpins our social care system. The proposals outlined in the Bill primarily concern redistributing the costs of care, and they will not bring any extra funding into the system.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is making an absolutely crucial point. Does she agree that unless investment in social care is made now, it will end up costing far more in the cost of the NHS, as well as that of social care? It is the lack of ambition, as well as the lack of finance, that is really disappointing in what the Government are introducing in the Bill.

[Meg Munn]

I agree. The demand for services is now greater than ever. Our social care system is being cut to the point of breaking. As has already been discussed, should the proposed health funding reallocation for clinical commissioning groups be implemented, the situation will only get worse. South Yorkshire is due to lose £150 million by April 2014. That is staggering given that, under the proposals, other parts of the UK that already have better health outcomes and longer life expectancy will receive an increase in funding. This Bill seeks only to ration scarce resources; without a completely different approach, we will fail to meet proven need.

As a former social worker, I welcome clauses 42 to 47, which introduce a duty on local authorities to make inquiries when they suspect that an adult is at risk of or is experiencing abuse or neglect. Yet no duty is placed on care providers to report suspected abuse or neglect to the local authority. The Government contend that the present guidance is sufficient, but I disagree. In the light of Winterbourne View and Mid Staffordshire, we cannot afford to have such gaps in protection.

A recent Care Quality Commission report stated that our accident and emergency departments see 500,000 elderly victims of neglect. I am therefore far from convinced that enough has been done to address the issue. Where victims of abuse are imprisoned in their own homes by a perpetrator who denies access to adult safeguarding staff, there are no current legal means by which access can be achieved. An amendment was tabled by the noble Baroness Greengross in the other place to enable a social worker to apply for a court order to access an adult at risk. Between now and the Committee stage, will the Government reflect on that matter and introduce something to address that gap?

The Bill is an opportunity for much-needed reform of our health and social care system, but in its current form it does not make the changes that we need. For that reason, I fully support my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition’s reasoned amendment.

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will have to leave very shortly to read in a carol service.

18:10

[Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I want to echo the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears): we must keep the dignity and well-being of those who need care and, indeed, their carers at the forefront of our thinking in this debate and as we seek to implement the Bill.

Like the right hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) made a very interesting speech. I thank her for her service on the Joint Committee that scrutinised the draft Bill. I had the pleasure to chair that Committee, which had a very strong team from both Houses. It made some recommendations to which I will return in a minute.

What struck me during the speech from the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), is that if so much in the Bill appears to be wrong, surely he should have the courage of his convictions and go through the Lobby to oppose it. There is apparently so much awful stuff in it—so much of it is inadequate, does not reach far enough or does not do enough, or if it does enough, there will not be enough money—that the Opposition should perhaps have the courage of their convictions.

At the same time, we have heard really interesting examples of where social care should be celebrated. Too many speeches have suggested that the picture of what is being done on the ground is uniformly bleak, but examples have been given of dementia-friendly communities, Unlimited Potential and the “garden needs” scheme in Salford. Those are just a few examples, and I am sure that every hon. Member could go back to their constituency and find such initiatives. Many of the initiatives do not require substantial resources because, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) just said, they can lever in additional resources by enabling communities to respond to need. That is an essential part of the Bill.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Grahame M. Morris]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Burstow]

I give way to the hon. Lady because she tried to intervene first.

[Barbara Keeley]

It is about a year since the right hon. Gentleman and I started four months’ work on the Joint Committee, and I was prepared to commit that time although I still find some aspects of the Bill disappointing. The reality of our situation in Salford now and over the next year is that—week in, week out—I, as a local MP, will find that people and their carers have lost care packages. I invite him to think about the situation of the very many MPs who now see the heart-breaking decisions that families face when they suddenly find themselves without care, respite care or support.

[Paul Burstow]

I entirely understand that, and I see it in my constituency, where my local authority is grappling with those budget choices, but there is still scope for innovation. There are good, bad and ugly local authorities when it comes to grappling with the resource constraints that the deficit has led to, and I will come back to that in a moment.

I believe that the Bill deserves to be described as landmark legislation, because it will provide a new governing purpose for our social system—the idea of well-being, to which I will return—new rights for carers and, for the first time, parity of esteem between those who are cared for and family members who provide care and support. The new national eligibility threshold will end the postcode lottery for access. We can debate where the line is drawn, but for the first time that will become a national debate rather than simply a local one.

There will also be new obligations on local authorities on behalf of the whole population that they serve. There will be obligations to prevent and postpone the need for care, to ensure quality and choice of services and to ensure that there is good information and advice about the whole range of choices that people might need to make as they approach the point at which they need care. Importantly, the Bill is foundation legislation upon which a more co-ordinated and integrated system of health and social care can be built.

I could stop there, but the Bill will do more than that. It will simplify and clarify entitlements to state-funded support and put personal budgets into law for the first time. That is all before I have even mentioned the Dilnot reforms, about which it is important to give some context. Social care in this country today is not free. That is the nasty little secret that families discover when they are tipped into crisis and have to negotiate with their local authority over whether they will have access to any means-tested support. Most people do not know that, and it comes as a shock and creates anger and dismay in many families. While I was a Minister, Members from both sides of the House showed me letters of anguish from people who felt that the system was letting them down. To understand the value of Dilnot is to make a true comparison not with what people hope the system will be but with what it actually is today—a nasty, mean system that is means-tested. That is why the Government deserve to be commended for having the courage to start to put in place the principles that Dilnot proposed.

The right hon. Member for Leigh gave no direct quotation from Andrew Dilnot in opposition to what the Government are doing. I know why—it is because there is no direct quotation of that sort. Andrew Dilnot supports the changes and sees them as a much-needed step towards implementing all the principles that he recommended in his report.

Of course, it is important that we recognise that not everyone will ever need formal care. A minority of our population will need formal support, no matter where the threshold is drawn. Perhaps some will need it right at the end of their life. Those who do will want the Bill to give them peace of mind, and that is what Dilnot provides to everyone. Some people are confused by the idea of catastrophic costs based on all people needing care, but the reality is that most people will never reach the cap wherever it is drawn, because they will never need to draw down that much resource to pay for care costs. Moving the means test threshold from £23,250—the meanest of means tests in our welfare state—to £118,000 is a huge step forward.

For all those reasons, the Bill can be marked out as a comprehensive reform of our social care system, and it deserves the House’s wholehearted support today. There are other reasons why it deserves support, too. The draft Bill was consulted on extensively and has been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, of which I am a great fan. As the Minister at the time, I actively sought permission for it to be subject to that approach. By a curious twist of fate, I then found myself chairing the very scrutiny Committee that I had advocated. I was lucky to have cross-party support from both Houses in doing that job, and it was a strong Committee. We made 107 recommendations, the vast majority of which the Government accepted before introducing the Bill. Many of the others have been persuaded upon them through their lordships’ scrutiny, and I am grateful to colleagues in the Lords for what they have done.

All of that will be worth nothing if the Bill is not well implemented. As the debate has demonstrated powerfully, there is a huge knowledge gap that leaves people struggling in a crisis. It means that people do not plan or prepare for care, financially or in other ways. We need not just local information and advice services but a multi-channel, multi-media campaign to inform and educate the public, hon. Members and the people who work in the system. We need to ensure that we manage changes well, such as deferred payments, about which I hope the Minister will say more later, not least because it is not a sufficient defence to say, “Because Labour did this when it was in government, we will do it as well”. I hope the Minister will have a better answer on that point.

I want to give one example of why the implementation challenge is big. There are 300,000 to 400,000 people in this country who already pay for their care. It would make no sense for them all to be told to line up on 1 April 2016 to get their care accounts sorted out. The change needs to be phased and planned so that we do not overwhelm local authorities in April 2016. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about that.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley, said that the Bill was a look back to 20th-century models of care. I disagree, because at front and centre, in the Bill’s first clause, is the disruptive idea that we should promote individual well-being. It states that well-being is about quality of life, work, leisure, study, the right to be an active member of the community, being in control and maintaining and recovering physical and social function—all things that were anathema to many of the paternalistic models of 20th-century care.

We need only compare current care plans for older people with those for active and working-age people to see the stark difference. The plans for working-age people are about their being engaged with their communities, but for far too many years the plans for older people have too often been about “task and finish”, with tasks being burned down to just 15 minutes or less. That cannot be right, and it has to change. That is why I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State will also be subject to the well-being principle in discharging his obligations under the Act to regulate the system.

I would welcome some clarification of the term “beliefs” with regard to well-being. It would be helpful if the Minister said whether it applies to religious and spiritual beliefs, and whether that point will be covered in guidance.

On prevention, which has an important link to the well-being principle, can the Minister confirm that the duty set out at the beginning of the Bill will be outside the consideration of national eligibility, and that it will be a universal obligation that will not just apply to those who qualify for care? Will the local authority actively have to secure it?

[Norman Lamb]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his amazing work in launching the Bill and in its pre-legislative scrutiny. I can confirm that the prevention duty will be universal and have no relation to the criteria for eligibility.

[Paul Burstow]

That is very helpful, and I am grateful. The fact that the prevention duty will be outside the eligibility criteria gives the lie to the idea that it will be curtailed. That is important to understand. There has been some dispute about that, and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services now suggests that the change in eligibility will be more generous than many people have thought.

Several Members have touched on the issue of carers. Progress has been made in the Children and Families Bill, and I hope that there will be progress on the identification of carers as well. One of my deep frustrations as a Minister was that, even when I had pulled all the levers available to me to try to get the NHS to do more on carers, it still did not get it. It did not do enough, and although there are beacons in the NHS, the whole thing has not been set afire so that the NHS really changes how it engages with carers. We need seriously to consider legislation on that, and I look forward to the Minister setting out how that might be achieved.

I want to touch on the role of the Care Quality Commission. It might be right to remove its duty to do periodic reviews, but it is important that it can exercise its power to conduct special reviews of commissioners without reference to Ministers. Where it finds that there a provider’s failure is attributable to commissioning failures, it should be able to inspect the local authority in question without having to seek Ministers’ permission. In that way, the special inspection powers could be used much more creatively.

A lot has been said about integration in this debate. I hope that we can make more progress on the matter to include it in all parts of the Bill during its passage through the House. I believe that the Bill deserves a Second Reading tonight, because it offers a transformative vision of how care is delivered in this country. By making well-being the central organising principle, we can deliver a much better quality of life for those who need care.

18:29

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow).

There are many challenges for the social care sector as we continue to live longer. In Wales, 20% of our population of 3 million is over 65, and that figure is predicted to rise to 25% over the next 20 years. It is essential that our older people live their lives with dignity, respect and in safety. Other Members have mentioned the costs of care and improving hospitals, but I want to concentrate my remarks on regulation and safeguarding in care homes.

The rising number of elderly people, some of whom need residential care, has led to significant private equity investment in the social care market. In 2011, many Members were troubled by the billion-pound collapse of Southern Cross Healthcare, whose quick-buck business model caved in when the global recession arrived. The media have now reported that care providers NHP and HC-One are expected to be put up for sale soon with US private equity interest.

Private and voluntary providers now account for 92% of all residential care and nursing home places, and 89% of care home care hours are outsourced by local authorities. The Care Bill gives the CQC in England extra powers to oversee the social care market, in particular companies that are deemed “too large to replace”. I welcome that, but we may need to oversee better business models at a more local level. The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services budget survey 2013 showed that more than half of directors expect providers in their areas to face financial difficulty, given the squeeze on local authority budgets that other Members have mentioned. Perhaps those oversight powers should better cover small and medium providers too. I hope the Minister will reassure the House that the CQC will have the resources and expertise to assess whether all care home owners are fulfilling their obligations regarding their financial viability. My constituents who went through anxious times with Southern Cross would like more stable care home operators and better financial scrutiny by regulators.

The other issue I wish to address is adult safeguarding. I have previously told the House about the horrendous instances of historic neglect and abuse in care homes uncovered by Gwent police’s Operation Jasmine. The £11.6 million investigation started in 2005 and gathered 10,500 exhibits and 12.5 tonnes of documents. It led our police to brand the negligence discovered as “death by indifference”. There were 103 alleged victims of care home abuse and neglect, yet, like their relatives, I was dismayed that Operation Jasmine secured just three convictions for wilful neglect by carers. Worse, charges brought against a care home owner did not directly relate to poor care for residents in his homes, but instead to breaches of health and safety legislation and false accounting. That cannot be right.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

At a time when children’s safeguarding boards are subject to so much scrutiny and questions about their performance, does my hon. Friend share my fear that the Government may be adopting a model that is flawed and needs a great deal more work? If that model is replicated for older people and adults in need of care, we may see a repetition of the same problems.

[Nick Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a good point.

I was struck when speaking to victims’ families in south Wales that although many were regular or even daily visitors to their loved ones’ homes, they were not informed about bedsores or concerns that their relatives were not eating or drinking properly—such concerns were just brushed aside. Yes, individuals must be responsible for their actions, but what was uncovered was institutionalised neglect, with instructions on cutting back on food and incontinence pads coming from the top.

I am pleased that in Wales the First Minister has agreed a review of Operation Jasmine, led by Dr Margaret Flynn, who wrote the excellent Winterboume View hospital report. Although it will not report in time to amend this Bill, I hope the Government will consider any additional measures that that crucial review may highlight because we know that such issues are not just a problem for Wales. Information supplied by the House of Commons Library shows that, in 2011-12, 65,580 allegations of abuse of vulnerable adults aged 65 or over were made at different locations in England. Of those, 29,555—about 45%—were alleged to have taken place in care homes. This is a big national issue.

Looking to the future, we must improve the law on wilful neglect. If a patient does not die from poor care and does not have a loss of capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service states that a criminal offence is difficult to identify. Given that, respected groups such as Age UK support the proposal that organisations—not just employees—found to have contributed to abuse or neglect in a care setting should be liable to criminal prosecution.

[Norman Lamb]

The hon. Gentleman is making some serious points. Does he welcome the fact that the Government have consulted on a change so that we introduce fundamental standards of care, and that those providers of care—the organisations, and indeed their directors—can be prosecuted for failures of care? That has not been possible until now due to a flawed regulatory system.

[Nick Smith]

I welcome that but I am not sure it goes far enough. I think the issue needs to be teased out further in this debate and possibly in the Bill Committee.

[Paul Burstow]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is campaigning hard on these issues at the moment. Does he agree that we need a clear criminal offence of wilful neglect in respect of people who have capacity, so that they are not left behind, as in the current position? If the Government cannot be persuaded—although I hope we can persuade them—of the case for a power of entry or power to interview a suspected victim of coercive abuse, they should at least adopt some sort of regulatory powers so that they can introduce such a measure later when they are finally persuaded by the overwhelming evidence.

[Nick Smith]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. That seems possibly a good idea and something we should pursue in the future.

I congratulate my Gwent colleague, Lord Touhig, who tabled an amendment to the Bill in the House of Lords to introduce the offence of corporate neglect. If we do not get what is needed this time, I would like to table an amendment on the same topic in this House. I hope that following the welcome consultation on strengthening corporate accountability in health and social care that the Minister mentioned, the Government will now make our law fit for purpose.

I support clause 48, which was inserted in the other place and provides equal protection to all users of regulated social care, regardless of where that care is provided and who pays for it. As Age UK says,

“for those at the sharp end of indifference and abuse, it is essential that both the provider and the regulator have clear legal duties to protect human rights.”

As we know, social care and health are devolved issues in Wales, and last week the Welsh Government published a draft “Declaration of the Rights of Older People” to be considered by our older people’s commissioner and an advisory group. I warmly welcome that initiative and think the Government would be well advised to follow the example of Wales and appoint an older people’s commissioner for England—again, I know that the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam agrees.

Last Friday I visited the Rookery care home in Blaenau Gwent, now run by Four Seasons after the collapse of Southern Cross Healthcare. I saw how the implementation of the “Pearl” model of care for those suffering from dementia has seen medication levels plummet from around half to just 17% of residents. The staff were dedicated and caring; residents were comfortable and respected. That is the great care that everyone should receive.

A growing, complex market and tightening finances means that effective regulation and oversight is necessary. If neglect or abuse is found, those responsible must be held to account for their failures because the vulnerable and the frail have the same right to justice as everyone else. Older people should feel safe and secure in the place they call home.

18:39

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), who raised a number of serious issues.

Some wide-ranging speeches have been made today, but I shall make a short speech, which will primarily concern the clauses in the Bill that relate to young people and their transition to adult social services. I have spoken on a number of occasions about my experience of working in the hospice movement, particularly the children’s hospice movement, over the last 20 years or so. During that time, I saw some incredible work done by the staff at the hospices, but, more important, I observed the tremendous dedication of the parents and families of the children who worked day and night to ensure that they were given the very best care.

When I joined the last hospice where I worked—Martin House, which at that time served most of Yorkshire—the construction of its new building, Whitby Lodge, had just been completed. The trustees of the charity had identified a real need, the need to look after those who could be described as the “older younger people”. As time has passed, many young people in hospices have been living longer. That is a good thing, but the theme in the children’s hospice became a little bit childish for those who were entering their teens.

In England, more than 40,000 children and young people aged between 0 and 19 currently have long-term health conditions that will eventually end most of their lives, and for which they may require palliative care. Owing to medical advances, more young people with a range of conditions are living into adulthood than ever before. The number has increased by some 30% over 10 years, and the highest rate of increase is among those aged between 16 and 19, who now account for some 4,000—or one in 10—of those aged between 0 and 19 who need palliative care.

When I worked at Hope House children’s hospice in Oswestry, some of the young boys who suffered from Duchenne muscular dystrophy would be lucky to live beyond the age of 18. When I left Martin House, many were living into their late twenties. That is a great thing, of course, but it does mean that we must think about how we can help such young people. The majority of those who may require palliative care have a range of severe disabilities and complex health needs. Contrary to popular belief, cancer represents just under 14% of diagnoses; most of those young people have cognitive impairments, which means that that they lack capacity, and many are cared for over long periods by their parent carers.

Many young people with life-limiting or life-threatening conditions who are more cognitively able struggle to achieve independence and enter education or employment, because plans are not made for them. Those who are unlikely to be cured by treatment are offered palliative care. Palliative care for young people is not simply end-of-life care, but focuses on enhancing the quality of their lives. In their early to mid-teens, young people receive palliative care and other support from children’s services. In their later teens, they start to receive services from adult agencies which assume responsibility at different points after their 16th birthdays. The transition is often complex, and traumatic for families who are already coping with extremely difficult circumstances.

A successful transition needs to address both the transfer of responsibility for young people from children’s to existing adults’ social care, health and education services, and the development of new adult services that are tailored to young people’s additional needs. The transition needs to be planned for years in advance, but, at present, planning is often disjointed and poor. The reduced services and support routinely offered by adult agencies, which are often focused on older people and end-of-life care, come as a distressing shock to many young people and their families. Parents have described the transition as like “standing on the edge of a cliff, about to fall into a black hole”. Poor transitions lead to increased illness, adverse social and educational outcomes, and sometimes even premature death.

Let me ask the Minister some specific questions. Will the statutory guidance on the Bill’s transition clauses which the Department of Health is producing for local authorities ensure that when a child who needs services reaches the age of 14—and is likely to continue to need services as an adult—the local authority initiates advance planning of the care needs that that child will have as an adult? Will it ensure that, from the age of 14 and by the age of 16, every young person who needs services has a five-year rolling transition plan in place, which specifies when his or her needs assessment is likely to take place? Will it ensure that when a child who needs social care reaches the age of 14, the local authority initiates advance planning of the carer’s needs when the child reaches the age of 18? Finally, will it ensure that the full range of services that young people with life-threatening and life-limiting conditions will require as adults—including local authority housing services to help them to live independently—are involved in the transition planning process?

As I have said, it has been my privilege for many years to work with so many inspiring young people and their families. In the hospices where I have worked, I have seen the staff do incredibly hard and great work. They do a tremendous job in trying to help families through the minefield of the care system. I think that the Bill offers us a real opportunity to make things just a little easier for families who are looking after children and young people with life-limiting conditions.

18:46

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew). I know about the fine work that he did at Hope House, or Ty Gobaith as we call it in Wales. It serves both sides of the border, and that is relevant to some of my later remarks—which I hope will be brief, given that they are slightly tangential to the main thrust of the debate.

I speak as the co-author of a bilingual training package on social care, published in Wales some 20 years ago, entitled “Gofal”, which is Welsh for “care”. It marked the beginning of the divergence of social care in Wales from the care that was previously available in England and Wales. I want to say something about that difference and how it will be addressed.

I always supported real independence, choice and dignity for older and disabled people in my former life as a social worker and a social work teacher. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), who is not in the Chamber now, referred to carers’ rights. I was one of the sponsors of the Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act 2004, which was promoted by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis).

Let me now draw attention to some details that relate to the working of the Bill. Certain aspects of it are complex, given that social care has been devolved to the Welsh Assembly. In the other place, my noble Friend Lord Wigley asked some questions which, as far as I can see, have not yet been answered satisfactorily. I hope the Minister will tell us—or write to me about it later—what discussions have taken place between his Department and the Welsh Government.

The Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Bill is currently before the Assembly, and has now reached its Report stage. It is an important piece of legislation for Wales, and is similar to this Bill in many respects. It will increase the number of services for which people can claim a direct payment from the local authority, will introduce national eligibility criteria, and will provide for portable assessments to avoid the cost and trouble of reassessments.

Let me make a general point about funding. I understand that the Bill will require additional spending of about £1 billion in England. If I am correct—these are the figures I have been given—it would probably generate about £60 million of Barnett consequential spending in Wales. Will the Minister confirm whether a figure has been agreed, and if so, will he tell the House—or me later on—what it might be?

Particular circumstances apply in Wales. For historical and industrial reasons—the prevalence of heavy industry—Wales has higher levels of disability. Thousands of people retire from England to Wales—they are very welcome, but there is a cost implication. Wales has the highest proportion of older people of any country or region in the UK. Nearly one in four of our people are over 60, and that figure is expected to increase by a further 5% over the next 10 years. Any funding system based merely on total population will therefore inevitably generate inequalities. In passing, I refer to my concerns about the Government’s census proposals. I fear we might not have proper data in the future—but that is a debate for another time.

I am concerned that provisions in this Bill that have an England and Wales remit will impact on the changes taking place in Wales under the Welsh legislation I just mentioned and, equally, that changes in Wales will have implications for cross-border placements and the possibility of care packages. What discussions has the Minister had with officials in Cardiff? Have all outstanding issues been resolved? In particular, have we resolved the issues relating to social services assessments possibly being undertaken in Wales for persons who then move to England, and likewise of care packages for persons moving from England to Wales? It is a particular issue where I live and along the north-west Wales coast. If they speak later, other Welsh Members may refer to that as well.

The difficulties to which cross-border issues might give rise are covered in clause 37 and schedule 1, which relates to cross-border placements. Paragraph (1) deals with cross-border placements from England to Wales, but the schedule does not specify—or so it seems to me at least, but perhaps my reading has not been close enough—who is responsible for paying. Are the provisions in paragraph 1(5) meant to cover this? It is far from clear to me. Might this be a matter for regulations? Again, I would be glad to hear from the Minister, either later this evening or by other means. We need some reassurances on these matters. It is also less than clear that paragraph 6(2) and (3) are adequate to provide full recompense, where relevant, in all cases.

I turn to the proposed health research authority in clauses 107 to 114. Clause 109(3) and (4) state that the HRA’s remit is to promote the co-ordination of standardisation of practice in the UK in the regulation of social care. Particular aspects of social care in Wales require a specific approach. The socio-economic make-up of Wales is different. Gross value added levels in some areas of Wales are as much as 40% below average levels in the UK. The financial profile against which any new policy is set will inevitably differ in Wales and England and will have to allow for Wales’ significantly higher disability levels. Wales has already set a cap of £50 a week on charges for home care.

Finally—and perhaps inevitably for me—I turn to language and culture issues and draw the House’s attention to schedule 1(13). For reasons that will become obvious, I quote directly from the Bill:

“Am ddarpariaeth ynghylch lleoliadau trawsffiniol i Loegr, yr Alban neu Ogledd Iwerddon neu o Loegr, yr Alban neu Ogledd Iwerddon, gweler Atodlen 1 i Ddeddf Gofal 2014.”

That merely means:

“For provision about cross-border placements to and from England, Scotland or Northern Ireland, see Schedule 1 to the Care Act 2014.”

I quote that merely to emphasise that Wales is another country and that we do things differently there. When cross-border assessments are made, language and culture issues are particularly important, and I hope that that will be taken into consideration. Clause 109(4) places a duty on the HRA and the devolved Administrations to co-operate with one another. I am curious to know how such a duty is to be enforced. What happens if disagreement arises, as inevitably it will, between conflicting expectations in Wales, Scotland and England? Does the Secretary of State in England have to act as a referee in such a dispute? I am not against such co-operation—very much the reverse—but the ground rules need to be clear.

18:55

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

I had to leave the Chamber earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, for an hour or so, but I assume we have been approached by similar groups and organisations that no doubt will have been quoted in previous speeches, so I might be able to curtail my remarks.

I begin by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), who has been heavily involved in this issue from day one, with the inception of the White Paper. I thank him for coming to Bradford and talking to people there about local issues, and I welcome his contribution tonight. This is probably the most important Bill we will be considering this Parliament, because it deals with one of the most important areas of public policy that we have to face. There is no choice about it; it is something we have to face. It has been referred to over the years as a ticking time bomb. The good news, of course, is that people are living longer, but that will be accompanied by an enormous cost if we are to ensure that people are provided with the quality of care that they are entitled to and desperately need. It is hugely important.

Like the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), I am confused by the reasoned amendment. I come from a place where people say what they mean and mean what they say, so I find it difficult to read a so-called reasoned amendment that is so scathing of a Bill and then listen to people say, “Well, actually, we’re not opposed to it and will not necessarily vote against it.” I do not understand that. Perhaps this is just a really strange place that I still need to spend more time in before I understand those things.

As I understand it, a Second Reading debate is about the principles, which is why I will avoid going into too many details. From my experience of working with many organisations and groups in the past few years, including very closely in the past 18 months or so, it seems to me that the principles in the Bill are pretty well applauded out there. There is a general acceptance that something needs to be done and that this is a pretty good attempt to lay down some basic principles. That was why the initial skirmishes and exchanges were disappointing.

[Paul Burstow]

My hon. Friend has taken a close interest in, and campaigned on, the Bill during its passage through the other place, and he said how widely welcomed it was outside the House. Would he be interested to know, therefore, that in almost every session of the scrutiny of the draft Bill—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman face the rest of the Chamber and address the Chair, and while I am on my feet, I should remind him of two things: interventions should be brief, and handheld devices in the Chamber, before or after interventions, should be used with due decorum.

[Paul Burstow]

I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been here long enough to know that I should speak through the Chair.

I simply wanted to say that during consideration of the draft Bill, when asked, many people told us they had nothing by way of criticism of the Bill, although they saw areas where it could be further improved.

[Mr Ward]

I thank my right hon. Friend.

Acceptance of the principles—certainly acceptance of them by myself—is there, but as the Minister knows only too well, as I have bent his ear on the subject so many times, I have some serious concerns, particularly about the FACS—free access to care services—criteria. He will probably not know—it is a recent decision by Bradford council—that the Labour council has decided to move from “moderate” to “substantial” in respect of the criteria. It has to go into a budget process; unfortunately, this will happen. We campaigned hard against that, with a 1,700 names on a petition opposing it, but it is going to go ahead.

What was unfortunate about earlier exchanges was a certain degree of dishonesty. This thing did not happen all of a sudden three years ago. Conservative, Labour and possibly some Liberal authorities—I do not know—up and down the country were from 2005 onwards moving away from “moderate” to “substantial” FACS criteria way before the change of Government and way before the vicious cuts took place as part of the austerity programme. Indeed, it was before the recession really bit, and I regret that. What seemed to be happening was a “follow my leader” approach—“Every other authority seems to be doing this, so why shouldn’t we?” It was seen as a way of reducing the budget. What I argued, continue to argue now and will continue to argue all the way through until this Bill becomes an Act, is that this is a false economy. I have made all those points to the Minister several times, including, in detail, in a Westminster Hall debate.

I believe that eligibility is the gateway to care, but I am not convinced by the proposed savings that are supposed to be made. We worked closely with various organisations, including Scope, which has done a fantastic job of looking at the issue of working age disablement, which accounts for one third of benefit recipients. People desperately need care to live a more fulfilled life, whether it be in education or work. This is just one example—there are many others—where savings can be accrued, but taxation can also be generated if people are given just a small amount of support to become economically active.

Other charities and organisations have raised serious issues. Principles are most important, but data collection is crucial. Charities that exist to help people with Parkinson’s and other neurological conditions identified the fact that they had no idea how many people with Parkinson’s actually received social care. How can that be the case? How can that happen? Something must be sadly going wrong with data collection. Macmillan Cancer Support pointed out that free social care at the end of life needs to be a crucial element of any changes we are looking to make and that, if we aim for true integration, we must have proper identification of carers within their health settings. We should not wait until people are turned out of hospital and go home before identifying who is going to look after the person and provide support. Leonard Cheshire Disability provided further useful information, and I ask the Minister to look further into some of the issues it raised.

Important principles are at issue here. On the national criteria, I may not like the level, but it is important to have standardisation. On the carers assessment, we should be applauding the fantastic proposal to make carers the centre of attention, as they are so often forgotten. How many times have carers ended up being the people who need care because of the lack of support they receive? A young person I know has come to my office on a regular basis to express serious concerns about the people he was caring for, but I have seen with my own eyes that person deteriorate over the last 12 months or so as a result of the lack of support that he has received. The Bill introduces a wonderful innovation, which we should all appreciate.

I have already mentioned the principle of integration. We have the framework: the health and wellbeing boards are still in their early days, but this way of bringing together the different parts of social care, public health and the national health service is so important. The links between health and social care are crucial. I cited a case in the Westminster Hall debate of a man in his 50s who had an accident at work when reversing his vehicle. He had no seatbelt on, as he was just backing into the car park, yet he became tetraplegic. He was in Pinderfields hospital for five months. He received superb support and everyday attention, but when he went home in the ambulance, he could not get into the house because there was no ramp. He had to go away again. Then the local authority provided the money for a ramp and the hospital brought him back again, but he could not get in because it was a wooden ramp and they did not dare take him on it because that would have broken it. That is madness in this day and age, and it needs to be dealt with.

On the cap on lifetime payments, we do of course need to discuss in detail what it should be and how it should be operated, but please let us not talk it down, because an incredibly important new public policy is being put forward here, which we should applaud.

Let us try to forget what happened earlier. It was unpleasant to see and I do not think it truly represents the true passion and commitment of people on both sides of the House to improving social care for the people of this country.

19:07

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

For reasons that might become clear later, I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward). Before the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) drifts away, let me say that his contribution helped to address some of the issues of transition, which can sometimes get lost in this debate.

We should recognise that this issue is not unique to the United Kingdom; it is a challenge that many countries face, and the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) recognised that, even within the United Kingdom, the devolved Administrations are looking at how to develop their own social care policies in the context of their own nations.

I want to recognise, as some of my hon. Friends have done, that the Bill makes some progress, but I also want to assert our right to highlight the areas where we think it is failing. That is the justification for the reasoned amendment. We could get bogged down in parliamentary procedure here, but I think it is the right of the Opposition to highlight major issues that we think should have been addressed without undermining our support for the principle of the Bill. I hope that those who think that we are being churlish will think again. It is the right route for an Opposition. Talking about being churlish, let me put it on the record that I have rarely heard an opening statement from a Secretary of State, moving the Second Reading of one of his flagship Bills, that was so churlish, so partisan and, frankly, so disagreeable.

For understandable reasons, the debate on social care often focuses on older people, yet as we have heard—from the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) as well as from the hon. Member for Bradford East—a third of those who receive social care are actually working age disabled people. We sometimes overlook their needs, rights and aspirations within the wider debate. Too often “social care” and “elderly” go together, and we need to get ourselves out of that mindset, because although they look the same, I think we would all agree that a younger person’s need for support can be quite different from the support needs of those who are older. The emphasis on older people means that the terms of the debate are often not as relevant as they might be to younger people who require social care. They often want to combine that social care with a life that includes work, education and so forth, and they potentially have a different pace and pattern of life from that of older people.

It was to highlight these issues that the all-party groups on local government and on disability launched a joint inquiry to investigate how social care policy, funding and practice can better meet the needs of disabled adults. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) as chair of the all-party group on local government, and Baroness Campbell of Surbiton and myself as joint chairs of the all-party group on disability, were delighted when 10 parliamentarians of all parties from both Houses agreed to undertake an independent inquiry. The hon. Member for Bradford East was involved in that.

That report was lodged earlier this year and I trust that the Minister and my own Front-Bench colleagues have had the opportunity to consider its recommendations. What came out from all the evidence from disabled people, organisations and professionals was that the current system is not delivering on basic things such as washing, dressing and getting out of the house for many younger disabled people. If social care is to mean anything to the lives of the disabled working adult, it should be underpinned by a real recognition of the importance of an independent life. So the criteria of what is important should also include how the care dovetails into other important elements of daily life such as participation in work or education.

I acknowledge that in clause 1 the Government have recognised that promoting individual well-being is not just about care. They also recognise that it is about

“participation in work, education, training or recreation”

and

“social and economic well-being”

and

“domestic, family and personal relationships”.

However, those ambitions will not be realised unless the issue of eligibility is properly recognised and the substantial anticipated savings highlighted in clause 2 creating a preventive care system will not happen either. I fear that the national eligibility threshold in the Bill is currently set too high. In Committee in the other place, that was recognised by peers from all parties and none. It will shut out 105,000 disabled people from social care and prevent them from living independent lives with dignity.

Councils are now moving at a rate of knots towards providing social care only to those with critical or substantial needs. We cannot divorce what is happening in social care from some of the other changes the Government are introducing. We are moving towards substantial care in terms of social needs and we are withdrawing disability living allowance from people with less complex needs. We are perhaps moving to a situation where those with severe and complex needs will be taken care of and supported while those with fewer needs will not be, so there will be a double-whammy in terms of social care and the DLA transfer.

I recognise that the Government have transferred some £2 billion from the NHS into social care and into making the transition easier, but this cannot be seen outwith the context of a 33% cut in local councils’ budgets by 2014 and the chronic long-term underfunding of the social care system. Over the past three years, £2.68 billion has been cut from adult social care budgets, which is 20% of net spending, but the number of working-age disabled people needing care is projected to rise by 9.2% and the number of older people needing care will rise by 21% between 2010 and 2020.

[Sheila Gilmore]

On my right hon. Friend’s list of changes affecting people needing care, does she agree there is also the issue of the independent living fund which has helped working-age people? The Government have lost a court case in respect of their failure to consult properly on that. Does my hon. Friend agree that that should be looked at carefully?

[Mrs McGuire]

I agree with my hon. Friend and I raised that with the Minister in a Westminster Hall debate. The Care Bill does not address the role that the Department for Work and Pensions plays in supporting social care through the benefit system and the independent living fund is a classic example of that. At present, people who can pay for social care through access to the ILF do not know quite what is happening, because the Minister—as I think he said last week at the all-party group—is still considering his options.

I want to echo a comment by the hon. Member for Bradford East—I can assure him that he will not get so many mentions in any of my speeches again. He pointed to something that I think is often missed, which is that the debate often crystallises around the spend, which is not seen as an investment. I acknowledge the work done by Scope, and carried out by Deloitte, highlighting that for every £1 invested in care for disabled people with moderate needs a saving of £1.30 is generated. The figures are pretty staggering. There would be a £700 million saving to central Government through an increase in tax revenue and a reduction in welfare spending. This Government always tell us that they want to reduce welfare spending; well, there are opportunities to do so without doing some of the things that they are doing. There would be a £570 million saving to the NHS and local government, and £480 million would be saved by local government by avoiding the need for disabled people to enter expensive residential and crisis care.

The Minister knows that there is considerable political and organisational support for a lower eligibility threshold. The draft Care and Support Bill pre-legislative scrutiny Committee recommended that, when setting the national eligibility threshold, the Secretary of State should have regard to the duty of local authorities to promote individual well-being. The report of the joint inquiry I have mentioned also highlighted the issue of eligibility.

We in this House often talk as though we are somehow divorced from the beneficiaries of the legislation we pass, but I say to Members that we are talking about ourselves here. Any one of us could walk out of this Chamber tonight and be in need of social care tomorrow. If we want a good social care system, we should ask ourselves this question: what would we want for ourselves if we had a stroke or a car accident or fell down those marvellous marble stairs outside and cracked our head? That is the criteria that we should be using. This Bill makes small progress, but there is a lot more to be done.

19:18

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

For my constituents this Care Bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation we have seen in my time in Parliament. That is because the west country attracts a lot of people wanting to retire to our very beautiful countryside. In Newton Abbot, 23% of residents are over the age of 65, compared with the national average of 16.5%. Social care is therefore a very important issue for us.

I congratulate the Government on what they have done, because they have introduced an holistic framework that sets the scene for ongoing legislation to flesh out that framework. They have listened to Dilnot and to Francis and that is very much to their credit.

Integration of health and social care has been the watchword on everybody’s lips. All Members will have come across examples in their surgery case loads of where that does not work, and I am very pleased to see the integration—the balancing provision—that we already have in the Health and Social Care Act 2012 now reflected in this Bill.

On the adult safeguarding framework, I say well done! This is crucial. This is the first time we will have had anything like this for vulnerable adults. In my constituency, I am regularly addressed by carers who are frustrated not only by the challenges of those they care for but by the lack of support they receive. The Bill will provide the answer in the form of care plans and proper assessments. It is not often that individuals come to me who have fallen into the gap between the care plan for a child and the plan for an adult, but it does happen, and I am pleased to see that the Bill will mean that that will change.

One of the big challenges is dealing with the cost of care, and it is to the Government’s credit that they have started to look at that difficult question. How much is it right for the taxpayer to pay, and how much for the individual? This is a good Bill, but there are many things that I am sure all of us would like to see added, improved, amended or clarified. For me, one of the challenges is the role of the local authority in its commissioning and provision of care services. It seems bizarre that it should do both, because that must surely give rise to a conflict of interest. How can it commission and provide? The conflict was recognised in the NHS, and a split was introduced. It is now time to introduce such a split in this regard as well. Now that local authorities will have a key oversight role, it would be madness not to review that situation.

An important change involves the concept of true integration, and the challenge will be to identify the stakeholders who should be included in that integration. Clearly, it must involve the NHS, the local authorities and housing, but one area in which there is often no acceptance of stakeholder responsibility is that of transport. Transport to get people between care homes and hospital appointments has almost reached crisis point in my constituency, and there is huge reliance on the voluntary sector to fill the gap. There is clearly some provision for the NHS to provide that transport, but the rules are so broad that, when times are tough, transport provision becomes limited.

So who provides the transport? The volunteers in my constituency are brilliant, but they can afford only so many vehicles that are equipped to take wheelchairs, and there are only so many drivers. That issue needs to be properly addressed. In the guidance on integration that is to be given to local authorities, the NHS and other stakeholders, we must look seriously at the transport question and ensure that appropriate responsibility is taken for it and that it is properly funded. We cannot assume that the voluntary sector will continue to fill the gaps.

The assessment will form a critical piece of the jigsaw, and the Government are to be commended for trying to clarify the process, to avoid confusion and to get agreement on this. I understand their need to limit mandatory provision by a local authority to those in substantial need and above, but I fear that there could be confusion over the interpretation of the word “substantial”, and I would welcome clarification on that from the Government, in guidance or elsewhere.

Having looked at the definition of substantial need, we then need to consider who is to be involved in agreeing the care package. This is about the process of assessment, and it will be crucial for all the stakeholders to be involved. I have seen diverse levels of application in my local authorities. In some, this is very much a matter for the local authority, and it can sometimes almost seem as though a care package is being imposed on an individual. In other authorities, however, the individual, the carer, the family and the care home are all involved to ensure that the package is understood, agreed, accepted and fit for purpose. It would be extremely valuable if guidance could ensure that that always happened, when the Bill becomes law.

Having assessed the individual’s need, we need to ensure that the quality of the provision is fit to meet that need. I welcome the introduction of the new, almost Ofsted-like categorisation of quality, which will give us a real insight into what is on offer, and what “good” and “average” look like. That in turn will give rise to further questions. Once we know what they look like, we shall have to answer a much more difficult question: to what level should the taxpayer pay, after which there should be a personal top-up? That issue can be addressed only when we have some experience of those categorisations.

If there are to be different levels, the option of a top-up has to be real and available. It clearly exists, but I have seen a reluctance to make it happen in practice in some local authorities. In some ways, that is understandable. The contract is with the local authority and the care home, and not with the relatives or, more usually, the individual picking up the extra cost. The local authority will be concerned that, should there be a problem of affordability for the caring relatives, it would be left to pick up the bill. The top-up therefore needs to be reviewed. If it is to be available, it must be meaningful, and that might involve looking at whether relatives can be part of the contractual arrangement.

In the longer term, following the successful passage of the Bill, there is a lot more that could be done. The Bill will undoubtedly put in place the framework, and we can then begin to look in more detail at the strategies needed for those living in their own homes with support. Historically, we have asked what we should be doing for those in residential care or in hospitals, but once we have the framework, we will have the opportunity to look at a much more concrete strategy. That is something I would very much like to see.

Given the financial circumstances in this country at the moment, we can afford to support only those with substantial needs as a minimum requirement, but the Bill makes provision for local authorities to offer advice as well as providing services, and we should perhaps give more support to those who have only moderate needs. Their needs could be better explored, and they could be better championed and provided for.

The final word needs to be that change is not just about legislation. This is also about a culture change. That will always be a challenge, and it is incumbent on all of us in the House, whatever happens to the Bill, to follow it up and ensure that it becomes something meaningful in practice that will benefit all our residents, who very much deserve it.

19:19

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), who made a measured, thoughtful speech. It is sad that the Secretary of State did not strike the same tone at the beginning of the debate. I want to speak briefly about the proposals for the funding of elderly care and express my deep concerns about the Government’s proposed changes to the trust special administration process.

I have spoken before in this place about the care crisis in this country, not least because of my own family’s direct experience. When my nan had to move out of her home seven years ago, my family had no idea what was about to happen to the very modest assets she had built up over her lifetime. My nan was not an extravagant woman. She never once went abroad. She simply worked hard and brought up her family. When vascular dementia took hold of her mind and her body, she could no longer stay in the semi-detached house in Swindon she had bought with my grandfather. She had to sell it. She moved to sheltered accommodation but, after a few years, she deteriorated rapidly and soon had to move to a nursing home. Before she died, she spent £130,000 on care in that home over three to four years, using up all but £23,000 of her lifetime assets. If she had known that, it would have broken her heart. She would not have thought it fair that everything she and my grandfather had worked for could not in any meaningful way be passed down to her children. My family are neither rich nor poor; we are like families up and down the country for whom the hand of fate intervened resulting in catastrophic care costs for their loved ones.

The Bill’s proposals to cap those costs and to raise the amount of money that an individual’s family can keep after paying for care should be welcomed, but we should welcome them cautiously. The cap does not cover all care costs, and the complexity of the process of valuing people’s assets and calculating their personal contribution means that many people will still end up paying very significant sums. Presenting the proposals as the answer to the country’s care crisis is disingenuous and risks spreading even more confusion about what support from the state families can expect.

If individuals are to pay less, the state will pick up more of the tab, and the financial front line in that respect will be local authorities. They are already buckling under the strain of providing social care. London Councils, the body representing the capital’s local authorities, estimates that the costs of resetting the means-test threshold, added to the rising demand for care, will see social services departments facing a shortfall of more than £1 billion in the years between 2016 and 2020. The money set aside by the Government to deal with that is inadequate. Be it this Government or the next one, we have to wake up to the scale of the financial challenge and answer the tough questions about where the money is going to come from.

I could speak for much longer about the care proposals in the Bill, many of which I welcome, but I now wish to address part 3, chapter 4, which extends the powers of special administrators appointed to failing hospital trusts. The changes are only a small part of the Bill, but they have serious implications for hospitals and the health service across the country. The introduction of even more draconian powers for special administrators will hamper the public’s ability to have their say on key hospital services and could lead to a chaotic and rushed system of hospital reorganisations that will not be in the best interests of patients or our democracy.

[Grahame M. Morris]

My hon. Friend is making important points about clause 118, which has become known as the “Lewisham clause”. Given the recent experiences of the length of time the trust special administrator has to consult the general population, does she think that 100 days is long enough?

[Heidi Alexander]

In my experience, it is wholly inadequate. The consultation period is being slightly extended through this Bill, but I still do not believe it can lead to a genuine, open and honest debate between the people trying to lead change and the public, who have a right to make their voice and views heard.

I wish to discuss our experience in south-east London of the first ever use of the trust special administrator regime when the South London Healthcare NHS Trust was placed into administration last year. It is important for the House to understand that this process is totally different from any other hospital reconfiguration. It is a very fast process—roughly six months from start to finish—led by an administrator who is brought in from outside the organisation primarily to balance the books. The administrator is appointed to a specific failing trust, but what happened in our corner of London was that the administrator determined that in order to sort out the financial problems of the failing trust he needed to look beyond its confines, and that is where Lewisham hospital came in: a separate, successful, neighbouring hospital was told that its full accident and emergency department, its maternity service and its excellent paediatric department would have to go to solve the financial problems elsewhere.

The people of Lewisham did not think that that was very fair. The case was fought in the courts and the Secretary of State was told, not once, but twice, that he was acting unlawfully—hence clause 118; he fought the law and lost, so he is now trying to change it. He wants administrators to be able to specify and force through massive service changes at hospitals that are not part of the trust to which an administrator has been appointed. In effect, he wants to do elsewhere what the courts told him he could not do in Lewisham. When the trust special administrator regime was first legislated for, guidance was issued by the Department of Health stating that the process should not be used as a “backdoor approach” to reconfiguration. That is precisely how it was used in Lewisham, and had the law not been on our side, our full A and E and maternity service would now be closing, and half our hospital would be up for sale.

The TSA process is a brutal and rushed one. It starts with the need to save money, with questionable clinician input. When the starting point is the accountant’s bottom line, the public are understandably sceptical about whether the medical and clinical input has just been shaped to suit the desired financial end point. The speed at which the process takes place leads to shoddy and haphazard work. The administrator in south London recommended to the Secretary of State that he make decisions about Lewisham hospital based on an understanding that the whole process would cost £266 million and would take three years to implement. After the Secretary of State took his decision, it emerged, from the office of the trust special administrator, that it would cost twice that and take twice as long. The quality of the condensed public consultation was atrocious: people were struggling to find copies of the consultation document in local libraries; we had an online response form that did not even contain a direct question about Lewisham’s A and E; and hundreds of people had to stand outside packed public consultation meetings because they could not get in. That is not the way to deal with a subject that understandably arouses such passions in people. People care so much about the health service because it is often where they experience the worst and best moments of their life. They want to have their say in how their services are organised, and giving even more draconian powers to special administrators erodes their ability to do that.

I understand that hospital services have to evolve—some services will have to close or be relocated—but to get public support for change, we have to get the process right for persuading people of the case for change. An augmented special administrator process, acting as a steamroller for the closure of hospital services, makes it less likely that those arguments are won, not more. These changes are at complete odds with the Conservative party’s manifesto commitment to

“stop the forced closure of A&E and maternity wards”.

The changes take power from the very doctors the Government say they are giving power to and could destroy trust in those who are central to leading the case for change and improvement in our NHS. For that reason, as well as others, I will be voting for the Opposition amendment, and it is why I believe that clause 118 should be deleted from this Bill as it progresses through Parliament.

19:38

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

When I say that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), that is not a mere formality; it really is a pleasure, and it was fascinating to hear the family experience of her late grandmother in Swindon. As the Member of Parliament for some other members of her family, I was particularly interested in, and concerned to hear, that story. Clearly there is a measure of consensus about the progress that the Bill allows us to make. Although I understand and appreciate her concerns about the process that was successfully challenged in the courts in relation to her local hospital, and the detail in respect of clause 118, I do not think, with respect to her and to the Opposition, that that is sufficient for the reasoned amendment to pass tonight. I say that because I think of the thousands of families like hers who, over the years, have had to wait for change and for politicians to come up with a decision. We have procrastinated and prevaricated, and had review after review, so surely time is now up and decisions have to be made. That is why this Bill comes not a moment too soon.

I want to address an aspect of the Bill that has been dealt with by other Members: the care of adults with learning difficulties, and especially with autism. I speak in my capacity as chair of the all-party group on autism. I also declare an interest as the parent of a child who one day might fit some of the criteria of the Bill and as the parent of a young carer. I say with enthusiasm that I welcome those provisions in the Bill that relate to the assessment of young carers. They were very much part of a cross-party campaign with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) and the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) were involved. A necessary change was made to allow young carers’ rights and needs to be assessed as well. Let us not forget that while this Bill makes its way through this House, the Children and Families Bill is making its way through the other place. We must ensure that both Bills dovetail in a way that is truly effective. In particular, I am thinking of the provisions of the Children and Families Bill that extend the education, health and social care plans to those young people between the ages of 18 and 25. We must ensure that the social care aspects of this Bill dovetail properly with the needs of those young people, because this Bill affects adults from the age of 18 and onwards.

This is a hugely important Bill, and I want to address it in the context of the Autism Act 2009. That groundbreaking legislation was passed in this House with all-party support and following the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan). I pay tribute to all Members, and former Members, who played their part in that legislation. As a result of it, an adult autism strategy was passed in 2010, which committed both national and local government and the NHS to improve the lives of adults with autism.

However, here we are in 2013, and there is still some way to go to meet the aims of that legislation. The strategy is currently under review. Ahead of that review, the National Autistic Society launched its “push for action” campaign, which identified some of the most important barriers to implementation and outlined the key challenges that adults with autism continue to face. Some of those challenges can be met by this Bill.

I am particularly pleased with clause 2, which places new duties on local authorities to prevent the needs for care and support from developing in the first place. Change in that area for adults with autism has been slow and patchy. A third of adults with autism who responded to a survey by the National Autistic Society said that they developed serious mental health problems because of a lack of services. Support at a low level can allow people with autism to become more independent, work, socialise and take part in their communities. At the same time, it can prevent an escalation of care needs.

Back in 2009, the National Audit Office found that providing such low-level services is cost-effective and helps people to avoid the use of in-patient mental health care, which costs between £200 and £300 a day. The NAO said that if just 4% of adults with Asperger’s syndrome or high-functioning autism are identified and supported, that would become cost-neutral over time.

I am glad that the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), who is no longer in her place, referred to the Deloitte economic model, which quite clearly shows that for every pound spent to support people with autism and other disabilities, there is an average return of £1.30 for central Government, local government and disabled people and their families. Clear duties that prevent mental ill health are essential if we are to make the aims of the adult autism strategy a reality and to save money. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government ensured that local authorities’ understanding of prevention is wide ranging and includes the very types of low-level support that can make this prevention aspiration a reality.

Let me turn now to the existing duties of local government and the NHS. I welcome the Bill’s intention to bring together in one place statutory guidance on care and support. However, the statutory guidance that was published as a result of the Autism Act is slightly different. As opposed to the Care Bill, the 2009 Act also places important duties on the NHS. I want to ensure that those duties on the NHS are not unintentionally omitted from this Bill.

There is still much progress to be made with regard to the duty to develop a diagnostic pathway for adults with autism. I am happy to say that in Swindon the local social enterprise SEQOL has already done that, and has developed an important diagnostic pathway, which is also followed up by meetings with and assessments by clinicians. That has resulted in adults as old as 50 and above being diagnosed with autism or Asperger’s for the first time. The issue of what happens next will be key if we are to make this Bill, and the good intentions behind it, work for people with autism.

A common problem reported by families of people with autism is that far too often the person carrying out the care assessment does not sufficiently understand the condition or how to communicate effectively with someone on the spectrum. I am therefore encouraged by the recent amendment to the Bill to enable regulations that will specify where community care assessments should be carried out by assessors with specific expertise. Assessments for adults with autism must be covered by those regulations, because that will reinforce the obligation already placed on local authorities by the Autism Act and the statutory guidance to train those who carry out community care assessments. The NAS found that, at the moment, only just over half of local authorities have specialised training available for their staff, so, quite clearly, more work needs to be done to deal with that.

The right to advocacy is essential to enable people who find it hard to communicate to exercise their rights. I pay tribute to the work of the Swindon advocacy movement, which, as a result of its efforts and funding from the local authority, is now extending advocacy to adults with autism and Asperger’s, who have never had that support before. What often makes us parents lie awake at night is the question of who will speak for our children when we are gone. Who will be there to carry out that advocacy? This service is essential to provide peace of mind to parents and carers of sons and daughters with autism who will outlive them. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) mentioned the definition in clause 68 of “substantial difficulty”. This debate on Second Reading is about the principle of the Bill. I am sure that we will be able to iron our further details when the Bill goes to Committee. None the less, I commend it to the House as an overdue attempt to address the concerns of real people in our communities, and to help people with disabilities, including autism, lead fulfilling lives.

19:48

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) speaks with great passion and knowledge in support of children with autism. He made an incredibly important point when he asked who cares for vulnerable children once the parents have gone. Indeed, who cares for all those we care for once we are gone? That is a powerful and important point.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this debate is about the principle of the Bill. He talked about the need for action, which is why the Bill is welcome. We have an opportunity to improve services for many people, but Labour Members feel that the Bill should be more ambitious, which is why the reasoned amendment is so important, and it is what the reasoned amendment is saying. I also agree with him about the need to integrate what happens under the Children and Families Bill with what happens under this Bill. The crossover he mentioned between children’s service and adult services as children grow up is important. The Children and Families Bill and this Bill create significant new responsibilities for the NHS and local government, and the big question for the Government is about where the resources will come from to deliver them. I was a local councillor for more than 15 years under both previous Governments and it was a familiar story for local councils to be given new responsibilities without necessarily always being given the resources to deliver them. That is an important point about this crucial Bill.

The hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) mentioned the need for free social care at the end of life. That was an important point, but at what stage should social care be free? What do we mean by end of life? What criteria should we set? How much earlier than the end of a life should that care come? How do we fund free social care and how do we fund social care at all? That is one of the big concerns and that is why the reasoned amendment mentions our concerns about where the cap has been set.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) mentioned the concern that the needs of disabled people may have been overlooked. The London School of Economics cites the fact that 97,000 fewer disabled people have been in receipt of social care since 2008—the figure for older people is 250,000. The LSE cites £2.8 billion as the figure required for councils to set eligibility at moderate, in the context of an overall budget spend for health and social care of £120 billion. The fact that it would take £2.8 billion to set the criteria at moderate speaks volumes about what could be done if we got this right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) mentioned her family and I am going to talk about my family now. My dad cares for my mum. Let me describe my mum’s experience this year, because it is the experience of many older people and their families. In the early part of the year, she was being cared for by my dad and she gradually declined until she was rushed into hospital. I think it happened because no health professionals or social care professionals were keeping a close enough eye on her. She ended up in hospital where, happily, she received very good care. Her wish was met and she was able to go home, and the health service provided a hospital bed that she could use there.

Once she got home, the lack of service in the community became a problem again. There was not the rehab, the physio or the support to enable her to return to some kind of active life. Now, many months later, it is too late—that will not happen. My mum rarely gets out of bed any more. For many people, such an experience is all too familiar. It happens because of how social care and health have been allowed to operate over the years, with no proper integration and without people in the two services talking to each other. My parents receive a care package now, with carers coming in. My mum’s social care needs are met but the lack of proper support has meant that things are not as they should be. I do not think that my mum’s case is the worst, by any means, but it is indicative of where things are missing.

The Government have made a proposal and they have talked a lot about integration between health and social care. I remember looking at integrated health and social care teams many years ago as a local councillor and there was success then. There has been more success recently and there are good examples of health and social care professionals working together, but cuts to social care, in particular, mean that the money simply is not there any more.

I cited the figures earlier. In Sefton, we have seen a 40% cut in local government funding. The care managers are simply not there any more. They are not there, as Members have said, to help people in the community stay in their own homes; they are not there to help people who have gone into hospital go home again. Those situations are combining to leave a crisis in A and E—we will have that debate on Wednesday, but that is what has been allowed to develop. I am afraid that the reorganisation of the NHS during the first years of this Government, with clinical commissioning groups being created, meant that administrators and managers in the health service were concentrating on setting up new structures and not on ensuring that health services were delivered properly. These things do not happen by accident. When £3 billion is spent on reorganisation and not on patient care, that is the sort of situation we end up with. The question is what should we do. We have a proposal for a £72,000 cap on care, but my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East described the sum that her nan had to pay, which was £130,000. For many people, the £72,000 cap will be no help, and other Members have given the details that show that.

There are a number of ways of funding social care, one of which is to have a cap. However, let me return to the comments made by the hon. Member for Bradford East. If we are considering free social care at the end of life, or, as I said, a lot earlier than that, perhaps the time has come for Members to debate free social care as part of a health and social care service that is free at the point of delivery and at the point of need, like that which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has mentioned before. Perhaps the time has come to say that that is the ambition that we, as Members of Parliament, should have.

Tinkering at the edges will not solve the problem. The debate we must have—and it must be a cross-party debate—is about how to pay for such a service. As people get older, that is what will be needed. Sooner or later, we as legislators will have to deliver exactly that service. Anything short of that will not solve the problems; things will only get worse. I put it to Members from all parties that that is what is needed. We have made a start with the Bill and tonight’s debate, but we will need to move down the route of free health and social care and of whole-person care. That is the only way we can solve the challenge of an ageing population.

19:57

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), who speaks so compellingly about his family’s experiences and sets out the case for why we must get social care right.

I welcome the Bill. It was a pleasure to serve on the Joint Committee on the Draft Care and Support Bill and I think the legislation has been greatly improved by its passage through that Committee and through the House of Lords. It establishes that we need a social care system that works around the needs of individuals, as well as the well-being principle and the vital prevention principle set out so compellingly by the hon. Member for Sefton Central. The Bill also consolidates a confusing patchwork of legislation that I remember coming up against in my time in the NHS. People were not sure what their eligibility was, and they could move from one part of the country to another and find that they no longer qualified in the way that they used to.

There are many things to welcome in the Bill. The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) compellingly set out the effect of losing everything in the ghastly lottery of eligibility. Setting a cap on costs and raising the threshold from that paltry £23,250 to £100,000 is very welcome. So too is the focus on better information, advice and advocacy, and the assessment and better support for carers. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) made some important points about child carers and the transition from children’s services to adult services.

There is a huge amount to welcome in the Bill and I could talk for 10 minutes on why all these aspects are important. Unfortunately, we also need to focus on the challenges. The predominant challenge is demographic. Nationally 2.2% of the population are over 85, but in my constituency we got there 31 years ago. By 2020-21 2.9% of the population will be over 85, but for Torbay that figure will be 4.9%. That represents an enormous demographic challenge. We were discussing with the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) the reasons why age is so important in assessing need. Because of their demographics, places such as Torbay and wider south Devon face additional challenges with rurality, which means that they are under pressure like never before. Although I fully understand that we must take into account deprivation and health inequalities, unless we take sufficient account of age and need in assessing the formulae, the system will collapse.

I should point out that Torbay is not only nationally renowned but internationally renowned. As a member of the Health Committee, when we visited Copenhagen and Sweden, I ended up being shown slides of Torbay—how Torbay organises health and social care. If we look at the challenges facing Torbay, we see that it was those demographic and financial challenges that were the driver for looking at how health and social care could be better integrated and—I refer to the experience of the hon. Member for Sefton Central—how avoidable admissions could be reduced. Enormous progress has been made. Waiting times for occupational therapy have been reduced from two weeks to two days, for physiotherapy from eight weeks to 48 hours, and for urgent equipment to help keep people at home from four weeks to four hours. As a result, Torbay has the lowest hospital admission rate for elderly vulnerable people in the whole of the south-west.

[Norman Lamb]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she share with me the excitement at the plan for Torbay as a pioneer to bring mental health back into primary care, properly to integrate that part of patient care? We have seen in other places that this can do an enormous amount to prevent a deterioration of health.

[Dr Wollaston]

Absolutely. I welcome the fact that Torbay will be part of one of the integrated care pilots, and particularly that focus on mental health, as my hon. Friend says.

Services in Torbay have been transformed through the use of care co-ordinators, so that only one phone call is necessary. There has been transformational work in sharing information and records and in rapid response to a crisis and putting prevention in place. The challenge that Torbay now faces is financial. Unfortunately, the elastic can stretch only so far before it snaps. Torbay’s funding is set to fall from £71.2 million this financial year to £63.6 million in 2014-15. Those cuts are in addition to the demographic challenges, the challenging situation in relation to children’s services, and the fact that we know that across the country 2015 is set to be a crunch year for NHS funding.

I welcome the £3.8 billion transfer for better care. We heard in the draft Bill Committee and in the Select Committee how such joint funding arrangements are the best driver to integration. A formula for integration cannot be dictated. What works for central London or central Manchester will be very different from what works in south Devon and in rural areas, but the fund will force people to work better together in a way that fits their area. That is very welcome.

[Bill Esterson]

Would the hon. Lady advocate a single service, and has she any thoughts on how that would operate? I am interested to hear her views.

[Dr Wollaston]

Indeed. It operates very well already in Torbay, but it cannot be dictated centrally. We need to get the hurdles out of the way, allow people to work together locally and facilitate that. We heard on the draft Bill Committee that joint funding streams were the best way to move that forward.

Unfortunately, in Torbay in the crunch year 2015 we will see the funding drop below 90% of projected expenditure. At that point, rather than driving further integration, it will cause systems to start to fall apart because people need to protect their own silos. That is a real danger. As the Bill proceeds to Committee, I hope we look very carefully at the effect of the funding gap and make sure that we are not setting a system up to fail. One of the problems with the Bill is that it sets up many new statutory responsibilities. Councils will have to fund care accounts, which will undoubtedly be complex, bureaucratic and subject to challenge. Councils will have responsibilities for carers’ assessments. There will be increasing numbers of eligible people as the thresholds and caps change. We will see safeguarding adults boards, more rights to information and advocacy, and for many, deferred payments, if they have not already been making those.

Once we create these additional statutory responsibilities, there will be less money to go around for the very things that are at heart of the well-being and prevention principle. That is what concerns me. Would it not be a tragedy if we set up carers’ assessments but there was no funding left for services to respond to needs? Voluntary organisations in my community can function incredibly efficiently on very little money. They do not need to be fully funded, but they need some funding. If that money dries up, I worry about how we will move forward with a genuine well-being and prevention principle.

I want the Bill to succeed. In the remaining minutes I shall touch on those aspects that I think are, sadly, still missing, which were recommended by the draft Bill Committee. One is how we calculate care costs according to their actual cost, not the cost to the council. For a person living in their own accommodation, it sometimes costs a great deal more to access support than it would cost a council to provide it. We need to look at that again.

There is a small but important area relating to powers of entry in exceptional circumstances for those who are subject to abuse in their own home. It would be wrong for us to ignore that possibility. Although the overwhelming majority of carers of course do a wonderful job in challenging circumstances, there are occasions, sadly, when people can be at risk from those who love them. Very often that is as a result of the intensely challenging circumstances that carers face. We need to reserve a power of entry in exceptional circumstances where there are very serious concerns about individuals who may be vulnerable and unable to communicate easily.

Another issue is free social care at the end of life. We know that 73% of people would like to be able to die at home. In my experience working as a GP in rural areas, where that broke down for most people was as a result of a lack of social care, and the challenge of caring for somebody right at the end of their life, when they may, for example, be doubly incontinent. Until people are in that situation, they may not understand how incredibly demanding it is to have to be with someone 24 hours a day, trying to stay awake and provide the intensive support they need. Allowing everybody to access free social care in those terrible final days would be a very important step forward.

Finally, the duty of candour we have introduced for foundation trusts is welcome, but I think that it should be extended to social care.

[Norman Lamb]

It will be.

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank the Minister for that clarification. Also, an offence of wilful neglect already exists with regard to adults who lack capacity, but I would like the Minister to consider extending it with regard to those who have capacity.

We heard earlier about reconfiguration. We need to streamline reconfiguration processes. It is not right that the NHS’s valuable resources should be spent on long, drawn-out and expensive legal challenges. We know that in many cases we need to reconfigure in people’s best interests. Let us take out the party politics and get it right. Let us ensure that people have the right care and that we face the financial challenges in the NHS in a mature fashion.

20:10

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. Like several colleagues who have spoken, including the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), I served on the Joint Committee on the draft Care and Support Bill, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), and I also serve on the Health Committee, so I have a particular interest in this Bill. I had originally intended to make a more wide-ranging contribution, but I will confine my remarks to part 1, which deals with care and support.

I had hoped that the Secretary of State would conduct a hearts and minds exercise in trying to selling the Bill, so I was rather disappointed that he turned it into a political knockabout, jumping straight into the most contentious elements, and clause 118 in particular, which sets out the trust special administration arrangements.

I do not think that we can consider the Bill without giving some thought to the background. Let us not forget that over this Government’s tenure, £2.68 billion— at 20% of the net adult social care spend, that is not an inconsiderable sum of money—has been cut from council budgets. Although we were talking about the principle of well-being in relation to clause 1, which I think all Members support, in practice cuts of that level mean that fewer people are getting help with paying for their care and more people are being charged for vital services, such as help with getting washed and dressed and with eating—the basic things that most of us take for granted.

I have no doubt that councils, particularly those in the north that I am familiar with, are doing their best to save money and provide services efficiently by changing the way care is provided and, where they can, working more closely with the NHS. However, the scale of the cuts means that they are being forced dramatically to reduce services and increase charges to balance the books. All the evidence that has come to the Select Committee and the anecdotal evidence that Members receive indicates that is the case.

The Secretary of State got into a little argument in his opening statement with regard to eligibility thresholds, which is a really important point. In 2010-11, 38 councils provided free care to people with “low” or “moderate” needs, and 114 provided free care only to those whose needs were considered “substantial” or “critical.” Those needs really are substantial and critical, as we can see if we look at the definitions, which are set out in the guidance. Now, however, only 15 councils continue to provide care and support to people with “low” and “moderate” needs and 137 provide care only to those assessed as having “substantial” or “critical” needs. That means that in many areas preventive services have all put disappeared. Setting the threshold at such a high level is therefore a false economy.

According to Age UK, as a result of tightening eligibility criteria, 800,000 people in the UK have a care need but are not getting any support. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) mentioned, there is another care crisis, because a third of the total of those requiring care are working-age adults. Indeed, four in 10 working-age disabled people who receive social care say that it does not meet their basic needs, including eating, washing, dressing and getting out of the house. One in three says that cuts in social care have prevented them from working or volunteering.

Charges for vital care services, such as home help and meals on wheels, are increasing fast. In effect, that is a tax on some of the most vulnerable people in our society, people who have already been hit the hardest by benefit changes. Some Government Back Benchers talked about the need to cut the deficit. There is a need to address the economic situation, but not on the backs of the poorest and most vulnerable. To my mind, it is a question of political priorities. I am proud that my party has pledged to scrap the bedroom tax, which I think brings great shame on the coalition Government because of its impact on disabled people.

Other Members have mentioned the consequences of price variation. I do not want to repeat those arguments, but it certainly is a factor when calculating the care costs for the cap. For example, in Tower Hamlets home care is free, but in Cheshire East—I am not sure which hon. Member represents it—it costs £20 an hour. In east Durham, the area I represent, it is about £10, so there is wide variation in costs.

We cannot improve the quality of care for older and disabled people without improving the working conditions of the 1.5 million people employed in adult social care, many of whom are on low pay and lack job satisfaction. In many cases that can lead to poor care for some of the most vulnerable people in society. Care workers do an incredibly valuable and important job, yet the TUC has estimated that between 150,000 and 220,000 of them are not even paid the legal minimum wage, and over 300,000 are employed on zero-hours contracts.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem of low pay and poor conditions, which he is outlining so well, is a concern for not only the workers, but ultimately the people receiving the care, for example because of the lack of continuity of care?

[Grahame M. Morris]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That ties in with home care visits. The United Kingdom Homecare Association has indicated in a briefing that three quarters of home care visits now last 30 minutes or less and that one in 10 last only 15 minutes. There must be deterioration in care if carers are there for only 15 minutes. Care rationed in 15-minute slots is simply unacceptable, and I think that the House should reflect on what is happening. This is important because older people end up in hospital unnecessarily and stay longer than is necessary. There has been a 42% increase in delayed discharges from hospitals since figures were first collected in August 2012. Indeed, last month saw the largest number of delayed days in hospital ever recorded, and there were 78,400 such days in October alone. These delayed discharges now cost our NHS £20 million each month. That money could be used to fund about 1.5 million hours of home care for vulnerable older people and help to keep them out of hospital when they can be supported in their own homes.

Ministers claim that they want joined-up services, but through the Health and Social Care Act 2012 they legislated for fragmentation. Their integrated transformation fund contains no new money but is made up of £3.8 billion that is coming out of existing NHS and social care budgets. I accept that the Bill provides a framework and establishes important principles, and there are things that we can agree with. However, fine words are all very well, but we need immediate action such as the measure proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) to use £700 million from this year’s NHS underspend to help tackle this crisis now. We need some vision from all parties but especially from the Government parties.

I looked at some old early-day motions to see how some of these proposals were tackled in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) suggested that this should be paid for through general taxation, and I agree. In one old EDM, a number of Members from all parties agreed with that principle; I see some of them nodding now. It is not such a radical or revolutionary step.

We clearly need a wholesale change in how we deliver health and social care. We need a whole-person approach and a national care service. We need the same ethos that applied during the establishment of the NHS, which brought together disparate entities and groups into one body. We need to bring health and social care together into a single service that provides all the care an individual will need throughout their life.

The Bill has many positives, but it is fundamentally important to deal with the eligibility threshold. If it is set above “moderate”, it will do little to help working-age disabled people.

If the Minister does not mind, I would like him to clarify whether the duties of openness and transparency in the Bill will apply equally to all organisations that provide NHS services, including private contractors who provide outsourced services; he will be aware of my ten-minute rule Bill. I urge people to consider the Bill and to support Labour’s amendment.

20:22

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, not least because this Bill, particularly part 1, is being followed very closely in my constituency. I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), who spoke very well about the issues at hand. Given the high level of interest in my constituency, I recently held a listening event that was kindly supported by Age UK Sunderland and Sunderland Carers. I wanted to find out what the people who would be affected by the Government’s planned reforms thought of them. In the time available, I will give a potted account of that discussion.

Before I do so, I want to say a few words about young carers. After concerted lobbying by Members on both sides of the House, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), we now have clauses in the Children and Families Bill providing for young carers’ needs assessments and there are clauses in this Bill covering a young carer’s transition to adulthood—a very welcome step forward. I pay tribute to the Minister and to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), who are both in the Chamber today, and to the children’s Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), for listening to Members and campaigners on this very important matter. However, I would like the Bill also to include a duty on medical professionals to identify and refer young carers so that they can benefit from those needs assessments. Family doctors are by far the best placed professionals to be able to identify where a child or young person is probably providing support to their parents, and it is not unreasonable to expect them to make sure that that child or young person has their needs assessed by the local authority. I very much hope that we will see more progress on this issue as the Bill continues its passage through the House.

Turning to the main provisions of the Bill on social care, if the Minister thinks that my constituents are happy with the package we have before us at present, he is very much mistaken. People’s first question is understandably, “Will this benefit me or my family members?”, and many of them, when they look beyond the press releases at what the Bill actually says, are finding out that it does not. They know that only people who are eligible for care will be covered by the headline-grabbing £72,000 cap on care costs. Therefore, if the Government say—as looks likely—that only those with the most severe needs are deserving of help, very few will be covered by the cap at all. Even if they are covered, £72,000 will not be the maximum amount they will have to pay; they will also have to pay hotel and accommodation costs of £230 a week, as well as any difference between the rate the local authority is able to pay and the actual care costs. All in all, they could be looking at an extra £300 a week that does not count towards the cap. That means that, over five years, a pensioner would have to find an additional £78,000.

The situation may be different for the Secretary of State’s constituents, but I cannot think of many pensioners in my constituency who would be able to afford that kind of bill without selling their home. Of course, there will be a deferred payment option, but that is just a more expensive version of what 95% of councils do already and it will not be available until a pensioner has run down all their other assets. Assuming they do qualify and they defer five years of care home charges, they could end up clocking up an extra debt of £13,800 in interest, on top of the £78,000 charge and the £72,000 cap.

[Norman Lamb]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for acknowledging the change we made in the Children and Families Bill with regard to young carers. Does she welcome the fact that we are massively extending the means-tested support by increasing the threshold from £23,250 to £118,000, which means that people with assets right up to that level will get some contribution to their care costs for the first time ever?

[Mrs Hodgson]

But that is only if they and their needs are eligible. In all the cases I have looked at, no one has been able to convince me otherwise.

The average price of a home in my constituency is £150,000, so someone needing care for five years could see the entire value of their home gobbled up. Whether the home is sold before or after they die is academic, because it will still need to be sold and all but £23,000 will be called on to pay for care bills and the interest on them. The only real difference I can see between that and the current system is that people will pay interest for the privilege of deferring their home sale, and that is why the Opposition say that this is nothing more than a care con. Ministers have been keen to gloss over those facts, but they cannot con my constituents, who are wordly wise and have seen straight through all the spin.

The next thing my constituents asked me at the listening event was whether the Bill will improve the quality of care that they or their loved ones can expect to receive. The issue of quality of care quite rightly hits the headlines every now and again when particularly shameful examples of the treatment of the elderly or vulnerable are exposed. Those peaks in interest only reinforce the worries people already have about either moving into residential care or becoming dependent on strangers who come into their homes on a daily basis.

There are tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of very capable and dedicated care workers out there who do what they can in an extremely challenging job and often on terrible terms and conditions, examples of which we have heard today. The Bill does very little to tackle the problems of long hours—or even zero hours—and those of low pay, no training and low staffing ratios that can lead to demotivation and desensitisation with regard to the dignity of the people being cared for. Ultimately, that is what brings down the standard of care that everyone who needs it should have a right to expect.

On the quality of care that people receive and the impact is has on their quality of life, I received an e-mail today from my constituent, Steve Hudson, regarding clause 48, which has been inserted in the Bill thanks to my noble colleague, Lord Low of Dalston. Clause 48 extends the protection of the human rights framework to everyone receiving regulated social care, whether they are in residential care or their own home and whether they are self-funding or in receipt of local authority support. Frankly, I was surprised that that was not the case already. As the Equality and Human Rights Commission said in its briefing, closing that loophole would be extremely beneficial in ensuring that the dignity and basic human needs of every person receiving care are at the forefront of every manager and business owner’s mind. I therefore hope that if the Bill progresses tonight, the Government will not seek to remove that provision in Committee.

The final big concern that my constituents shared with me at my listening event relates to funding constraints. It is clear to everybody that cuts to local authority budgets have a knock-on effect in the NHS, with beds, clinical staff and other resources unnecessarily tied up while care packages are put in place or even just reasonable adjustments to accommodation are made. It is no coincidence that delayed discharging is at an all-time high and costing the NHS some £20 million a month at a time when many local authorities are at financial breaking point and struggling to see how they can provide even the services they are legally obliged to provide over the coming years, let alone the kind of preventive services that they provided until recently.

Of course money is tight, but because it is tight, we should use the money we have in a smarter, more innovative way, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) said so eloquently. That means pursuing the ideas put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) for a whole-person care approach and the full integration of health and social care.

My constituents do not hate this Bill—they are pleased that there is a Care Bill—but they are frustrated by its lack of ambition and disappointed that the Government have watered down and cherry-picked the Dilnot recommendations so much that very few people will actually be any better off in the long run than they would be under the current system.

The Bill is inadequate and the House should decline to give it a Second Reading today, so that the Government can go away, have one of their famous pauses and come back with a version that meets the challenges that our health and social care systems will face over the coming years. Most importantly, the Government need to come back with a Bill that lives up to the hype that Ministers have tried to generate, and which does what all our constituents want and need it to do.

20:32

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to make a contribution in this debate. I thank hon. Members who have made what I would call very passionate, compassionate, knowledgeable, personal and spirited speeches.

The Bill will affect every person in the UK in some way or another. As such, it is incumbent on us to get it right. I have been contacted by a great many bodies and constituents and I have also been in contact with the Health Minister in Northern Ireland, as it is imperative for us to take into account what has been put to us by those on the front line who are providing the services catered for in the Bill.

The vast majority of the Bill’s provisions will apply to England and Wales only, but some legislate on Northern Ireland devolved matters. As the House will know, health is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, but the Bill deals with some specific issues. One of those provisions is the abolition of the Health Research Authority as a special health authority, and its establishment as a non-departmental public body.

Another such provision relates to the enabling powers for cross-Administration care home placements. The Bill will introduce a four-way reciprocal arrangement, which will enable clients to be placed in care homes across all four UK jurisdictions. That was referred to by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) in relation to Wales. The Bill document is very clear about the arrangement between the four regions—it is good news—that will enable that to happen.

Other such provisions are the associated cross-Administration social care provider failure protections, which will extend across the whole of the United Kingdom. The Bill will introduce continuity of care protections for clients placed across the four jurisdictions in circumstances in which providers fail due to a business failure. It is important to have cross-communication between all four regions within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to ensure that there are protections for all.

As I mentioned, social care is a devolved matter, so the Executive and my Assembly colleagues have agreed two legislative consent motions. As Members will see from the Order Paper, the National Assembly for Wales has also passed two legislative consent resolutions in respect of the Bill. The principle has therefore been agreed, but the devil is in the detail, which comes in the Bill.

The Bill also covers changes to how care and support is funded, with planned reforms including the introduction of a cap on contributions to care costs and changes to the means test on capital limits. As social care is a devolved matter, those changes will apply in England only, but I always like to inform the House of what is happening in Northern Ireland. It will interest Members to know that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is taking forward a three-stage process to reform adult care and support. The first stage was a six-month consultation on the discussion document “Who Cares—The Future of Adult Care and Support in Northern Ireland”. The consultation concluded on 15 March and a report analysing the responses and summarising the comments that had been made was published on 14 August.

The Department is now taking forward the second stage, which will involve the development of proposals for reform and will be subject to a full public consultation in due course. The proposals will include changes to both the type of support that will be available and how services are funded, including how people pay for residential care, which is an important issue in Northern Ireland and the whole United Kingdom.

The third stage will be the development of a final strategic document setting out the agreed future direction on the funding of adult care and support, along with the reforms required. It is likely that legislative change will be required thereafter, so the whole process will take some time to complete. However, I believe it is key to ensuring that Northern Ireland has a care and support system that is sustainable and fit for purpose for many years to come.

I ask the Minister what discussions have taken place with the devolved regions to ensure that we have a system that provides the same level of care across the board, not simply a postcode lottery. Perhaps he will clarify how he intends to ensure that the NHS will continue to be a national health service, not simply a regional health service, and that we have similar levels of care across the whole UK.

I wish to highlight an issue that Marie Curie Cancer Care has brought to my attention. At present, terminally ill people and their families can wait weeks to get social care while local authorities test their means and their level of need. That could be rectified through a duty on local authorities to process applications for local authority-funded care swiftly. We need to add a bit of zip and eagerness to the process to ensure that care can be delivered, particularly for those with cancer. Last week a meeting took place in the Methodist hall across the way, at which a shadow Minister spoke. The Conservative party also had a representative there. Everyone outlined the need for help for those with cancer, and that is one issue that really needs to be addressed. There were people from across England and Wales in that room who had specific needs because of cancer.

The situation for terminally ill people and their families is difficult, and NHS continuing health care is supposed to address it. However, local variations and the way in which CHC funding is allocated mean that few terminally ill people gain access to care through CHC, even though it is available. In this age, how can that be? In Northern Ireland, the Assembly has put in place a commissioner for older people and tasked her specifically with looking after the concerns and needs of the elderly population and highlighting their issues. I took the opportunity to bring the commissioner down to a public meeting in my constituency to give people the chance to express their concerns about residential homes, their money, their benefits and their social and health care.

Social care is vital to terminally ill people and their families. A study by the Nuffield Trust showed that terminally ill people who had access to local authority-funded social care were far less likely to use hospital care. Currently, more than 50% of people in the UK die in hospital, despite only 2% saying that that would be their preference. The National Audit Office estimated that 40% of people who die in hospital have no clinical need to be there, and that is thought to be a conservative estimate. If those people were moved to a community setting, supported by social care, they would receive the care they wanted, and it would free up hospital resources for people who need curative interventions. Will the Minister tell the House what progress has been made on securing fast-track access to social care for terminally ill people? Those are vital issues for the people we represent.

Although the new amendments seek to address such issues, I have been informed that concerns remain because the clause does not require local authorities to provide fast-track care for terminally ill people. If local authorities have the option to fast-track social care for terminally ill people and their families, but no incentives to do so, that could lead to a high degree of variation across the country in the availability of social care. Again, that goes back to my earlier point about whether we have a national health service or a regional health service. It is important that the service is the same across the United Kingdom, so that what people get in Scotland is the same as they get in Wales, Northern Ireland or England. I believe we should have such services everywhere, and they should not be different for anybody, no matter what their strata in life.

One major issue is the cap on care provision. Although I welcome the steps taken to alleviate financial pressure on individuals, they do not go far enough. I am joined in that belief not only by most Members of this House, but by the Royal College of Nursing, which stated,

“at £75,000 we are concerned about how many people this will positively affect. The RCN believes that too many may be left unaffected and still face agonising decisions over how to pay their care bills.”

One issue that has come to my office on a regular basis over the years is that of families and those of a certain age who are considering how they will pay for their health care over the next period. Many Members have made passionate speeches today, and it was a pleasure to have been in the House to hear them. They were also very personal speeches, and people spoke of their own relatives who have had to deal with this issue. The RCN continued:

“The RCN calls upon the Government to reflect on its decision around the figure set as the cap and to revise it to one closer to that advocated by the Dilnot Commission of between £25,000 and £50,000.”

I support that as, I believe, do other hon. Members.

Time has beaten me and I am unable to speak about the other issues that have been raised. If the Minister hears only one point from my contribution, let me be clear that we need a national health service rather than a regional health service, with the same level of care and service. That service must be affordable without people having to sell all they own to pay for their health and well-being.

20:42

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow so many passionate and marvellous speeches, and I hope that my speech does them justice.

Prior to joining this House I was involved professionally and personally in the adult social care arena. Throughout that involvement I met some amazing, dedicated and brave people, many of whom were being denied the full service they deserved, and working in a system that hindered their ability to deliver fully what they knew their clients needed.

There is nothing worse than having to tell a person who is already struggling with daily life because of their condition or that of a family member that, due to funding cuts, they will get a reduced service or get no service at all anymore from their local authority. My local authority, like many others, has been restricted to offering care only to those who meet the critical and substantial criteria of fair access to care. In reality, that means that an elderly or disabled person who was struggling with laundry and housework, or who was given support with daily living or to access services or employment, may no longer receive that vital support.

The Bill is a missed opportunity to make such scenarios a thing of the past because it does nothing to address the funding crisis in adult social care. That funding crisis has led to the collapse in support for those most in need, leaving many people without access to essential services. It is not only the Labour party that has raised concerns about the absence of any funding plans in the Bill; Age UK, the Local Government Association, the Care and Support Alliance, Carers UK and the Royal National Institute of Blind People share the same concerns. According to a report published today by the Personal Social Services Research Unit,

“the scale of reductions in spending and provision…are almost certainly without precedent in the history of adult social care.”

I know from consultations I have led that people in my constituency want to remain in their homes and receive care at home for as long as they can, but those people often end up suffering from chronic loneliness and isolation, receiving, perhaps, a 15-minute visit perhaps twice a day. We need to think urgently about how we can prevent people who remain in their homes from becoming socially isolated. Although loneliness may not be seen as an illness as such, anyone who speaks to people who have suffered day after day, alone in their homes, will hear that that is what hurts them the most: the loneliness. Age UK describes loneliness as the “hidden killer”. It is therefore disappointing that the Bill removes the Care Quality Commission’s existing duty to inspect and assess the way in which councils commission adult social care services. That could have been one of the few safeguards against the proliferation of 15-minute visits.

Labour recognises that improving care standards for service users means improving things for care workers themselves, and that is why we have launched a review of exploitation in the social care sector. I welcome the review, because my husband works in the care sector. He is currently on a zero-hours contract, with irregular hours and at the mercy of his employers, and is constrained by the limited time that he can offer his clients. My husband did not seek employment in the care sector to swell the coffers of those who make money from care for the vulnerable in our society; he did it because he wanted to make people happy and comfortable in their homes. My husband and I know that the benefit of improving the standards of care at home, and enabling more people to receive care at home, is that we will see fewer people in hospital and fewer residential care admissions, which are both stressful and incredibly costly.

The local authority covering my constituency is the seventh hardest hit in the country. Its central funding has been cut by an average of £262 per person. We have higher-than-average proportions of people aged over 65, over 75 and over 85. We also have more than 1,000 people with dementia, and a higher than average number of people suffering from long-term conditions. Between 2011 and 2012, a higher than average number of people were subject to completely new social care assessments. Our rate of permanent admissions for people to residential care is 71% higher than the national average, and we currently have just under 6,000 adult social care clients receiving a service.

The year 2020 is often described as “year zero” for council budgets. Only core front-line services are expected to be delivered, and they are expected to be delivered at a reduced level. If preventive services continue to be cut and if there continues to be an impact on early pathways to care, people will be eligible for care only when they have deteriorated to the point at which their need is urgent and their care needs are significantly more costly.

Given the situation in my constituency, it is no surprise that the fear expressed repeatedly by people in South Shields is that they will not be able to afford their care in later life. For my constituents, the measure of the Bill’s success will be whether it forces them to sell their homes to pay for care in their old age. It seems that it will fall well short, because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) pointed out at the beginning of the debate, people will still have to sell their homes.

The Dilnot commission proposed a £35,000 cap on care costs; the Government have set the cap at £72,000. The commission proposed a universal scheme for loans to help to cover care home fees; the Government have means-tested it. That means that it will take the average person nearly five years to hit the Government’s cap. It is estimated that six out of seven people will die before receiving any help from their local councils. My constituents deserve to know the truth so that they can plan for their futures, and it is a shame that the Government are not prepared to share it with them.

The fact that money is scarce does not mean that we should withdraw from our responsibility to care for the elderly and the disabled. Our response should be to rethink radically the way in which we deliver those services. We do not need to dismantle what is already in place; we simply need to think about how the services can work better together, and how we can meet the needs of people now and the needs of future generations. More crucially, however, we need to set out plans to fund this adequately. We know that the Government have legislated for fragmentation and that health funding in areas such as mine is being stripped back. We also know that if the Government wanted immediately to address the funding crisis in our social care system, they could implement Labour’s plan to use £700 million from this year’s NHS underspend. Will they do this and do right by the people who need the services the most?

I support elements of the Bill, but I am not sure how, without explaining how our future adult social care will be properly funded, any of these proposals can become a sustainable reality. I make a plea today, not just on behalf of my constituents, but in memory of all the people I have worked with—my deceased grandmother, uncle and elderly neighbour, all of whom I helped care for, and all the strong and amazing people let down by a system that can no longer support them. I hope the Minister is listening and that he will support our amendment.

20:50

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Health and social care are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so I rarely contribute to debates on those issues in the House, but one aspect of the Bill is very relevant to my constituents—the portability of care packages between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

My argument is best explained by reference to the case of my constituent, Neil Kenny, who raised his concerns about the lack of portability of care packages back in 2010, when I was first elected. Mr Kenny suffered a broken neck while serving in the Army. He is paralysed from the chest down and uses a wheelchair. Although he is originally from Edinburgh, he lived in London in the early 1990s, during which time he received funding for his care package from Greenwich council. In 1996, he decided he wanted to move back to Edinburgh to receive additional support from his family, but when he informed Greenwich council of his intentions it indicated that it would be unwilling to continue to contribute to his care package and that if he wanted to move he would have to contact Edinburgh council, which he did but which also said it was unwilling to support him.

The disagreement revolved around the two councils’ conflicting interpretation of the social work group Act 1968, particularly two clauses, one relating to the “authority of the moment” and the other to “ordinary residence”. This impasse continued from 1996 to 2000. In October 2000, Mr Kenny resorted simply to moving to Edinburgh, with help from his family physically to do so, and paying for his own care, which put him into a lot of debt. Although Edinburgh eventually agreed to pay for his care, he should never have had to experience such difficulties. Disabled people should be as free as anyone else to move from one local authority to another—something that simply is not possible at present, it would appear, owing to the ambiguity of the law governing this area.

When I took up the case with the Department of Health in 2011, the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), indicated that it would be addressed in the Government’s care and support White Paper. This was published in July 2012, but although it contained a short section on portability between local authorities in England, it made no mention of transfers between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. When I raised the matter again in September 2012, I was told that a clause to facilitate cross-border placements would be put in the Care Bill.

Schedule 1 to the Bill makes provision for cross- border placements across England and the devolved Administrations, but this is limited to residential care and does not include community-based packages. As many people have eloquently said today, Government policy has long encouraged people with disabilities and health conditions to live in the community, integrated into society rather than segregated in residential accommodation, so the decision to facilitate the portability of residential packages and not community-based care packages is very disappointing. I wrote again to the Minister expressing my disappointment, and the response emphasised the differences in the care systems and the difficulties of applying rules across borders and suggested that officials were still working with the devolved Administrations to develop principles for how transferring community care packages might work in future.

Given that both the UK and Scottish Governments have known about this issue for a considerable number of years, it is deeply frustrating that it has not moved further forward. The difficulty of applying rules across borders appears to have been resolved within the Bill in respect of residential care, so it is unclear why it is impossible to do the same with community-based packages. I have been in communication with the Scottish Government as well, and they have given largely identical responses to those of the Department of Health. Clearly, both recognise the problem, but have yet to give it sufficient priority to find a resolution.

I hope that I can persuade the Government to recognise the issue fully, and they have the opportunity to do so with this Bill. I shall table an amendment either in Committee or on Report to facilitate the portability of community-based care packages. Today, however, I would be grateful if the Minister provided a more comprehensive explanation of why this has not been provided for in the Bill. That is the specific individual issue that I am particularly keen to see addressed, but let me also offer a few comments and observations from the perspective of north of the border.

In today’s debate and others I have heard during my time at Westminster, a great deal of discussion on the cost of care is about the “who pays?” element. Does the state pay? Does the individual pay? At what point do we take a decision? They are all important questions, but if we spent all our time looking at the cost of care only from that perspective, what would get forgotten is the need to put additional funding into care to make more care possible.

I can look at that from a Scottish perspective because we have been part-way down this route already, albeit only a very small part, with the introduction of free personal care in Scotland nearly 10 years ago. I emphasise that the Scottish provisions apply only to a relatively small part of personal care. After people have heard all the hype about free personal care in Scotland, they tend to assume that everything about it is free, but then discover that it clearly is not. Creating even this relatively small part of care and making it “free” meant that the financing was transferred to the Government, to the taxpayer, to all of us.

At the same time, however, not an extra penny was put into the care system at a time when, as much discussed today, demand was steadily rising. If we add to the mix the difficulties of local government in Scotland—we have had six years of council tax freeze and the reduction of councils’ overall budgets—the result is that my Scottish constituency is affected by exactly the same issues as people have raised here: rising thresholds for care, for example, which mean that only those with substantial and critical needs get any care at all.

I have seen items that can be charged for going up in price. I have seen the outsourcing of many care contracts to save councils money, but at the expense of the care workers and, indeed, the care recipients. I have seen the poorer conditions that lead to the 15-minute care times that we have heard about. We see them in Scotland, which was brought home to me very clearly when my mother-in-law was terminally ill, having been a fit person up until then. The first time the care giver came I was in the house, and I thought I would go on the computer and do a little work. The computer had only just fired itself up when the carer popped her head around the door and said, “That’s it, I’m off now”. It was barely 10 minutes. That situation is very real.

We should talk about who pays and how we divide the payment up—I am not saying that there are easy solutions—but if we do not address the question of the quantum of resource being put into care, we will continue to have these problems. I can assure everyone that this is exactly the situation in which we find ourselves in Scotland.

20:59

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

First, may I apologise to the House? I was here for the early stages of the debate and listened to the Front-Bench speakers and others, but then had to leave. Tomorrow’s announcement on aviation, and the fact that we seem to have yet another Government who want to build over a third of my constituency, means I have been at other meetings to deal with that.

I will not take up much time, but I just want to raise a couple of issues that have been raised with me by constituents, and in particular by Jonathan Kaye. I would welcome an intervention by the Minister if I have got this wrong, but Mr Kaye’s first concern is about the regulation of carers who are recruited as a result of direct payments. In my constituency, the borough has moved progressively towards direct payments, where the individual recruits carers on the open market. That is extremely difficult, but at least they have some choice. I want to be clear about whether these carers are included in the regulation system of the Care Quality Commission, as set out in the Bill. Who will inspect them, and how will their performance be monitored?

[Norman Lamb]

Personal assistants are not part of the CQC regulatory system. That has always been the case, including under the previous Government. We would certainly encourage personal assistants to seek to secure the new care certificate qualification, however, so as to demonstrate their care skills, but they are not part of the formal system.

[John McDonnell]

I think Mr Kaye would like me to press that at some stage during the Bill’s progress. His view is that they should be regulated in the same way as others, and that there should be appropriate inspections as well. I understand the difficulties, particularly in terms of family relationships with regard to carers. I understand the subtleties of that, but there does seem to be a gap in the Bill as it stands. I might want to look at that in Committee, and certainly on Report.

The second point is that I believe that in the other place Baroness Greengross or Lady Greengross—I am never sure of the titles of the bourgeoisie—moved an amendment to cover the whole range of abuse. That was partly a response to the lobbying for abuse by carers to be properly covered by this Bill. I hope the Government’s attitude is that the amendment will remain in the Bill. I am happy to give way again to the Minister if he wants to respond; perhaps he will do so later.

The third point Jonathan wanted me to raise was about assessment and reassessment. I do not know what other Members find in their constituencies, but I find that the process of assessment can be extremely difficult—first, getting an appropriate person who can do the assessment, then getting that appropriately skilled person to do the assessment, and then the bizarre continual reassessment after reassessment that amounts almost to harassment. Some people with severe disabilities —with permanent conditions who, to get a cure, would need a trip to Lourdes, to be frank—get reassessed time and again. That becomes worrying for them, and some individuals can lose some element of their benefit through this process.

[Meg Munn]

I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend is saying. In my experience there seems to be a tendency of wanting to assess people and then reassess them, rather than putting effort into providing services for them. If we quantified the time that goes into assessment as opposed to provision, I think we would see some way in which we could shift some of these very scarce resources into helping people properly.

[John McDonnell]

I was with a constituent last Friday and the issue under discussion was disabled facilities grant. Again, there seem to be more assessments and more spent on assessment than on getting the work done at times. There needs to be a clear understanding of the issue of permanent conditions and how we can make sure people do not have to go through the trauma of assessment

That brings me on to the issue that was raised by Age UK—I apologise if others have raised it before—which is about the individuals who will do the assessments and the level of their qualifications and of their specialisms. My whole community has been traumatised by what happened with the Atos assessments, and I would not want to see another process implemented in the same way under this Bill. Age UK wants us to ensure that appropriate assessments are carried out by appropriately skilled and qualified assessors.

That leads me to a further point, and I apologise if others have already raised it. Part of the issue for people who have to undertake the assessments is ensuring that they have the right advocacy support. In my area, we have DASH—the Disablement Association Hillingdon—which provides excellent support and advocacy, but it is struggling, as is every other voluntary organisation in the area, as a result of local government cuts and the demands and challenges that are placed on it. It is important that, as we introduce this legislation, we look at the role of advocacy and the importance of supporting it through appropriate funding from local government and elsewhere.

I want to talk briefly about the report from the personal social services research unit. It was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), whose superb speech set out, drawing on personal experience, exactly how many of us experience the services of carers. I am not sure whether other hon. Members have gone through this matter in depth in the debate today. If they have, please will they intervene to tell me, so that I do not need to go through it again?

The report has usefully confirmed all that we have experienced and understood anecdotally in our constituencies. Even I was shocked at some of the statistics that it contained. The report was produced by the personal social services research unit of the university of Kent and the London School of Economics, and it is an objective assessment of expenditure and of the numbers of people receiving services from local authorities between 2005-06 and 2012-13. Its findings confirm what most of us have experienced in our constituencies—namely, that there have been

“widespread reductions in the period 2005/06 to 2012/13 in both the observed and standardised estimates of number of adults receiving state-funded social care services”.

It also found:

“Across all user groups, approximately 320,000 fewer people received local authority brokered social care in 2012/13 than in 2005/06. This represents a 26% reduction in the number of recipients of care.”

If we look at the standardised assessment, we see a

“decrease of 453,000 (36%) individuals being served”.

That reflects what I am finding in my constituency. People who should be receiving a certain level of care and who would previously naturally have received it are no longer doing so. The report goes on to state:

“Reductions in the number of clients are particularly acute for older people; 260,000 or 31% fewer older people received services in 2012/13 than in 2005/06…The standardised estimate of reduction was greater: 333,000 or 39% fewer clients.”

That means nearly 40% fewer older people are receiving services now than five years ago. The report goes on:

“Approximately 37,000 or 24% fewer adults aged 18-64 with physical disabilities received social care support in 2012/13 than in 2005/06. The standard estimate showed a reduction of 50,000 or 33%. A reduction of 30,000 (21%) was observed in the number of service recipients aged 18-64 with mental health problems.”

I find that staggering but, at the same time, it reflects what is happening in our constituencies. Why is this happening? It is fairly straightforward, really. It is a result of the cuts that local government is experiencing.

Although the report covers the period between 2005-06 and 2012-13, it emphasises that the vast majority of the cuts have been made in the past two years. The coalition Government have brought forward this level of service withdrawal over a very limited period of time. According to the report,

“our analysis suggests a drop in need-standardised net social care expenditure between 2005/06 and 2012/13 of approximately £1.5 billion…Moreover, almost all reductions in expenditure are concentrated in 2010/11 and 2011/12.”

That is a cut of £1.5 billion overall. It goes on:

“The largest reduction in expenditure levels is concentrated on services for older people”.

That again reflects the anecdotal evidence that we can bring back from our constituencies. The report suggests that there has been a £1.6 billion cut in services to older people. This is not a party political point; this is independent, objective research, which we should all take on board in the debate as it goes forward.

The report continues:

“For adults 18-64 with learning disabilities”—

there has been—

“a significant increase in observed and standardised expenditure in 2012/13 relative to 2005/6 worth just above £1 billion”.

So there has been some increase in some areas but dramatic cuts in others. Worryingly, the cuts seem to be focused on older people and those with mental health problems. The interesting thing is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and others about how this is disproportionate; it is not being done right the way across the board, and the impact on areas is geographically uneven. It appears that the most deprived areas are being hit the hardest.

The report said:

“Approximately 95% of local authorities in England were observed to have reduced the number of older people receiving services in the period…Of these, the number of older people receiving services had fallen by 40% or more in approximately a third…of authorities.”

So this is focused on a limited number of local authorities, and again it appears that they are the most deprived. I find that extremely worrying.

Although we welcome the Bill as a first step, as others have said, Dilnot did make it clear to all of us that the social care crisis has to be addressed before we move on to other changes in legislation, or at least simultaneously. Introducing new legislation when the Government are introducing this scale of cuts will completely undermine the credibility of the new legislation. That is why I hope that as part of the debate as the Bill moves forward we can reach a consensus on not only the legislation—where I hope we can take on board some of the points made in the reasoned amendment—but on the level of investment required over the coming period if we are to support the most vulnerable in our society.

The study I mentioned is objective and it reflects what I am experiencing in my constituency surgery on a weekly basis—I believe it is the same for other Members of all political parties. The social care services in our areas are under intense stress and, as a result, people with even critical and substantial needs are not being addressed—those with moderate needs, which are still significant and should be within the system, are being ignored completely. We need to address this matter with some seriousness now and try to reach some all-party agreement on the way forward, not only on the Bill, but on the investment strategy for care needs.

21:12

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Like my constituents, I was relieved when the Government said they would act on the Dilnot report and cap the cost of care, and I was pleased when the Secretary of State told me in this Chamber that money spent on home care would be treated as part of that cap. But the legislation that this Government introduce never lives up to expectations, and it is deeply disappointing that the Bill will still leave people having to sell their homes and does not solve the care problem facing people every day of the week. Many thousands of people will be deciding today whether or not to put their loved ones into residential homes or whether or not to sell the family home. This is a very real, very live issue.

The lack of joined-up care is also presenting big problems for our accident and emergency departments. There has been a 66% increase in the number of people over 90 being “blue lighted” into A and E, and the number of over-65s admitted to hospital with avoidable conditions has been increasing—last year, it reached half a million. Of course, we also have a problem at the other end, as we cannot discharge people because of a lack of care in place. There has been a 42% increase in delayed discharge, and in October alone 78,400 delayed days were lost, so people who are admitted, often because of the lack of appropriate care in the first place, are not being discharged because of the lack of appropriate care to deal with them when they come out.

The Government cannot wash their hands of the problem and say that it is down to local authorities, because their drastic cuts to local authority budgets have had a drastic effect on local services. Bolton has had to find £100 million of cuts, which has meant that it can no longer give support to the nearly 2,000 people who have “moderate” care needs. They may be moderate to the decision makers, but they are still care needs; we are talking about care that enables people to stay safe and well in their own homes in the community and to lead independent lives. Bolton has reluctantly had to make cuts to day care and respite care, which is a real problem for real people.

Other Members have mentioned the financial cap and other elements of the Bill, so I will use the rest of my time to talk about the realities of home care, which do not appear to be solved by this Bill. As many Members know, I have a vested interest in the issue of care. Like millions of others, I entrust the care of my mothers to carers every day of the week. Most of the carers are lovely, but they are paid only just above the minimum wage and only for the time they spend with the person they are looking after; they are not paid at all for their travelling time. I find that absolutely disgraceful, but it is normal in this sector. I have been told that it is common for carers to be on zero-hours contracts, and I have been told today of the pressure put on workers in Manchester to work beyond 70 hours a week or else lose their jobs.

Caring for disabled and elderly people is a precious job, and the Bill does nothing to address the fundamental flaws in the way that care workers are treated, which of course impacts on the care that people receive. Yesterday, I met a woman and her 98-year-old mother—I will call them Valerie and Lilian. Valerie told me about a few of the problems she was encountering and why she had to change the care provider for Lilian for the second time. She told me about the endless stream of different care workers who do not know Lilian or her needs. One carer had written in the logbook that Lilian had already washed and dressed herself one morning. How did they know that she had washed, and why did they think that the bed jacket she was wearing was appropriate clothing?

Another carer wrote that Lilian was eating toast for her tea when she arrived. How did they think she had made the toast? Of course she was eating the remnants of her breakfast, and her tea, which was made by the morning carer, was still sitting untouched in the refrigerator. Another carer left Lilian with her food tray in her lap, which meant that she was unable to move until the next carer arrived a few hours later. It is no wonder that Lilian’s carers make mistakes. Her tea-time visit is a mere five minutes, and her bedtime visit is only 10 minutes. Lilian only got the tea-time visit because she now attends a day centre for two extra days, which freed up some money to spend on the visit.

Lilian lives in sheltered accommodation where, years ago, there would have been a warden who made regular visits. Now there is just a housing manager whose role does not include checking on the residents. Valerie told me about the strain being put on her because of the expectation that she would be available at all hours. As she said, she is nearly 70 herself. She has already suffered a stroke and cares for her 76-year-old husband. Once she has taken her own medication, she cannot go out in the middle of the night, but there is no other support.

Valerie and Lilian’s story is just one, and a depressingly familiar one. The reality is that carers themselves are ageing and the elderly and disabled are not getting the care that they need. I was told just this morning of a carer who left an elderly person in bed in the morning when she should not have done. When the lunchtime carer turned up, the person could barely breathe. The lunchtime carer called the doctor who, after some prevarication, came out. He left a prescription on the elderly person’s table. I do not know how he thought it would miraculously be filled in or how this ill person would miraculously be able to take the necessary medication.

I have seen first hand the distress that is caused when a carer turns up more than an hour late. There is chaos when different carers turn up and do not know what to do. I understand too the realities of inadequate care. I have also experienced the unresponsiveness of the system when care needs change temporarily. Indeed, Marie Curie Cancer Care has raised the issue of the time it can take for a terminally ill person to get care. They can often wait weeks while local authorities test their means and their level of need. Sadly, some people die before they ever get any help at all.

Care should not be determined by the cheapest provider. This most fundamental service of the most personal nature needs to be provided by workers who are appropriately trained and remunerated. I hope the Minister will confirm that every home care worker will have to be trained and qualified. We entrust the care of our most precious loved ones to strangers every day of the week. The Government should use the Bill to ensure not only that our loved ones are treated properly but that the care givers are treated properly too.

21:19

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

I apologise for not having been in the Chamber for most of the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, because of other parliamentary activities. I have found the speeches that I have listened to of enormous interest and I wanted to speak in the debate given that I am the co-chair, with Lord Rix, of the all-party group on learning disability.

I felt I owed it to Mencap and the Care and Support Alliance to, at the very least, bring out some of the points that were made in the other place, not least by Lord Rix and Baroness Hollins. Those points are dear to me, as I followed the debates in the other place carefully. I welcome the fact that we have a Bill and that we are having debates. I do not want to be too critical of the Government—not just because it is the festive season—but we have talked about many of these issues for a long time. When I read what was said in the other place, I reflected that when we talk about carers we all share compassion for and concern about their role, but that that has been the case for as long as I have been a Member of this House. I can understand that some carers are perhaps becoming a little sceptical and cynical and if we can do something about the Bill, that might perhaps help us along the way.

Above all, I want to speak about advocacy. In the Lords, the Government tabled welcome amendments that introduced a right to advocacy in respect of social care assessments and for some of those involved in safeguarding inquiries for some people. That has the potential hugely to improve the process for people who would otherwise struggle to be involved in the assessment and care planning process. It also provides real rights and protection for those who are suffering abuse such as that at Winterbourne View and Mid Staffordshire, and I hope to have time to return to that later.

Furthermore the measure builds, if I may say so, on the principles of the Act that I was privileged to pilot through this House, the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. Those who are still around from that period will recall that advocacy was at the heart of what the Act sought to achieve. The demand for that advocacy is still there today. Advocates support people to articulate their needs and to make informed choices, and they make the process less intimidating. They support planning and reviewing care and help people to speak out if they are dissatisfied with care or when safeguarding issues arise.

Those who receive the support of an advocate will undoubtedly be better able to engage with the range of professionals and service providers with which they come into contact, and as a result they are more likely to experience positive outcomes. Although the Government’s amendments were welcome, we seek clarity in a number of areas. I know that this view is shared by Mencap and many other organisations, although I do not necessarily speak for all of them.

The Bill deals with facilitating involvement, for example. The clause on advocacy and safeguarding states:

“The relevant local authority must…arrange for a person who is independent of the authority (an ‘independent advocate‘) to be available...for the purpose of facilitating his or her involvement in the enquiry or review”.

It is not clear what

“facilitating his or her involvement in the enquiry or review”

means and whether it is constrained in any way or subject to some form of arbitrary decision. Perhaps the Minister might clarify that tonight.

Timely advocacy at the start of safeguarding inquiries seems to me to be essential. There have been countless examples of serious abuse and neglect affecting people with a learning disability which have been overlooked for a host of reasons. It is vital, therefore, that a person with a learning disability receives the support of an advocate at the early stages of a concern being raised, and local authorities must take this into consideration. Mencap is concerned that the local authority needs to arrange advocacy only if it is not satisfied that there is an appropriate person to represent and support the adult with a learning disability. It would like assurances from the Minister that this will not become a default position for family or friends.

Some family members may in some cases have the skills and the background to be an effective advocate and may wish to do so. Others, however, will be unable or unwilling to do so, and Mencap thinks it would be highly inappropriate if those family members felt pressurised so to do. Good advocacy is delivered by individuals skilled and knowledgeable in delivering appropriate, independent and empowering advocacy, and the local authority should ensure that this is the case.

I turn to the issue of abuse. Some time ago, after the Winterbourne report, I secured a debate in Westminster Hall and I am very glad that that matter was then discussed. As the Bill makes its way through the House, we have to deal specifically with the definition of abuse. The Bill needs to be strengthened. Only financial abuse appears and is defined on the face of the Bill. This seems to give prominence to one form of abuse, although others clearly take place. Lord Rix and Baroness Hollins tabled amendments in another place which sought to strengthen the clause and include other forms of abuse, such as neglect, which we know is more prevalent, and also physical, sexual and psychological abuse and so on.

Responding in another place, the Minister felt that abuse was a commonly understood definition and that defining it further in the Bill might restrict the scope of local authorities’ duty to inquire. Although Lord Rix agreed with the argument that a long, exhaustive list would be unreasonable, he said surely we must ensure that

“local authorities do not suddenly think that only financial abuse is to be considered when they look at this Bill”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 2013; Vol. 748, c. 341.]

I believe that reference only to financial abuse is unbalanced and critically makes other forms of abuse appear less relevant or important. Again, recalling the recent institutional abuse and neglect highlighted by Winterbourne View, Mid Staffs and the confidential inquiry into the premature deaths of people with a learning disability, it is crucial that other forms of abuse are set out in the Bill. They may be covered by guidance, but evidence has shown that this has not protected people with a learning disability who may well be subject to multiple abuses. I agree with the Government that an exhaustive list might be wrong and difficult to defend. However, the Bill should be amended to include reference to physical, sexual and psychological abuse, as well as neglect. It can make further reference to “other as guidance may specify”.

I am delighted to have had the opportunity to take part in the debate. We have a lot of work to do. I have great regard for the Minister who is responsible for the Bill and I think he will do a very good job, but when we look at issues like assessment, choice and the rest, we must remember that we have given promises before and we have given commitments. This time we all hope they will be real and meaningful.

21:29

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

Today’s debate has been about one of the most important issues facing Britain today: how we care for the increasing number of older and disabled people. The Care Bill is the result of the Law Commission’s review of adult social care legislation, which was initiated by the previous Government. The Opposition welcome the Bill’s emphasis on prevention, promoting well-being and new rights for users and carers.

I want to pay tribute to the work that has already been done to improve the Bill by members of the Joint Committee on the draft Care and Support Bill and by Members of the other place. It now promotes the integration of care and support with health and housing, which is really important, and requires local councils and the NHS to work together in relation to the needs of young carers and, in that regard, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), in particular, for her tireless efforts.

The right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the hon. Members for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), and my hon. Friends the Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and for Worsley and Eccles South all spoke about further changes that should be made to the Bill, for example to ensure that NHS staff identify carers, to support parent carers, to improve the safeguarding of people in social care, to improve the assessment process and advocacy, to ensure an effective transition of support from childhood to adulthood, to transform end-of-life care and to deal with portability, particularly of community care packages, in the devolved Administrations. I am sure that we will return to those issues in Committee.

The main concern, raised repeatedly by hon. Members today, is that the Bill does not address the fundamental issue facing elderly and disabled people and their families or put in place the really bold reforms we need to tackle the growing care crisis in England. It is true that council care budgets have been under pressure for many years, but this Government’s decision to impose the biggest reduction in any Department on local councils has the pushed care services that hundreds of thousands of people rely on to “the brink of collapse”—not my words, but those of Age UK.

Adult social care budgets have been cut by £2.7 billion under this Government. The result is that fewer people are getting the care they desperately need, particularly at home, which is the key issue for the future, as my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) and for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) pointed out. Frail, elderly people are receiving home visits that last barely 15 minutes, or in some cases only five or 10 minutes, as we have heard. Disabled people are being trapped in their homes, denied the basic opportunities to work, train, volunteer or have a social life that other people take for granted, a point powerfully made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire). Paid care staff on zero-hours contracts are not even earning the minimum wage, let alone a living wage, and unpaid family carers have been left struggling without the help they need to look after their loved ones, which means that their own health suffers, too. At the same time, more people are being charged more for vital services such as home visits and meals on wheels, which are up by £740 a year since the election.

Reducing care budgets by that scale hurts some of the most vulnerable people in society. It is also a false economy, because as more elderly people do not get the help they need to stay at home, they are ending up in hospital in increasing numbers, which costs the taxpayer far more. Delayed discharges from hospital have soared by 42% since the election, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) rightly said. Delayed discharges have costs taxpayers £225 million this year. That could have paid for almost 17 million hours of home care. It is spending money in the wrong place in a way that is not good for the people using the services and does not provide value for money.

Families are also paying the price. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) said, one in three carers now has to give up work or reduce their hours because they cannot get the help they need to look after their loved ones, and this costs the Treasury £1 billion in lost tax revenues alone. The Bill will not solve these problems. The new rights it contains and the new focus that it places on prevention and well-being risk being meaningless as care budgets are reduced to the bone.

Nor are the Government being straight with people about their plans to reform long-term care funding in future. Any measures that protect people from catastrophic care costs are welcome, but Ministers have not spelled out the reality of their plans. They have repeatedly claimed that no one will have to pay more than £72,000 for their care, but this is not the case. People’s care costs will start to count towards the so-called cap only if they are assessed as having eligible care needs. Nine out of 10 councils provide care only for those with “substantial” or “critical” needs. If someone needs help to stay living at home but their council assesses their needs as “low” or “moderate”, what they pay for home visits will not count towards the cap.

With regard to residential care, the cap will not be based on what someone actually pays for their home care but on the standard rate paid by their local council. I see that the Secretary of State is being informed by the Minister about the reality of these plans, so I hope that he listens to more of my speech. The standard rate paid by local councils is currently, on average, about £470 a week. Government Members, as well as Labour Members, will know that many of their constituents pay far more than £470 a week for their care home, but these extra costs will not count towards the so-called cap. People will also, rightly, have to contribute towards their hotel and accommodation costs. The Government are setting this contribution at £230 a week—much higher than Andrew Dilnot recommended—and these costs will not count towards the cap either. Taking both those factors into account, it will take elderly people almost five years, on average, to hit the so-called cap, during which time they will have clocked up, on average, £150,000 for their care home bill, and much more in many cases. Because elderly people stay in a care home for about two and a half years, on average, six out of seven people will be dead before they hit the cap.

Ministers have repeatedly claimed that people will not have to sell their homes to pay for their care; again, this is not the case. The Bill puts a duty on councils to offer deferred payment schemes—care loans that will have to be paid back by selling the family home after the person has died. The loans will not be universally available, as Andrew Dilnot recommended, but means-tested. Interest will be charged on the loans, but that interest will not count towards the cap. Although the Government are raising the upper level of the means test, that will not help many pensioners on average incomes because of how the test works, whereby councils take a notional income from the remaining assets in a person’s house and add it to what they get from their pension and any savings or second pension. For many pensioners on average incomes, this combined total will take them over what their local council will pay for care, and they will therefore not qualify for any extra support.

Elderly people and their families deserve to be told the facts about the Government’s plans so that they can properly plan for the future rather than have Ministers attempt to pull the wool over their eyes. One of the main claims made by the Prime Minister about the Government’s reforms is that they are so clear and straightforward that lots of insurance products will emerge so that people can insure themselves to pay for their care in future. I would be very interested to hear from the Minister how many of these new insurance products have emerged so far.

[Barbara Keeley]

I chair the all-party group on social care and when the Dilnot recommendations were made we implored the Government to have a national debate so that all the issues my hon. Friend is raising so well could be explored. Judging by the look on the Secretary of State’s face, he needs to be given some of that information, too, so perhaps we need a national roadshow on what his Bill will actually do.

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend makes her points diplomatically. It is only owing to the efforts of Members in the other place that the Bill includes a requirement for councils to provide people with clear information. These are huge issues for elderly people and their families. We are asking the Government to be straight and I hope that when the Minister responds he will confirm what I have been saying.

On top of everything—I hope the Minister will also address this—we learned in June that the Government will top-slice £335 million from existing council budgets to pay for the start-up costs of the new scheme in 2015-16. They propose to take money from existing users who are already desperately struggling to pay for reforms that will benefit a small number of future care users in five, six or seven years’ time. I think that many people will be astonished, particularly after the Government had claimed that all the additional costs for their proposals would come from elsewhere. I hope the Minister will explain whether I am correct in saying that that £335 million will be top-sliced from council budgets.

Labour Members will continue to focus on the reality of this Government’s actions, not on their rhetoric, and we will continue to expose their true record on the NHS and social care. Instead of making the real reforms needed to improve front-line services, they have wasted three years and £3 billion on a back-room NHS reorganisation that nobody wanted and that nobody voted for. Instead of working with clinicians and patients to make difficult decisions on the future of hospital services, they now want to give the Health Secretary unprecedented powers to impose changes without the consent of local people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) said, the Government are taking away control from the very people to whom they pretend they want to give power. Indeed, National Voices—the voice of patients—says that the proposal is

“wrong in principle and counterproductive in practice”.

Instead of championing the full integration of health and social care to enable a powerful shift towards prevention and fully personalised care, as Labour proposes, the Government’s unambitious proposals bring together only 3% of the total NHS and social care spending. Instead of holding serious cross-party talks on long-term care funding reform, the Government chose to go it alone, water down Dilnot’s proposals and spin the results beyond recognition. That is why we have tabled our reasoned amendment and why I urge hon. Members to join us in the voting Lobby tonight.

21:43

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

I thank everyone who has taken part in what has been a lively and interesting debate on a subject of the utmost importance for the future and for many very vulnerable people in our country. I absolutely share the view of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), on that. Incidentally, I also share her view that it is not possible to get great care on the back of exploiting low-paid workers. We have been very clear about that.

I do not anticipate having time to be able to respond to every point that has been raised—there were many excellent contributions—but I will write to hon. Members who participated in the debate so that everyone will get a full and proper response, including on the cross-border issues raised by the hon. Members for Arfon (Hywel Williams), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) among others.

The effect of passing the reasoned amendment would be to defeat the Bill, which is why the Government are so dismayed by the decision taken by the Labour party on what we regard as a Bill that will be groundbreaking in its overall impact. It seeks to modernise the law on care and support, shifting the focus from a very paternalistic system to one that is acutely personal and focused on an individual’s well-being. The Chair of the Health Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) both focused on the important principle of well-being, which will be new in legislation, but is absolutely central to what we seek to achieve. There is also a focus on preventing ill health and—

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Norman Lamb]

I will just finish this point.

There is also a focus on protecting everyone from catastrophic care costs, ensuring that people will no longer have to sell their homes during their lifetimes to pay for care. The Bill reforms a fundamentally unfair system, drives up standards in GP surgeries, hospitals and care homes through the new chief inspectors, adds a new statutory duty of candour so that hospitals, care homes and other care providers are open with patients when mistakes are made, and introduces valuable new rights to carers. Of enormous significance is that it signals the first ever big step, as the Chair of the Select Committee said, towards joining up our health and care systems through the better care fund, which is worth £3.8 billion.

The best description of the Bill was in a letter forwarded to me by a Labour MP, which said that the Bill is a groundbreaking piece of legislation that has the potential to make a big difference for older people. Despite that, the Labour party is declining to give it its support.

[Hazel Blears]

rose—

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Norman Lamb]

I give way to the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears).

[Hazel Blears]

The debate this evening has been fabulous and has engaged people from across the House on one of the biggest challenges we face. Earlier in the debate I asked the Secretary of State whether, on reflection, he thought that he could have been more ambitious about the integration of health and social care. The costs to our system are now unsustainable, and this was an opportunity to seize the moment. The Minister has tinkered around the edges of integration, so may I press him to be more ambitious, to think bigger and to be more committed to greater integration that will benefit us all?

[Norman Lamb]

I note the challenge, but I have been passionate about integrating care for many years. I made the case for it on many occasions when I was my party’s spokesman in opposition, and I remember not getting much of a response from the right hon. Lady’s party when it was in government. The Bill is really ambitious and marks the potential for a fundamental change in how our system works.

The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) welcomed the principles of the Bill and rightly said that it is the duty of the Opposition to challenge and to probe. However, to use her expression, I think that many Opposition Members have been “churlish” in their response, with a few honourable exceptions, including the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke). I say that because in 13 years, Labour had two manifesto commitments, one royal commission, another promised commission, a Select Committee report, a White Paper, a Green Paper and numerous independent reviews on the issue, and what was the net result of all that talk? Absolutely nothing. In 1997, Tony Blair told the Labour party conference:

“I don’t want our children brought up in a country where the only way pensioners can get long-term care is by selling their home.”

That is exactly what happened throughout Labour’s time in government. In contrast, the coalition Government are getting on with reform.

Even now, we have no idea what the Opposition’s policy is. The shadow Health Secretary has hinted that he prefers an all-in approach—everything free, paid for by new taxes on death and by cutting hospital beds—but he has clearly failed to persuade his own colleagues about the plan or to set out how he would pay for it. Opposition Members’ criticisms can only be of any real value if they can answer the question about how they would pay for anything that costs more. So it was good to hear the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles, who seemed to be about the only Opposition Member who recognised the scale of the challenge that we face, whoever is in power, and the fact that we need to think afresh about where money can come from. Her ideas about innovation using social investment bonds are welcome, and I would like to talk further to her about them.

We want to reshape care and support so that it is focused on enabling people to live more independent lives and giving them a good life. The Bill provides a new framework that places people’s well-being right at the centre and empowers them to take control of their care and support. It consolidates 60 years of legislation and pulls a dozen Acts together into a single legal framework, and it has been roundly welcomed. The King’s Fund has said:

“The government’s proposals for funding reform are an important achievement against the odds in a daunting fiscal and economic climate.”

Baroness Pitkeathley of Carers UK has described the Bill as the “most significant development” in the history of the carers movement.

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Norman Lamb]

I did not get much of an impression of that in the hon. Lady’s contribution, but I give way to her.

[Barbara Keeley]

I thank the Minister for eventually giving way. I am surprised and disappointed that he is repeating the same type of inaccurate information that we heard from the Secretary of State earlier. Will he think about the point that I made in my speech? How hollow is it to talk to carers in Salford, 1,000 of whom are involved in families who are losing their care packages, about new rights? What rights are there for someone whose family member has lost their care package? That is what people face this year.

The Minister has also just repeated the ridiculous notion of the £3.8 billion for the integration of health care. That is not new money. It includes care—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call the Minister.

[Norman Lamb]

I note the position in Salford, and I recognise that finances in local government are tight. However, the Opposition have not recognised that 108 councils were already providing social care with substantial need as the eligibility criterion before the general election. They never mention that, but it is the truth.

Baroness Campbell has called the continuity of care provisions a “landmark reform”. Although we have heard the suggestion that we have somehow moved away from what Andrew Dilnot suggested, he has said:

“For the first time you don’t have to be terrified of the consequences of needing care…this system will radically reduce anxiety…It doesn’t seem to me that it’s so different from what we wanted.”

Several references have been made to the funding of social care, and as I have said, I fully recognise the tough financial settlement that local government has faced. However, that has been necessary because of the dire state of the public finances that we inherited from the Labour Government, and we have sought to protect social care. Despite what the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) and others have said, a recent budget survey by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services showed that most of the savings that local councils have made have come through efficiency changes, and that services have largely been protected. [Interruption.] Well, that is what the survey showed.

As the population continues to age, our health needs become more complex, and it is essential that we continue to adapt. We need to ensure that the care and support system is sustainable, and the Bill lays the foundation for that sustainable system. At the top of the agenda has been the issue of how we pay for care. The current system simply does not work and is not fit for the 21st century. Too many people have faced catastrophic care costs and had to make impossible financial decisions at a time of huge personal crisis. It is deeply unfair. If someone who has worked hard all their life and budgeted carefully is unlucky enough to be diagnosed with dementia or some other condition, they lose pretty much everything they have ever worked for.

Through the Bill, we are putting an end to that unfair system. We have addressed how people can plan and pay for their care, following on from Andrew Dilnot’s recommendations. We have listened carefully to what he and his colleagues have said, and we have been absolutely consistent about how these reforms will support people to plan for their future effectively. From April 2016, extending the means-test support to £118,000 will immediately result in 35,000 more elderly people receiving financial help with their care costs. That figure will rise to 100,000 people getting extra help by 2024-25.

[Andy Burnham]

Can the Minister guarantee to older people listening to the debate this evening that nobody will pay more than £72,000 for their care—yes or no?

[Norman Lamb]

Of course we have made it clear that people can choose to spend more, but I can say absolutely that by 2024-25, far more people—100,000 people—will be getting more financial support than under the system we inherited from the Labour Government. Everyone will be protected from catastrophic costs through the reassurance provided by the cap on care costs.

[Liz Kendall]

rose—

[Norman Lamb]

I need to press on.

Many people will pay significantly less for care than they do now. People will not be forced to sell their home within their lifetime to pay for care because we are introducing a universal, nationwide system of deferred payments to prevent that.

On deferred payments, there is total confusion about what Labour stands for. Lord Lipsey in the other place, apparently supported by the shadow Secretary of State and the shadow Minister, has attacked the threshold for our deferred payment scheme, which is currently under consultation. He argued that the threshold should be lowered so that those with bank accounts or shares worth considerably more than £23,000 will have access to the scheme. In the previous Government’s 2010 White Paper, however, the same £23,000 threshold was considered acceptable under the universal deferred payment scheme. Which is it—do the Opposition support a low threshold of that sort, or do they want to give more help to people with money?

[Liz Kendall]

I thank the Minister for giving way because I want to press him again about the care cap. On 11 February, the Health Secretary told The Guardian in relation to the cap, that

“that is the maximum anyone will have to pay.”

Does the Minister agree with his Health Secretary?

[Norman Lamb]

It is the maximum people have to pay once they have reached the threshold for care, but they can choose to pay more if they wish. The hon. Lady has refused to answer the question about what Labour Members believe is the right threshold. They have been utterly inconsistent. The shadow Secretary of State has also attacked our plans to charge interest to cover the costs of the deferred payment scheme, yet his 2010 plans proposed exactly the same thing. The only difference was that Labour’s plan was hidden in the impact assessment, not set out in the consultation for everyone to see.

Throughout these reforms we have worked alongside people involved in the care system, and tried to address the needs of people receiving services, their carers, local authorities, the NHS and voluntary groups. We wanted to build a consensus around the future of care and support in England and we have been willing to amend the Bill in the other place to address the concerns raised. The result is a powerful reform package that includes the well-being principle, legislation for personal budgets, incredibly important new rights for carers that have been widely welcomed, and legislation for adult safeguarding for the first time.

Many hon. Members have recognised the powerful case for integrating and joining-up care, and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) highlighted the fact that many councils do not place integrated care high on their agenda. That is why the Better Care Fund is so important—it gets every local area talking now about the importance of joining up care and preventing ill health. Around the country we have 40 pioneers in integrated care, demonstrating how things can be done differently and how we can provide better care with less money.

I visited Barnsley, Torbay, Greenwich, Worcestershire and Islington—all have inspiring local leaders who are redesigning a dysfunctional system to provide better care for their citizens. This is a quiet revolution in care, but the changes will resonate across the country. I am immensely proud and grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam for producing the original draft Bill and for his support since then. Colleagues in the Lords have made important improvements to the Bill, and when—I hope—it becomes law next year, the Care Bill will be the most valuable legacy in health and care reform for a generation.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

21:59

Division 160

Ayes: 231

---

Labour: 226
Plaid Cymru: 3
Green Party: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 289

---

Conservative: 243
Liberal Democrat: 45
Independent: 1

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 62(2), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Care Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Care Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 4 February 2014.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be concluded in two days.

(5) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the second of those days.

(6) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(7) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(8) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—(John Penrose.)

Question agreed to.

Care Bill [Lords] (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Care Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State; and

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(John Penrose.)

Question agreed to.

Care Bill [Lords] (Ways and Means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Care Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees in relation to the functions of the Health Research Authority.—(John Penrose.)

Question agreed to.

Business without Debate

Monday 16th December 2013 Commons Chamber

European Union Documents

Monday 16th December 2013 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

A decent life for all: ending poverty and giving the world a sustainable future

That this House takes note of European Documents No. 7075/13, a Commission Communication: A decent life for all, No. 12434/13, a Commission Communication: Beyond 2015: towards a comprehensive and integrated approach to financing poverty eradication and sustainable development, and No. 12440/13 and Addenda 1 to 3, a Commission Staff Working Document: the EU Accountability Report 2013 on Financing for Development; welcomes these documents as a contribution to a debate that is central to both development and environment policy; and supports the Government’s approach to the post-2015 development agenda.—(John Penrose.)

Question agreed to.

Delegated legislation

Monday 16th December 2013 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

International Development

That the draft International Fund for Agricultural Development (Ninth Replenishment) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 22 November, be approved.—(John Penrose.)

Question agreed to.

Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Monday 16th December 2013 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That the motion in the name of Mr Andrew Lansley relating to the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice of a motion has been given that the instrument be approved.—(Mr Lansley.)

Environmental Audit

Monday 16th December 2013 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That Mrs Caroline Spelman be a member of the Environmental Audit Committee.—(Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

22:14

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This afternoon you heard a point of order from the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) relating to me, and you expressly asked whether he had informed me of his intention to raise the point of order. I am afraid he did not inform me. He informed your office last Thursday. He informed the Clerks last Thursday. They had four days’ notice. As for me, moments before he got up to speak—literally moments before—someone in his office sent the following e-mail:

“Please accept this as notification that I intend you name you in the Commons Chamber.”

That was his mistake, not mine.

I had no idea whether this was meant to be on a point of order or in the debate this afternoon, or whether it was meant to be today or tomorrow, later on this month, next month, or whenever. Incidentally, I should say that I told the hon. Gentleman that I would raise this point of order tonight; I both sent him an e-mail and rang and spoke to somebody in his office to that effect. I note that he is not in his place now.

On 13 July 1994 the Chair ruled very clearly against my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) —my hon. Friend the Member for Neath as he then was—that Members cannot simply name other Members and say they have informed them by virtue of having sent some piece of paper somewhere very late in the day. That is a deliberate attempt to get round the common courtesies that should apply between one Member and another in this House. The Speaker then ruled that there should be ample warning.

I am afraid that the nod that you, Mr Speaker, received this afternoon from the hon. Member for Hendon was not the full story.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am familiar with the precedent to which he refers, when my predecessor but one, Speaker Boothroyd, ruled. The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that certain standards should obtain in this House. If a Member is to raise a matter relating to the conduct of another Member, there is an obligation to notify the Member about whom the complaint is to be made some reasonable time in advance of getting up to make the complaint. Simply to send an e-mail a few moments beforehand is way below the standard of behaviour. [Interruption.] With great respect to Members chuntering from a sedentary position, it has absolutely nothing to do with being thicker skinned or anything of the sort; it is a matter of parliamentary courtesy, and people who have been around in this place for a little while understand these matters. That is the situation and I hope we will not have to revisit it again because it is really very clear.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a simple point of order seeking information. I have just been talking to the Vote Office about the papers that accompany the ninth report of the 2013-14 Session from the House of Commons Transport Committee, “High Speed rail: on track?”, which is going to be the subject of our new procedures on Thursday. I asked for copies of the oral and written evidence, which are said to be available from the Committee’s website, and the officers told me that they are not available currently on the website, or for Members. I wonder whether you, Mr Speaker, can advise me on whether this is correct procedure and on how I can obtain copies of the oral and written evidence so that I can prepare for that statement on Thursday.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that point of order. The fairest thing I can say to her is that I will look into the matter as I was not sighted on the issue, and it sounds to me as though the right hon. Lady has become so only very recently. I absolutely understand that she and others might seek some enlightenment before Thursday. It is perfectly reasonable that they should do so. Therefore, I will look into the matter, and as and when I have anything to report I will revert as necessary to her and/or the House. I hope that is helpful.

Dudley Borough Walk-in Centre

Monday 16th December 2013 Commons Chamber

22:16

Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con): The Dudley clinical commissioning group is currently consulting on changes to urgent care provision in the borough of Dudley, with the public consultation closing on 24 December. As a result of proposals by the CCG to close Dudley borough walk-in centre at Holly Hall clinic on Stourbridge road in my constituency, a number of concerned constituents have been in touch with me.

Accident and emergency services across the country are feeling the pressure caused by patients arriving at A and E departments because they feel they have no viable alternative. The Government have been clear that patients should be able to access good quality, out-of-hours NHS services without having to go to A and E departments. To support that, they have recently taken action to expand the role of GPs and to improve out-of-hours care. They have announced nationwide pilots to extend GP opening hours from 8 am to 8 pm, seven days a week, and agreed a new GP contract that will give millions of elderly people a dedicated GP who is personally accountable for their care.

The Government have also maintained that it is up to NHS commissioners to secure high-quality services that will meet the health care needs of local communities, driven by what is in the best interests of patients. The Holly Hall walk-in clinic provides a vital out-of-hours service to patients when they cannot see their GP, and many Dudley residents have expressed their support for the centre to remain open. It is unclear whether the out-of-hours services on which hard-working people rely would be maintained if the centre were to close. It is therefore my belief, and that of the petitioners, that closing the walk-in centre would not be in the best interests of Dudley patients.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Dudley South,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that proposed closure of the Dudley Borough Walk-in Centre at Holly Hall Clinic, 174 Stourbridge Road, Dudley DY1 2ER, by Dudley Clinical Commissioning Group should not go ahead; further that the Petitioners believe that, with its 08:00 to 20:00 opening hours, seven days a week, the walk-in centre currently provides a vital out-of-hours service for hardworking people in the Dudley Borough and the wider Black Country, especially on weekday evenings and at weekends; further that the Petitioners believe that the accessibility of the walk-in centre service contributes significantly to a reduction in the number of Accident and Emergency visits which reduces pressure on local A&E services such as those at Russells Hall Hospital.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to urge Dudley Clinical Commissioning Group to keep the Dudley Borough Walk-in Centre open.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001313]

Football Stadiums (Safer Seating)

Monday 16th December 2013 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(John Penrose.)

22:21

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

I am delighted to have the opportunity this evening to discuss the issue of safer seating at football grounds. I say “safer seating” because we often have debates in Parliament about the desire of fans to see the reintroduction of safe standing at football grounds, but tonight I would like to turn the debate on its head and argue that the solution is the introduction of some seating at football grounds that will be safer for spectators, and that will recognise and accommodate those fans who continue, and will continue, to stand while watching football.

Since August 1994, clubs in the premiership and championship have been required to provide all-seated accommodation. This followed Lord Justice Taylor’s report into the Hillsborough disaster of April 1989. In the report, Lord Justice Taylor said:

“There is no panacea which will achieve total safety and cure all problems of behaviour and crowd control. But I am satisfied that seating does more to achieve those objectives than any other single measure.”

He went on to say:

“It is obvious that sitting for the duration of the match is more comfortable than standing. It is also safer. When a spectator is seated he has his own small piece of territory in which he can feel reasonably secure. He will not be in close physical contact with those around him. He will not be jostled or moved about by swaying or surging. Small, infirm or elderly men and women as well as young children are not buffeted, smothered or un-sighted by large and more robust people, as on the terraces. The seated spectator is not subject to pressure of numbers behind, nor around, him during the match. He will not be painfully bent double over a crush barrier. Those monitoring numbers will know exactly how many there are without having to count them in, or assess the density by visual impression. There will still, of course, be scope for crowd pressure on standing whilst entering and, especially, when leaving but involuntary and uncontrolled crowd movements occasioned by incidents at the game are effectively eliminated…Apart from comfort and safety, seating has distinct advantages in achieving crowd control. It is possible to have disturbances in a seated area and they have occurred, but with the assistance of CCTV the police can immediately zoom in with a camera and pinpoint the seats occupied by the trouble-makers as well as the trouble-makers themselves”.

I cannot disagree with any of those observations. They were made at a time when football grounds were very different from the grounds of today, but at the same time I do not think that anyone who advocates the reintroduction of official standing areas at football grounds is seriously suggesting a return to vast terraces such as the Kippax at Maine Road or the Holte End at Villa Park.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)]

Is my hon. Friend, like me, in favour of the return of standing to at least some sections of a stadium? With the undoubted improvement in behaviour inside stadiums, should we not aspire to having some safe standing areas and work to achieve that over the next couple of years?

[Mr Leech]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I wholeheartedly support the principle of people being given the opportunity to stand at football grounds—as they currently do, but in a safer environment.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman referred to the 1994 implementation of premiership and championship clubs not being able to have standing areas, but of course an exception was made for clubs that had been promoted rapidly. Is he aware that between 1999 and 2002, Fulham, a club that had been promoted through the divisions, had standing in three of its four stands for two seasons in the championship and one season in the premiership, and there were no safety problems during that period?

[Mr Leech]

I am absolutely aware of that, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I was one of the people who stood at Fulham as an away supporter, many years ago now.

Where Lord Justice Taylor got it wrong was the assumption that everyone would get used to sitting at football. At every all-seater ground, up and down the country, persistent standing remains a part of the game every week. That is why there have been continued calls for the introduction of “safe standing” areas, and in March 2011 the Football Supporters Federation launched a campaign, including an online petition, arguing that supporters should have the choice to stand. The campaign has gained significant momentum, so much so that at the Football League’s annual general meeting on 7 June, more than two thirds of the 72 clubs voted in favour of a motion to explore safe standing trials. There is overwhelming support from supporters for the campaign; in the FSF national supporter survey in 2009, almost 90% of respondents believed that supporters should have the choice of sitting or standing, with more than 50% preferring to stand. By 2012, 92% of respondents wanted the choice, including 82% of women, even though opponents often argue that they have been attracted to football by the alleged additional comfort of all-seater stadiums.

I recognise that support for this approach is not universal among fans. Margaret Aspinall, chair of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, opposes the proposals and has argued:

“Standing should never, ever come back. I do not think there is anything safe about standing.”

But the reality is that standing has never gone away. Thousands of fans at premier league grounds up and down the country were standing at matches at the weekend— from the Saturday lunchtime game I attended at the Etihad between City and Arsenal to the late game at White Hart Lane on Sunday afternoon between Spurs and Liverpool. There has been abject failure on the part of the authorities to persuade fans to sit down in some sections.

A joint statement was made last month by the Sports Grounds Safety Authority, the premier league, the Football League, the Football Association, the Core Cities Group, the Football Safety Officers Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers. It highlighted their 2002 paper, which examined the nature and causes of spectators standing in seated areas at premier league and Football League grounds. It concluded that a number of safety, crowd management and customer care issues were presented by persistent standing, and that it should be eradicated as far as reasonably practicable. Some 11 years later their November statement admits that

“such measures alone have not always achieved the desired results”.

That is the biggest understatement of the authorities’ abject failure at persuading people to sit down.

So what is the outcome of this systematic failure, and what is the solution? We have whole sections of grounds designed for sitting being occupied by people who choose to stand, or who are forced to stand by other people standing. That is particularly problematic in away sections, where it is very common for away fans either to choose to stand or be forced to stand by others for the entire duration of the match. But this is not confined to specific sections of grounds where the majority of people want to stand; it often ends up being a problem in areas where most people would choose to sit but are forced to stand in order to see.

The problem is twofold: First, thousands of fans standing in areas designed for sitting down is not as safe as it should be. I stood on the Kippax for about 20 years without ever being injured. The only time I have been injured at a football match was at Borussia Dortmund last season. Having been forced to stand in an area that had been converted to seating for the champions league, with no safety barriers, I was knocked forward, injuring my leg on the seat in front. If there had been barriers in front of each row—behind and in front of me—that would not have happened, because I would not have been knocked forwards. It might be argued that it was my own fault for standing up, but I would not have been able to see any of the game had I been sitting down. Nobody had the choice to sit down and see the game.

Secondly, we seem to have forgotten the need for football grounds to be accessible for all. Some people, while not confined to a wheelchair and not considered to be disabled, are still not able to stand for a whole game and need to sit down. Fans in that position have found it increasingly difficult to attend away games, where there is a consistent problem with persistent standing. Anecdotally, I am aware of a number of people who no longer attend any away games, because they either cannot see the game or they struggle to stand up for 90 minutes. Given how much work has taken place to encourage disabled fans to access football, how can we possibly allow this situation to continue?

What is the solution? In two words, it is rail seating, which is basically a seat that is attached to a rail or barrier. Rail seats are used in many football grounds across Europe, in countries that allow standing for domestic matches, and then convert the standing areas to seating for European games in line with UEFA rules on all-seater stadiums for European matches. For domestic games, those rail seats are permanently locked in the upright position, and everyone stands, which increases incapacity. For European games, the seats are permanently locked in the seat position, and the number of fans allowed into an area is one for each seat. That system works well. It is safe and creates a great footballing atmosphere, cheaper tickets and ensures that other areas of the ground with standard seating are occupied by people who want to sit down, and do not stand up and block the view of others. Such a system was evident at Borussia Dortmund, where the area usually designated for standing fans had everyone standing, even though it had been converted to seating, while the areas that are permanently seated had fans remaining seated. That is the ideal solution. It ensures the safety of standing fans who currently stand in areas that are not designed for standing. Unfortunately, that solution fails to address concerns from the police about crowd control and the perception that a football match can be more easily policed when each spectator has a designated seat.

Andy Holt, the ACPO lead on football policing, has voiced opposition to standing areas because he believes it could contribute to unruly behaviour and hooliganism. I do not accept that assessment, and it was also disputed by Superintendent Steven Graham of West Midlands police who has backed the call of the Football Supporters Federation for safe standing areas to be trialled. I would argue that unruly behaviour at grounds is often a direct result of attempts to force fans to sit down.

The easy solution is to designate each spectator a specific seat-cum-standing position in the rail-seating area, in the same way as they are currently allocated a seat. My proposal is that rail seating should be allowed to be introduced at clubs, without the seats being locked in either the open or closed position. That creates a seat for each spectator in exactly the same way as any other seat in the ground. The difference is that as well as being a seat, the rail seating provides a safety barrier in front of each row. That means that when people are standing up, they are safer than they currently are when standing in existing seats. Does the Minister accept that that is the case? I hope and assume that she does, as it is an indisputable fact that a seat that has a safety barrier in front cannot possibly be less safe than the current configuration with no barrier, and a barrier between each row must make it more difficult for a spectator to be pushed forward and over into the next row of seats.

Having established that that configuration must be safer, my next question is whether the Minister believes that rail seating is currently legal, or does she think that a change of law is required to introduce rail seating? When I met Ruth Shaw of the Sports Grounds Safety Authority, she tried to argue that rail seating was not allowed under the current legislation because it provided not only a seat but a place to stand, even if the seat is not fixed in the open or closed position. I disagree. It is clearly no different from the seats currently used at all football grounds that flip up and down but still provide a place to stand if the spectator chooses not to sit down. If the Minister disagrees with me, perhaps she could explain the difference between the two types of seat. Of course, there is none. The only distinction is that the rail seat is safer because it has the safety barrier in front, so will the Minister explain to me why the SGSA is arguing against seating that would make stadiums safer? I challenge her this evening to admit at the Dispatch Box that there is no justification for the SGSA to take such a view, and ask her to give the green light to willing clubs to introduce rail seating with a seat for every spectator.

My final point is about whether there is a groundswell of opinion in favour of introducing safer seating and making it safer for people who continue to stand. I believe that there is. In January, in response to my oral question, the former Sports Minister, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), for whom I have great respect, argued that there was no support from the football authorities, the police or those involved in the safety of the game for any change. Unfortunately, that fails to recognise that the authorities all take their lead from the politicians. Privately, most people involved in all areas of the game from the FA to the police support safe standing but stick to the official line because they believe that there is no political will for change.

This is not an issue of safety. I have already outlined why safety would be enhanced rather than compromised by rail seating. It is about political will. Politicians must wake up to the fact that standing will continue and rail seating is the solution that will improve safety and enhance choice for fans. That is why it is Liberal Democrat policy and why the other parties need to recognise that the status quo cannot be allowed to continue.

22:36

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)]

I thank the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) for securing the debate and the hon. Members for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) for their important interventions.

As the House knows, the current safety requirements at football grounds followed devastating losses of life at stadium disasters during the ’70s and ’80s. After the Ibrox stadium disaster in 1971, legislation made it a requirement for large designated sports grounds to be issued with a safety certificate from the relevant local authority. Those safety requirements were extended further after the Bradford stadium fire of 1985.

Following the Hillsborough disaster, the Football Licensing Authority was established through the Football Spectators Act 1989. Its role was to implement the Government’s policies on ensuring the reasonable safety and management of spectators at football grounds in England and Wales. The Football Licensing Authority became the Sports Grounds Safety Authority in 2011 and carries out that important role by overseeing how local authorities discharge their safety duties at designated football grounds. It works with football clubs and local authorities to provide advice and help to maintain appropriate safety standards. The framework that is now in place for football grounds is designed to ensure that serious shortcomings, such as those at Hillsborough in 1989, should never occur again.

In addition to the SGSA’s safety advisory and oversight roles, it is required to issue licences for the grounds of clubs in the premier league and football league, as well as the international grounds at Wembley and the Millennium stadium in Cardiff. As the House is aware, following recommendations made by Lord Justice Taylor in his report on the Hillsborough disaster, it has been a long-standing policy of successive Governments that the football grounds of clubs in the top two divisions of football should be all-seater. We appreciate, of course, that some fans miss the tradition and character of some of our former grounds and would like to see a return to standing areas. It is the case also that some clubs have expressed support for flexibility over whether to provide standing or seating areas. However, the Government believe that all-seater stadiums are the best means to ensure the safety and security of fans at football in England and Wales.

[Mr Leech]

I thank the Minister for giving way. As I outlined in my speech, I am proposing that we have areas of rail seating. The stadiums would still be all-seater stadiums, but when people consistently choose to stand, they would be safer than they are at present.

[Mrs Grant]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. If he bears with me, I will come on to the point about rail seating, but safety and security must be paramount. With rail seating, there are still a number of issues.

Some clubs have expressed support for flexibility over whether to provide standing areas or seating areas, and rail seating has been looked at and debated. However, the Government believe that all-seater stadiums are still the very best means to ensure the safety and security of fans at football in England and Wales. Those responsible for safety at football grounds also generally consider that the introduction of all-seater stadiums in the top two divisions must improve public safety, and has also improved crowd management, crowd behaviour and security. We believe that all-seater stadiums are important in helping to provide much better and more comfortable facilities for people to enjoy football matches. They have improved customer care and helped encourage a more modern, inclusive and diverse environment for all those attending.

In 2010, my predecessor as Minister for Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), asked the football authorities, the police and the Sports Grounds Safety Authority for their views on the Government’s all-seater stadiums policy and whether they believed that a change in policy to allow for standing merited further consideration. The responses made it very clear indeed that they would not support a change to the current policy.

The hon. Gentleman raises concerns about the difficulty for some clubs in keeping certain sections of spectators seated and the possible impact of this on safety. He suggests that it might be easier to allow clubs to choose to introduce areas specifically designed for standing, instead of people continuing to stand in seated areas. I recognise that persistent standing by sections of crowds can be an issue at some football matches. Football clubs will have ground regulations which prohibit persistent standing in seated areas, and it is primarily the responsibility of football clubs to ensure that effective crowd management and seating in designated areas are enforced. Again, I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about rail seating, but I do not believe that that is the answer.

[Mr Leech]

I am not sure the Minister listened to everything I said. Standing happens at every single premier league ground and championship ground week in, week out. We have systematically failed to deal with the issue of persistent standing at football grounds. By the nature of the game, people want to stand. We need to allow them to stand in a safer environment than we currently have, and the only way we can do that and still provide seating is with rail seating. I have not heard any arguments on what is the problem with rail seating is .

[Mrs Grant]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I listened very carefully to everything he said; I simply do not necessarily agree with him. The football authorities still think that seating is the best method for making people safe, secure and comfortable when they go to matches. That is not to say that the issue cannot be debated at some point in the future, but currently the football authorities and others agree that seating is one of the safest methods, if not the safest, for ensuring that people enjoy the game.

In 2002 the football authorities, club safety officers, local and national licensing authorities, the police and the SGSA together produced a joint statement on the matter, setting out possible measures to address the problem of people standing up in seating areas, which I know the hon. Gentleman is concerned about. Those bodies recently considered the joint statement yet again and an update was published by the SGSA on 1 December. It clarifies the responsibilities of those involved and includes helpful case studies and best practice and shows how some clubs are dealing with the issue.

I know that no one is suggesting that we should return to the arrangements that were in place 15 or 20 years ago. I also appreciate that some supporters have genuine concerns about the seating requirements. It is clear that the arguments for and against the return of standing in top-flight football have developed over recent years. It is therefore important that we continue to engage in an informed and constructive debate about the issues that have been raised today. However, before any changes to the policy could even be considered, it would be necessary to ensure that they would not only mean a safer environment for football spectators, but build on the improvements made over the past 20 years in security, comfort and inclusivity. On that basis, I am not convinced that a compelling case has been made today.

Question put and agreed to.

22:46

House adjourned.

Petitions

Monday 16th December 2013 Petitions

Monday 16 December 2013

Rural Fair Share Campaign

Monday 16th December 2013 Petitions

The Petition of residents of Newark,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that the Local Government Finance Settlement is unfair to rural communities; notes that the Rural Penalty sees urban areas receive 50% more support per head than rural areas despite higher costs in rural service delivery; and opposes the planned freezing of this inequity in the 2013–14 settlement for six years until 2020.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reduce the Rural Penalty in staged steps by at least 10% by 2020.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Patrick Mercer, Official Report, 4 December 2013; Vol. 571, c. 15P .]

[P001309]

Petitions in same terms were presented by the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) [P001303]; the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) [P001267]; the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) [P001269]; Anonymous [P001294]; Anonymous [P001293]; Anonymous [P001286]; the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) [P001237]; the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) [P001279]; the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) [P001281]; the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) [P001233]; the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) [P001234]; the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) [P001235]; the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) [P001236]; the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) [P001238]; the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) [P001239]; the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) [P001240]; the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) [P001242]; the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) [P001243]; the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) [P001244]; the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) [P001245]; the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) [1246]; the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) [P001247]; the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) [P001249]; the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) [P001250]; the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) [P001251]; the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) [P001252]; the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) [P001253]; the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) [P001254]; the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) [P001255]; the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) [P001258]; the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) [P001259]; the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) [P001261]; the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr O'Brien) [P001263]; the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) [P001266]; the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) [P001268]; the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) [P001270]; the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley) [P001271]; the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) [P001273]; the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) [P001274]; the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) [P001276]; the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) [P001277]; the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) [P001278]; the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) [P001280]; the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) [P001282]; the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) [P001264]; the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) [P001265]; Anonymous [P001272]; Anonymous [P001262].

Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:

The 2013-14 Local Government Finance Settlement was a fair settlement which provides councils with an average spending power including Public Health Grant per dwelling of £2,216 to protect services. It has allowed councils to prioritise service reforms, freeze council tax and build up new local growth income. Average spending power including Public Health Grant reduces by just 1.3 per cent in 2013-14. Since April councils have directly retained nearly £11 billion of business rates instead of returning it to the Government.

The Government have announced it will provide funding to help local government in England freeze council tax in 2014-15 and 2015-16. This will mean we have helped English authorities freeze their council tax for an unprecedented five successive years,.

Overall this year’s settlement provided stability at the start of business rates retention to allow authorities to benefit from business rates growth and protected the most grant dependent authorities, whether they are rural or urban authorities. Funding per head in predominantly rural areas reduced by less than in predominantly urban areas, for all classes of authority. The urban-rural gap in spending power per head shows an even more marked narrowing from 2012-13 to 2013-14.

In setting the business rates retention baseline we increased the weighting and top-ups for sparsity that we consulted on in 2012. We have also paid £8.5 million by Section 31 grant to 95 rural local authorities in 2013-14. This is a transitional grant to help authorities with the highest levels of sparsity secure efficiencies in services delivered to sparse populations

On 9 October the Minister for Local Government announced the successful bids for the Transformation Challenge Award, and 18 local authorities will share a £6.9 million reward for radically overhauling how they do business, as part of our pledge to transform public services. A number of rural authorities were successful in their bids for the Transformation Challenge Award. A rural shire district was also the largest beneficiary of the new Efficiency Support Grant in 2013-14.

We will carefully consider all representations made as part of the forthcoming Local Government Finance Settlement for 2014-15. However, Ministers have been clear that politicians should not play one part of the country off against each other, and the Government wants to see fairness for all parts of country, rural and urban, north and south, metropolitan and shire.

Written Statements

Monday 16th December 2013 Written Statements

Monday 16 December 2013

Financial Management in Government

Monday 16th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)]

In June the Government announced that the Treasury would lead a review on how to strengthen financial management in Government. The Government have today published the review, copies of which have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and are available on the gov.uk website: www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-financial-management-in-government.

The review consulted widely with UK and overseas finance officials, private sector experts, and finance institutes. Baron Sainsbury of Turville acted as expert external adviser to the review.

The review considers leadership across the Government finance function, the flow of management information and the framework of spending controls operated by the centre of Government.

The review recommends strengthening financial leadership within Government by creating a new role—director-general for spending and finance, which will combine the leadership of the Government’s finance function with overall responsibilities for public spending; and to strengthen the relationship between the new role and the Whitehall finance community. The review recommendations making an investment to better understand the costs of activities, and ensure this information is used to better inform decision making. The review sets out that a framework will be developed over the medium-term, within which Departments can take greater responsibility for areas of expenditure that are currently controlled by the centre. Finally, the review recommends consolidating internal audit services over the medium-term providing a single, integrated internal audit service, which will be an independent agency to the Treasury.

With constraints on public expenditure expected to be necessary for years to come, it is more important than ever to ensure taxpayers’ money is well spent. As improved financial management is an essential part of delivering better public services for less, the Government will implement all of the review’s recommendations.

New Homes Bonus

Monday 16th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)]

Today, I am pleased to announce £916 million of provisional new homes bonus funding for local councils in England. The new homes bonus rewards the delivery of additional homes and is a powerful, simple and transparent incentive for housing growth.

I hope this funding will be welcomed by councils at a time when new orders in residential construction have risen to their highest level since 2007 according to Office for National Statistics figures published last week¹. This is in stark contrast to the last Administration, when house building fell to its lowest peacetime rate since the 1920s. Top-down regional strategies and eco-towns failed hardworking families who aspired to own their own home, building nothing but resentment.

As I noted to the House in my recent answer of 2 December 2013, Official Report, column 558W, the new homes bonus ensures that those councils which promote and welcome local growth can share in its economic benefits, and support the communities in which people want to live and work. This money is not ring-fenced and so councils are free to spend the bonus as they choose, including on providing new facilities, protecting frontline services and freezing council tax.

The bonus is based on the council tax of additional homes (net of demolitions) and long-term empty homes brought back into use in the 12-month qualifying period, with an additional premium for affordable homes. The increase for 2014-15 will be paid in respect of 133,000 homes and 37,000 long-term empty properties brought back into use. The affordable homes premium is £15 million in respect of 42,830 new affordable homes.

These allocations bring the total amount of funding awarded under the new homes bonus since it began in April 2011 to over £2.2 billion. This total recognises delivery of almost 550,000 homes, over 93,000 long-term empty properties brought back into use and provision of over 160,000 affordable homes, in that period. This also reflects the success of this Government’s comprehensive programme to get empty homes back into productive use.

There are many good examples of local councils using the bonus in a variety of ways. For example, south Northamptonshire council reinvests affordable housing premiums into new community projects. South Lakeland district council has approved grants totalling almost £80,000 to support projects identified by organisations across the district such as improving footpaths, renovating buildings, and enhancing play areas. And Test Valley borough council is delivering a new £140,000 urban sports facility for Andover, funded by a mix of developer contributions and the new homes bonus. It has also launched a £300,000 community asset initiative, funded from the bonus, to support community-led projects. Other councils will simply be using the money to help freeze council tax and/or support local services.

Local authorities will have until 10 January 2014 to make representations on their provisional allocations. The Department has written to local councils with details for making representations on their authority’s provisional allocations. Final allocations are due in late January/early February next year.

A full list of the provisional allocations and local figures to assist hon. Members is being placed in the Library of the House.

¹ONS Output in the Construction Industry statistics, October 2013 (Published 13 December 2013).

Education, Youth Culture and Sport Council

Monday 16th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

A meeting of the Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council was held in Brussels on 25 and 26 November. Shan Morgan, the UK’s Deputy Permanent Representative, represented the UK for the culture, audiovisual and sport sections of the Council.

Culture and audiovisual

The Council was invited to adopt a general approach on the proposal for a recast directive on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a member state. This proposal aims to improve the operation and effectiveness of the existing directive and to promote co-operation between member states. The Commission intervened to contest a reference in a recital to the establishment of a high-level expert group, emphasising that the establishment of such groups was a prerogative of the Commission. However, the Council was content with the text proposed by the presidency and the general approach was adopted. The UK supported the adoption of the general approach.

The Council was also invited to adopt conclusions on media freedom and pluralism in the digital environment. The presidency noted that the UK had tabled a minute statement setting out our position on EU-level action in the area of media freedom and plurality. The Commission informed the Council that it intended to propose putting the EU group of audiovisual regulatory bodies on a more formal footing, and that it would continue to work closely with the Council of Europe on issues relating to media freedom. The Council was content with the text of the conclusions and they were adopted without opposition.

The Council held a policy debate on connected citizens: changing behaviour of viewers in the converged media environment. The debate was based on a discussion paper circulated by the Lithuanian presidency. It was introduced by Dean Donaldson, global director of media innovation at MediaMind, who provided an overview of the rapid pace of technological change and how media companies, markets and consumers are responding. In the debate, member states identified three key principles: pluralism, cultural diversity and protection of minors. Most member states agreed that over-regulation could have a negative effect on the development of the market. The UK expressed its view that the current regulatory framework was broadly appropriate and did not need to be revised at this stage. However, other member states considered that the audiovisual media services directive should be revised, in particular to change the country of origin principle to country of destination for regulation of audiovisual media services, and to deregulate in the areas of advertising and quotas for European works.

Sport

The Council was invited to adopt a recommendation on promoting health-enhancing activities across sectors. This recommendation encourages the promotion of health-enhancing physical activity by acknowledging the EU’s physical activity guidelines, co-operation between the sport and health sectors, awareness-raising on the benefits of adopting a more active lifestyle, and physical activity in supporting active ageing. The Netherlands informed the Council that it did not consider there was a sufficient cross-border element to the issue to justify EU-level action and that it should be for the member states to take action. Therefore, the Netherlands could not support the recommendation. However, most member states supported the recommendation and it was, therefore, adopted. The UK considered the text to be uncontroversial and supported its adoption.

The Council also adopted conclusions on the contribution of sport to the EU economy, and in particular to addressing youth unemployment and social inclusion. The conclusions present sport as a tool to address the social challenges that young people face across Europe. The Netherlands informed the Council that it considered there were insufficient cross-border aspects to justify EU-level action; however they would not block the adoption of the conclusions. All other member states, including the UK, were content with the conclusions which were adopted by the Council.

The Council held a policy debate on good governance in sport, based on a discussion paper prepared by the Lithuanian presidency. The debate was introduced by Sylvia Schenk, Senior Adviser for Sport at Transparency International, who provided an overview of the key challenges and opportunities for sports organisations and for Governments in supporting those organisations to implement and maintain high standards of governance. In the debate all member states agreed on the importance of good governance to maintaining integrity in sport and that sports organisations should remain autonomous, though with Governments providing a framework to support and guide them in governance matters. The UK emphasised that good governance mattered at all levels of sport from the grassroots up to the elite and professional levels.

Any Other Business

France presented a paper calling for the Commission to draw up a European strategy for culture in the digital era. The French Minister argued that it was important to ensure that culture was taken into account and cultural diversity promoted in other EU policies and initiatives, in particular in relation to taxation, intellectual property and copyright, and the digital agenda. He said that France would organise a forum on Europe and culture in Paris in April 2014. France’s proposal was welcomed by other member states and Greece indicated that consideration of this issue would begin during the forthcoming Greek presidency of the Council. The UK stressed that any future strategy should not impose new restrictions on areas such as the internal market, trade agreements and state aid. This position was supported by Sweden and the Netherlands. Denmark and Germany reminded the Council that culture was essentially a matter for the member states rather than the EU.

The presidency informed the Council about the world conference on anti-doping which took place in Johannesburg on 12-15 November and the new code on anti-doping which will come into force in 2015. France informed the Council about the proposals to mark the 100th anniversary of the football matches in the trenches during the Christmas truce of 1914. These proposals were welcomed by several member states including the UK.

Finally, Greece informed the Council of the work programme and priorities for its forthcoming presidency of the Council. For culture and audiovisual, this will include taking forward negotiations with the European Parliament on the directive on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a member state; an exchange of views on a cultural strategy for the EU; consideration of the role of cultural heritage in the 21st century, including conclusions on the social and economic dimensions; further dialogue on media convergence and media freedom; and a recommendation on cinema in the digital era. For sport it will include preparing and adopting the EU work programme for sport for 2014 to 2017.

Superconnected Cities Project

Monday 16th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

In March 2012 the Chancellor announced that 10 cities had been successful in their bids to be part of the Government’s super-connected cities programme, to bring faster and better broadband and high-speed wireless coverage to more people in our cities by 2015. In his autumn statement of 2012, the Chancellor announced a further 12 cities onto the programme. I would like to update the House on developments with the programme.

Following extensive work with the suppliers, cities and European Commission, the programme has been shaped around three main work streams:

a significant and sustainable upgrade in capability of high-speed/high-grade connections to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) through a connection voucher scheme;

increased coverage of wireless connectivity in city centres, and provide a network of wi-fi hotspots in public buildings, such as museums and libraries in cities across the country; and

innovative connectivity projects that will increase broadband capability and support a more robust, resilient and sustainable broadband infrastructure.

The 22 super-connected cities have made good progress in developing their project plans, and they are moving quickly into the project implementation phase. An important strand of this programme is the connection voucher scheme for SMEs which was opened to all 22 cities on 7 December. The market tests in five cities over the summer have shown that suppliers and SMEs want to participate in the scheme, with over 60 suppliers registered for the market tests and an increasing number now registering for the full scheme.

I now look forward to rolling out the connection voucher scheme across all 22 cities over the coming weeks and bringing the benefits of faster and better broadband to as many SMEs as possible by 2015. This scheme is breaking new ground in the telecommunications sector. My officials will continue to work closely with all the cities as they roll out this scheme and monitor their progress, with a view to extending its benefits as widely as possible.

Alongside this, we have already seen some good progress on bringing wireless services into our city centres. For example, residents and visitors to Birmingham, Bradford, Leeds, Bradford, Cardiff, London and Manchester can access wireless services in city centres which have been provided by commercial suppliers and are free for a limited period at the point of delivery. The wider roll out of 4G mobile and our measures to remove the barriers holding up deployment should support this further.

I want to acknowledge the considerable work that the super-connected cities have done over the course of the last year. I expect the pace of progress to increase as we move into 2014, and I will provide an update to the House in due course on the programme.

Digital Radio

Monday 16th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

Radio is an important part of our cultural and media landscape—over 90% of the population consumes over a billion hours of radio a week.

The previous Government set the objective of a consumer-led transition from analogue to digital in its “Digital Britain” White Paper, and lay the foundations for that switchover with the Digital Economy Act. However, it was made clear that final decisions for a switchover would only be taken when existing FM coverage was replicated on DAB networks and 50% of all radio listening is digital.

This Government endorsed this approach, recognising that digital offers the capacity for many more radio stations, providing consumers with a greater choice of content, and increasing opportunities for the sector to develop new revenue streams. In 2010, we launched the digital radio action plan to inject momentum, and encourage industry to work together to identify and resolve issues in advance of a switchover.

As a result of the concerted action of our partners through the digital radio action plan, much has been achieved since 2010:

the BBC’s national DAB network is now at 94%; the national commercial network is now at 89% (including the recent launch of commercial services for the first time in Northern Ireland), and the local DAB network is over 70%;

digital radio listening has increased from 21.1% in 2009 to 35.6% now and around 45% of households have at least one DAB set;

41.6% of new cars sold in October had DAB radios fitted as standard, up from just 4.4% in 2010;

industry has developed a minimum specification for a DAB radio certification scheme and a car installer scheme has also been developed with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT).

However, in spite of recent progress, the current rate of digital listening has not yet reached 40%. We have always been clear that the switch to digital must be consumer-led rather than Government imposed. Therefore, we do not believe that now is the time to commit to a switchover.

Nonetheless, we want to maintain the positive industry action to promote digital listening, because we know that consumers like the clearer sound and ease of tuning, not to mention the wide range of content offered.

Today, I have therefore announced the following:

There will be up to £21 million of new investment from the BBC, Government and commercial radio to build out digital radio coverage, so more homes can receive it;

Government will fund Ofcom to develop ways for smaller radio stations to go digital;

Ofcom is seeking expressions of interest to build and run a second national commercial multiplex in the new year to allow new national commercial radio stations to launch;

Ofcom is launching a review of music format rules for commercial radio, with a view to giving industry greater freedom to adapt to changing consumer tastes;

A new partnership will be formed between Digital Radio UK and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency as well as the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency to provide people with information on upgrading their car radio to digital;

That Digital Radio UK are planning to set a new digital certification mark scheme in 2014, which will be attached to all digital radios that meet a minimum technical specification and performance standards developed by industry;

Digital Radio UK will work with industry on an approved installer scheme so drivers can be confident when choosing someone to install a digital radio in their car.

Armed Forces Covenant

Monday 16th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

The armed forces covenant sets out the obligation that the Government and the nation have to the armed forces community. The covenant has two key principles: that those who serve in the armed forces, whether regular or reserve, those who have served in the past, and their families, should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services; and that special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given the most, such as the injured and bereaved.

The Armed Forces Act 2011 enshrines these principles in law and places an obligation on the Defence Secretary to report to Parliament each year on the effects of membership of the armed forces on serving personnel, veterans and their families.

The Government are today publishing the second covenant annual report, which I am laying in the House today. The report’s main chapters are based around the fields specified in the legislation: health care, education, housing and the operation of inquests. Each chapter reports on some of the key achievements of the past year and records what more we plan to do.

Over the last 12 months, we have:

committed £17.5 million to ensure that Headley Court and nine specialist NHS facilities in England can provide state of the art prosthetics for injured personnel;

increased the service pupil premium to £300 per child from April 2013;

ensured that seriously injured veterans receive a new armed forces independence payment and will receive at least as much under this arrangement as they currently do from the highest rates of disability living allowance or personal independence payment;

revised the schools admissions code to allow infant schools in England to exceed the maximum class size in order to admit a service child;

purchased an additional 700 new high-quality properties for service families to begin occupying this year;

continued the community covenant, under which almost 400 local authorities in Great Britain have now pledged to work to bring the civilian and armed forces communities closer together;

allocated some £35 million through the covenant LIBOR fund to support charities and others in delivering 96 projects that will benefit the armed forces community; and

introduced the corporate covenant, which provides an opportunity for businesses and other organisations to declare their support for members of the armed forces community who work for and use their services.

Looking ahead, the report makes a number of commitments:

the new unified Defence Primary Healthcare Service will be fully operational from April 2014;

Ofsted will report on the use of the service pupil premium in schools with service children;

access to the standard learning credits scheme will be extended to all members of the reserve forces from April 2014;

a ministerially-chaired board will be established to oversee progress with improvements to the provision of service accommodation;

the MOD will consider whether there could be more flexibility in the provision of service accommodation, such as extending entitlement to those in long-term relationships; and

the MOD will provide a defined contribution for all paid service in the reserve forces to the future armed forces pension scheme with effect from April 2015.

The report has been compiled in consultation with the covenant reference group, which brings together representatives from Government Departments, the devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales, and from external members, including the three families federations, the Confederation of Service Charities, the Royal British Legion, SSAFA, the War Widows Association and Professor Hew Strachan of Oxford university. As in previous years, observations by the external members of the covenant reference group are published as part of the report itself. Once again, I am most grateful to the external members for their continued involvement and assistance.

Public Service Pensions Act 2013

Monday 16th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

I am pleased to lay before Parliament today a report. It sets out the likely effect of section 10 of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 on members of the defence fire and rescue service and the Ministry of Defence police.

The report has considered the effects—as far as they are known—on health and well-being, operational capability and the likelihood of early retirement in consequence of section 10.

I am clear though that it provides a basis for further engagement with both Unite and Prospect on behalf of the defence fire and rescue service and the Defence Police Federation on behalf of the Ministry of Defence police. Recent meetings with representatives of both groups have resulted in agreement as to how that future engagement will be conducted. This will begin in the new year.

I know too that, at the Adjournment debate of 26 November 2013, Official Report, column 231, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) who is responsible for defence personnel, welfare and veterans agreed to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) and the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright), the Defence Police Federation, Unite and Prospect in the new year. Action is in hand to make those arrangements.

Successor Submarine Programme

Monday 16th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

On 18 May 2011, my predecessor, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) made an oral statement to the House, Official Report, column 351, announcing the approval of the initial gate investment stage for the procurement of the successor submarines to the Vanguard class. He also placed a report “The United Kingdom’s Future Nuclear Deterrent: The Submarine Initial Gate Parliamentary Report” in the Library of the House.

This Government have committed to publishing an annual report on the programme and I am today publishing the second report, “The United Kingdom’s Future Nuclear Deterrent: 2013 Update to Parliament”. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

City Deals

Monday 16th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

Following the successful completion of the first wave of city deals in July 2012, with the “Core Cities” the Government committed to work with a further 20 cities and their wider areas to negotiate a second wave of city deals in October 2012.

I can today inform the House that the Government and business and civic leaders in the Tees Valley and Hull and the Humber have reached agreement on city deals.

The Hull and Humber city deal will build on the area’s strengths in the energy industry. A centre of excellence for energy skills will be established where local businesses will work with training providers to ensure local young people are equipped with the skills they require for careers in the energy sector and a payment-by-results system will be introduced so that skills training providers are properly incentivised for supporting local adults into sustainable employment or education that furthers their careers. To provide confidence to companies wishing to invest in developing key sites around the Humber, while ensuring the area’s environmental assets are protected, the deal commits statutory agencies to working together to provide a single point of contact to potential investors. In addition, the Humber Local Enterprise Partnership and its member local authorities have committed to the production of a 25-year spatial plan to optimise the Humber estuary. The city deal will also deliver a business support programme to provide businesses with the support they require to grow. Hull and the Humber Local Enterprise Partnership predicts that the deal will lead to an expected £460 million of private sector investment in development on the Humber and deliver more than 4,000 jobs, in offshore wind related industries.

The Tees Valley city deal acknowledges the area’s strengths in large-scale production, chemical and process industries. The deal will see the Tees Valley make plans for an industrial carbon capture and storage network, which will identify the best options for an onshore network, explore investment opportunities and develop a business case for investment in industrial carbon capture and storage. In parallel, two waste heat networks will be developed, where waste heat from industry will be used to heat homes, businesses hospitals and local businesses, serving to reduce energy bills in the areas covered. The deal will benefit local businesses through the Tees Valley Business Growth Hub, which will give them a single point of contact for national and local business support. Tees Valley Unlimited Local Enterprise Partnership predict that the city deal will create 3,500 jobs and unlock £44 million of private and public sector investment.

Technical and Vocational Education

Monday 16th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

As part of our drive to increase rigour and responsiveness of vocational qualifications, I am confirming today which vocational qualifications for 14 to 19-year-olds have met the standards required to count in the school and college performance tables. The lists of qualifications published today will apply to courses taught from September 2014 for performance tables in 2016 and beyond.

For the first time 16 to 19-year-old students and their parents will be able to see which vocational qualifications are valued by industry and higher education. Two new types of vocational qualification for 16 to 19-year-olds are being introduced:

Tech levels are large level 3 qualifications comparable to A levels. They must lead to recognised occupations, for example in engineering, construction, horticulture, information technology, accounting or professional cookery, either directly or through a vocational degree. To count as a tech level in the performance tables, a qualification requires clear public support from professional bodies, or five employers registered with Companies House.

Applied general qualifications are also level 3 qualifications, but provide broader study of a vocational area which fulfil entry requirements to a range of HE courses, either in their own right or alongside other level 3 qualifications. Applied general qualifications need the backing of a minimum of three universities.

Tech levels and applied general qualifications will be reported separately in performance tables to other academic level 3 qualifications including A and AS levels, the international baccalaureate and the Pre-U.

The third annual list of 14 to 16 vocational qualifications is also being published. This includes a wide choice of qualifications including new engineering courses which have been designed by the Royal Academy of Engineering and backed by world-leading businesses like JCB, Rolls-Royce and Siemens.

The details of the qualifications which will count towards the technical baccalaureate measure (the techbacc) announced in April are also being published. Techbacc students will recognise the highest level of technical training achieved by students aged 16 to 19.

The lists of approved publications will be published at 9.30 am on the gov.uk website.

“Energy Efficiency Strategy: 2013 Update”

Monday 16th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

The Government are today publishing the “Energy Efficiency Strategy: 2013 Update”.

In November 2012 the coalition published the first ever Government energy efficiency strategy, which sets out our mission to seize the energy efficiency opportunity in the UK. The 2013 update focuses on the significant progress that has been made over the last 12 months.

Since the publication of the energy efficiency strategy we have extended the support available to households; simplified the existing business energy efficiency policy landscape, reducing administrative burdens; paved the way for innovation by establishing access to new energy efficiency finance routes; and improved our understanding of the multiple benefits of energy efficiency.

Energy efficiency is a key priority in supporting household and business energy consumers with rising costs. We have taken steps over the last 12 months to ease the impact of rising prices, and plan to do more in 2014.

In developing the 2013 update, officials in my Department have worked closely with their counterparts across Government to ensure that the 2013 update captures the full range of our activity on energy efficiency.

I will place copies of the strategy update in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are also available online on gov.uk.

Civil Nuclear Police Authority (Triennial Review)

Monday 16th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)]

The coalition Government are committed to ensuring accountability in public life. That is why we have established the triennial review process to examine all non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs).

As part of this ongoing programme, I am announcing today the triennial review of the Civil Nuclear Police Authority (CNPA)

As with all such reviews, this has two aims:

to challenge the continuing need for an NDPB to carry out this role—both its functions and form; and—if it is agreed it should remain as an advisory NDPB;

to review its control and governance arrangements to ensure it is complying with recognised principles of good corporate governance.

I will announce the findings of the review in March 2014.

If you would like further information, or to contribute to the review, please contact my Department at: [e-mail]. This DECC mailbox will be open until end March 2014.

“Winterbourne View: Transforming Care One Year On”

Monday 16th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

On 10 December 2012, I made an oral statement and placed in the Library “Transforming Care: A national response to Winterbourne View Hospital”, Official Report, column 49. This followed our review of the events and appalling abuse of patients at Winterbourne View, a private hospital for the assessment and treatment of people with learning disabilities. Transforming care was accompanied by a concordat setting out an extensive list of commitments for a range of actions spanning across the health and care system and beyond. These involved a series of partners, including NHS England, the Local Government Association, the Care Quality Commission and many others.

One of the commitments in the concordat was that we would publish a progress report one year on and this was published on 13 December 2013. The report shows that the Department and its many partners, working closely with stakeholders, including most importantly self-advocates, family carers and the third sector, have made good progress carrying forward many of the concordat commitments and actions. There are many products from this work, including:

the new learning disability census, published by the Health and Social Care Information Centre;

a stocktake of progress by the joint improvement programme published down to local level;

an enhanced quality assurance programme to support delivery against the June 2014 milestone for people to be cared for in the right setting for them as individuals;

a new approach by the Care Quality Commission to the inspection of health and learning disabilities services from next year, to be led by Professor Sir Mike Richards;

new fundamental standards which will deliver corporate accountability, to be set out in regulations; and

steps to secure adult safeguarding boards through the Care Bill.

The full report includes an appendix detailing progress against all the commitments.

We know, that in spite of the progress over the last 12 months there is a great deal still to be done.

Of the 48 former Winterbourne View residents themselves, one has sadly since died so NHS England is tracking progress for the remaining 47. Thirteen of these people are still in an NHS inpatient setting and 12 of those are out of area. This remains unacceptable.

The new learning disability census data show 3,250 people meeting the criteria for inclusion, while earlier in the year NHS England and the clinical commissioning groups identified 2,677 individuals whose care plans have all now been reviewed. These new data will allow health and care commissioners to track back and resolve anomalies, which are likely to have been caused by definitional issues of terms such as “challenging behaviour”, and commissioning complexities. This information will ensure that all those who meet the inclusion criteria also receive the right attention, including care reviews, to help them move into the type and place of care which is right for them by June 2014.

The progress report “Winterbourne View: Transforming Care One Year On” has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.

Modern Slavery

Monday 16th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

Modern slavery is a brutal crime which knows no boundaries and does not discriminate on gender, age, creed, culture or race. Traffickers and slave masters exploit whatever means they have at their disposal to coerce, deceive and force individuals into a life of abuse, servitude and inhumane treatment. This is simply unacceptable in modern day Britain. We will not, and cannot let this continue.

That is why I have set up a new modern slavery unit in the Home Office, and it will be responsible for ensuring that we tackle this problem from every angle, while always keeping the plight of victims at the very heart of our policies and everything we do.

Today, I have published a White Paper which includes a draft Modern Slavery Bill (CM 8770) to strengthen our response and reduce the number of victims of this abhorrent crime. This flagship Bill will be the first of its kind in Europe, and sends a strong message, both domestically and internationally, that the UK is determined to put an end to modern slavery.

The Bill will simplify legislation, toughen sentences for slave drivers, and enable the courts to restrict activity where individuals may be at risk. This will mean that more traffickers are pursued, disrupted and brought to justice. The Bill will also create an Anti-Slavery Commissioner who will galvanise law-enforcement’s efforts to tackle modern slavery.

We have already asked the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) to lead a series of evidence sessions. The draft Bill will now be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and copies will be available from the Vote Office. Both the Member for Birkenhead’s report and the Joint Committee’s report will inform development of the final Bill and an action plan which will be published in the spring.

Written Ministerial Question (Correction)

Monday 16th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

I regret to inform the House that a written answer I gave on 28 October 2013, Official Report, column 321W, to the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) needs amendment. The hon. Gentleman asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what costs were incurred by his Department’s estate in respect of (a) gas and (b) electricity supply in the 2012-13 financial year.

The answer said that the costs incurred by the Scotland Office in the 2012-13 financial year, in respect of (a) gas was £6,876.40 and (b) electricity was £110,804.98, which includes £47,744.96 for Whitehall Standby Distribution System standing charges.

The figure for gas charges was correct. However, the figure given for electricity costs also included the charges for the Whitehall Heating System and the Standby Distribution System. The Whitehall Heating System supplies hot waters to Departments for central heating. The Standby Distribution System would supply electricity to Departments in the event of a power failure.

The correct answer to the hon. Member’s question is:

The costs incurred by the Scotland Office in the 2012-13 financial year, in respect of (a) gas was £6,876.40, and (b) electricity was £28,205.52. The charges for the Whitehall Heating System and the Standby Distribution System amounted to £82,599.46.

The overall costs of energy supplies provided in the original answer are not changed by this amendment.

Grand Committee

Monday 16th December 2013 Grand Committee

Monday, 16 December 2013.

Pensions Bill

Monday 16th December 2013 Grand Committee

Committee (1st Day)

15:30

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen) (Lab)]

My Lords, I must first announce that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume again after 10 minutes.

Clause 1: State pension

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out subsection (2)

[Baroness Turner of Camden (Lab)]

My Lords, I should explain to the Committee that a number of amendments that I have tabled to the Bill have been tabled after I have had a fairly lengthy discussion with the pensions officer of the union Unite, of which I am a member. As the Committee will probably know, for many years, I was a national officer of one of the founding unions of Unite, and that is where I come from on pensions. The union has always been very interested in pension provision, and the amendments have been tabled as a result of discussion with large sections of the membership.

This amendment arises because of the exclusion of certain people from the capital altogether. The reform proposed in the Bill has been brought forward at a time when half of all existing pensioners qualify for means-tested benefits and one-third of all pensioners with incomes below the guaranteed credit level for pension credit are not getting the benefits.

I am told that there is huge resentment among today’s pensioners that they are being ignored, and special resentment on the part of those who feel that they might have benefited from the new legislation but have lost out because of the cliff edge presented by the effect of the April 2016 date.

For those reasons, I tabled the amendment that the subsection should be deleted. As I understand it, the policy of the union is that government policy ought to be focused on raising the level of the basic state pension for all pensioners. That is what the union is standing on at the moment. It is for that reason, and to test the feeling of the Government on the issue of the concern of existing pensioners, that I have tabled the amendment. I also fully support Amendment 2, with which it has been grouped, because, again, it is concerned with the poverty of existing pensioners, which is something we should all be concerned about. I beg to move.

[Baroness Greengross (CB)]

My Lords, under my Amendment 2, the deletion of Clause 1(2) would extend the single-tier pension to all pensioners from 2016. My proposed new subsection would require the Government to publish details of measures which would end pensioner poverty. As the noble Baroness said, current pensioners and others due to reach state pension age before 6 April 2016 have been excluded from the single-tier pension. Current pensioners should also benefit from the single tier. A number of options are available to achieve this. For example, the Government could consider extending the single-tier pension to current pensioners. Another approach would see the level of pension credit guarantee increased to the level of the single tier for current pensioners, who will otherwise miss out.

We know that pensioner poverty has fallen over time from 2.9 million in 1998-99 to 1.6 million, of whom nearly 900,000 are in severe poverty, with incomes of less than half median income. Proposed new subsection (2) would make the Government set out a timetable and a strategy for reducing and eventually abolishing pensioner poverty.

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, I have encountered more upset in relation to this aspect of the Bill than what I would hope was support for having a state pension above the level of income support. Quite simply, we are talking about individuals who have paid their national insurance, who are too old to benefit from the 2016 changes, whose pensions are less than that, and who feel somewhat aggrieved that many people who have not paid their national insurance will qualify for the increased pension after 2016 when they will not. I appreciate that it is all about money, but I wonder whether a full calculation has been done of the net real costs of putting everyone who is entitled to a pension on to the new arrangement in 2016; I suppose that is unless they have qualifications that exceed that. However, I can only think that there would be a significant net-off in terms of other welfare payments if people’s pensions were slightly larger. This is a fundamentally good piece of legislation on which there is relatively cross-party support. However, I slightly warn the Government that this issue—that those who are too old to benefit from the 2016 reforms will often be worse off than those young enough to benefit—is rather spoiling the welcome to these changes.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to ask a simple question that relates to one of the hopes that some of us had a year or so back. The greatest proportion of those claiming pension credit tend to be elderly widows—when the husband died, the pension died with him—over the age of 80 or 85. I fully understand that to bring all pensions on to this would be a big-ticket item for any Government to contemplate; that is not in doubt, as the previous speaker mentioned. However, what if we were to introduce the pension not just for people reaching pension age in 2016 but for those over 85, and then for the next decade bring the 85s down by a year, with the 65s going up a year, as they will? They would meet in about a decade for men, perhaps slightly later for women. In about a decade or so, virtually all pensions would be covered on an incremental basis. I have not been able to cost that. I was told, teasingly by the Minister in the other place, that he thought it would probably cost half a billion pounds, but whether that was per year or in total was not made clear to me. Have there been any thoughts about how we might progressively increase the coverage?

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

I would like to make three points. I hope that there will be cross-party support but, if we are now saying that the higher pension should apply to everybody, clearly we need to know the cost. I have to ask the question: why did Labour not do this in its 13 years if it does not cost money? The point has to be made. Resentment could build up among those who see younger people coming forward on larger pensions. We know that there is a problem with women in the 1951 to 1953 age group. We have to understand exactly how much this is going to cost. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is absolutely right: it is not necessary for this legislation, but in the future obviously we should look—as the country can afford it—at how we can phase in for various groups of pensioners the higher rate and get rid of means-testing for them. We need to know about the money but we also have to be realistic. You have to start somewhere on this higher-rate pension, and where the Government have tried in difficult circumstances to start is the best that can be done at the moment, I think. Obviously we should look at the future at some stage, once we are aware of the cost and how we can afford it.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to add a more operational note to the questions raised by the important amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. She makes a powerful case, but the financial circumstances suggest to me that there is more likelihood of eventually getting into the position that was explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, than she was suggesting.

The implication of the amendment is that it would extend the single-tier pension to all pensioners. I have some questions about the operational capacity of the system to deliver sensibly some of these significant changes. In the first place, the Green Paper suggested that we should be looking at this by 2017. That has been brought forward; there are obvious advantages to that but it has caused some people to raise questions with me. Some of that is informed by the current controversy about the efficacy of the systems for universal credit, which are of course of a different order in terms of the IT systems. It also has to be acknowledged that the Pension Service has a very good record of implementing some of this stuff; when pension credit came in, it was done in a way that got very high marks from the National Audit Office, as I recall. So it may be that everything is going to be fine, but if the national insurance records are not all clean data then we could be facing some serious difficulties in delivering the payment of pensions on time. There are other operational matters that I am sure are concerning people at Longbenton in Newcastle, as they should be.

Speaking for myself, I would be very pleased to get some kind of assurance at some stage in Committee that with regard to this huge and significant change, affecting a number of very vulnerable households, the department, having regard to the recent reductions in staff and all the other matters, is in place to be able to deliver this efficiently and on time in the way that is proposed.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendments 1 and 2, I look forward to a productive time in Grand Committee. I assure the Minister that there will be cross-party consensus over the direction of travel; this very much carries on the direction that Labour took in government, and I look forward to being able to debate the detail. This first group has already highlighted a number of the issues that we are going to want to explore over the next few weeks. The point about cost made by the noble Lord, Lord Flight, and my noble friend Lady Hollis is an important one, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an indication of both the cost of bringing all these people into the system but also the cost drivers that might help us to understand better my noble friend’s point. If he could cost her ingenious scheme before we got to the end of this stage of the Bill, that would also be very helpful.

The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, about operational issues is going to become very important. There are amendments later on in which we will begin to explore how the department will communicate with people, and that will surface many of those issues. The Minister may want to be prepared before we get to that stage.

I, too, have heard concerns from all kinds of people. I know that Age Concern has been very worried; it has been getting letters, e-mails and phone calls from people who are anxious about the fact that they will not get this new pension that they have read so much about. One of the requirements on the Government from a very early point is going to be to try to manage their communication better, as I will say later on when we come to discuss information. The Select Committee found a huge amount of confusion among the public about who would get what and when. It is not surprising, therefore, that people are as anxious as they are.

Will the Minister reassure the Committee that the Government are alive to the concerns of those who have already reached state pension age or will do so before implementation, and will carry on listening? Will they consider the impact on those pensioners as the system is brought in? Will the Government, maybe at the next Committee day, take the opportunity to explain to us the impact of the new amendments tabled in the wake of the autumn Statement? That could be helpful, and we could look at it later this week.

Will the Minister help the Committee to reflect on the position of those who retire before implementation on modest incomes? Will he clarify that those who have saved with the second state pension or its predecessors will find that any amount they get in future which is above the single-tier pension is in fact uprated only by CPI? There is a perception that everybody before the transition gets one thing and everybody after it gets another, when in fact, as we will unfold, it is going to be a lot more complicated than that.

Is the Minister concerned at all about the distributional impact for those in that area of modest earnings? He will know that S2P is distributive because it treats anyone earning between the lower earnings limit of £5,668 and the lower earnings threshold of £15,000 as though they earn £15,000. That distributive element is quite important in protecting those on modest incomes and making sure that they can save for the future.

15:45

I also wonder whether the Minister can tell us something about what will happen in the future to passported benefits for those who reach state pension age before implementation. For those who are currently passported to benefits on savings credit, I understand that that will carry on being available to them because they will get there before 6 April 2016. However, can he assure us that both the savings credit and the access to those passported benefits on the back of it will carry on being available to them for as long as they live? That may be a source of assurance to those people as well.

Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, also raises the question of how the Government monitor the impact on pensioner poverty. Pensioner poverty is something that we on these Benches take very seriously. As I indicated at Second Reading, when Labour came to office in 1997 we inherited unacceptably high levels of pensioner poverty and took to addressing it in a range of ways—through the minimum income guarantee, by pegging pensions to earnings, by introducing the very pension savings credit that is shortly to bite the dust, by bringing low earners and carers into the second state pension and also, crucially, by reducing the number of years of national insurance contributions needed for a full state pension. It was 44 years for men and that came down to 30, and it was 39 years for women, which came also down to 30. As a result of all that, pensioner poverty fell to the lowest level for 30 years.

The Government may well accept the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, but, if not, can the Minister tell the Committee how the Government propose to monitor pensioner poverty and what steps they will take to ensure that we do not end up back in the situation in which we found ourselves in 1997?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Turner and Lady Greengross, for their amendments, which cut to the heart of the rationale for these reforms and provide an opportunity to discuss how this Government are committed to a decent and secure income for all pensioners.

Clause 1 is a landmark in the history of British state pensions. It creates a single state pension in place of the current two-tier system. It marks a return to the simplicity that Beveridge had in mind in 1942 and a withdrawal of the state from earnings-related pension provision. The fact is that we now need a new pension system to meet the needs of today’s working-age population. We estimate that 13 million people are not saving enough for retirement.

The single tier will provide a flat-rate pension above the level of the basic means test to most people in the future. This goes hand in hand with automatic enrolment and will help to give those saving today for their retirement far more clarity about what they can expect from the state. The reforms will also help to dispel any perception that people’s own savings could be offset by a corresponding loss of means-tested benefit.

The key point here is that the reforms are about restructuring spending to support saving. They are not about spending more or less on future pensioners, and they have been designed to stay within the amount that we were projected to have spent if we had rolled the current system forward. In designing the transition, we have been able to right some historic wrongs, as the Minister for Pensions has often said.

I turn to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, about what she calls the cliff-edge effect. Around three-quarters of pensioners retiring in the five first cohorts will see a change of less than £5 a week compared with if we rolled the current system forward.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Is that medium or median?

[Lord Freud]

I think that in practice it will be a mean average. However, I will make that absolutely clear.

By withdrawing the facility to build a pension above the flat rate and modernising the system, removing elements such as savings credit and derived entitlement that no longer reflect the needs of the working-age population, we are able to fund the single-tier pension and improve the outcomes of groups such as the self-employed, carers and low earners, who have historically seen lower state pensions. It follows, therefore, that there are two means by which we could apply the new state pension to existing pensioners.

First, we could simply increase the pension of all existing pensioners to the full single-tier rate, if they are currently receiving less. In response to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Flight, we estimate that this would cost around £10 billion.

[Lord Flight]

Per annum?

[Lord Freud]

It would be £10 billion per annum.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I think that by the time we have a rolling cohort, by definition that cannot be the case. I realise that we are pressing the Minister for information while he is on his feet. It would be very helpful if, perhaps towards the end, he could pick up points on which we have asked questions.

[Lord Freud]

I will confirm the precise parameters around that £10 billion figure to the Committee as soon as I have that information.

On the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on rolling together from an 85 base, we do not have those particular costs, as she might imagine. However, we can look at the numbers, although it will be a very complex exercise, not least because some will have a current pension in excess of the £144 base we are using on an illustrative basis.

If we were to take those extra costs they would fall to today’s workers; the risk would be that that would undermine the trust between the generations, which is at the heart of our pay-as-you-go national insurance system.

The alternative would be to assess the single-tier entitlement of this group and pay this amount. If we did this, and fully brought forward the single-tier rules for existing pensioners, this would entail removing some pension already in payment, such as derived entitlement and the savings credit. I suspect that we would all agree that this would be totally unacceptable.

However, this Government are equally clear that it would be unacceptable for today's poorer pensioners to get left behind, and have taken many steps to ensure this is not the case. We have restored the earnings link to the basic state pension. The coalition’s introduction of triple-lock uprating on top means that the level of the basic state pension is now at its highest proportion of average earnings in more than 20 years.

To ensure that the poorest pensioners benefit from the triple lock, this year the pension credit standard minimum guarantee was increased by the same cash amount as the basic state pension, and that will happen next year. These measures have been particularly key in the unusually uncertain economic climate we have seen in recent years. In a time of austere spending decisions, we have protected key benefits for older people, including winter fuel payments.

The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is right to highlight the importance of effective monitoring of pensioner poverty and the effects of these reforms on retirement incomes; indeed, her sterling work as the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Ageing and Older People has continued to champion this cause. The latest figures, for 2011-12, show that the rate of relative poverty among pensioners is close to the lowest ever recorded. It is at 14%. I recall with slight irony that when we debated the Child Poverty Bill in 2009, the expression “eradication” was used about bringing the poverty figure for children down there to 10%. The DWP publishes annually the households below average income report, a national statistic which provides a full analysis of the levels of relative and absolute poverty for pensioners, and pensioner material deprivation. In addition, in order to look at the impact of the Government’s pension reforms as a whole, the Government published a framework for the analysis of future pension incomes in September 2013, which provides an overview of projected future retirement incomes.

I will pick up the question from my noble friend Lord Kirkwood, who asked for reassurance on the delivery plans for the single-tier state pension. As noble Lords are all aware, it will be introduced from 6 April 2016. The single-tier programme was set up in early 2012 to undertake early feasibility work and test deliverability of the policy as it was being developed. It is a DWP programme, with changes being delivered by the DWP and HMRC.

We are confident of delivering by April 2016 for several reasons. First, there is broad consensus on the main principles of the reform, which provides a helpful basis to plan for implementation. The main development of systems will commence once the Bill gets Royal Assent, at which point the key legislation will be settled. This will ease the challenge of developing systems while policy is likely to change.

Secondly, the key change needed to deliver single tier is to reform the way we calculate state pension, based on an individual’s national insurance contributions. We have long-standing experience of using national insurance contribution records held on HMRC systems to calculate pensions. Single tier is just a variant of that process. We will, however, aim to use this opportunity to make improvements to the way that we deliver our services.

Thirdly, both departments have the capacity to deliver the programme, have a good recent track record of making major changes to pensions calculations to tight timescales and have successfully delivered previous pension reform changes. The programme will use a process of phased development of systems and processes to minimise any risks to delivery of single tier. Both the DWP and HMRC will use existing staff who have expertise in dealing with NICs and pensions to deliver these reforms. HMRC also has experience of managing the end of contracting out for defined contribution schemes in 2012. This will stand it in good stead for introducing the changes for defined benefit schemes.

Finally, we will engage users and interested parties in a very practical way, helping us to test each stage of developments to make sure that they work to provide an accessible and easy-to-use service. The new systems will be tested in advance of April 2016, through the advance claims process. Additionally, we are building in contingency to ensure that the existing telephony channel can be used, just in case the digital solution does not work on day one.

A clear governance structure exists to manage the implementation. A DWP programme board, on which HMRC sits, is in place to oversee delivery of single-tier pension and delivery teams have been set up in both departments. Both departments believe that delivery of the single-tier reform is challenging but doable. The main change needed to deliver single tier is to reform the way we calculate state pension and that remains the focus of the programme. We do, however, need to take this opportunity to move to a more efficient and customer-focused business delivery that meets the government commitment to deliver more services digitally. To achieve this, the programme team is working closely with the Cabinet Office. The department is also building its capability in developing digital services through the appointment of a director-general with introduction of single tier as a digital service as his primary responsibility.

To conclude, I agree that reducing pensioner poverty is crucial. The steps already taken by this Government will help to do so and the measures in the Bill will provide for a more secure future for generations to come. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, to withdraw her amendment.

16:00

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I wonder if I could just follow up on a couple of points. I thank the Minister for that response and I understand that, certainly at a £10 billion a year price tag, this would be a challenging reform to adopt. Could I ask him—I may have missed it and I apologise if I did—to respond to my questions about pension credit and passported benefits? If the Government are not going to able to bring existing pensioners into the new system can he give us a categorical assurance that pension credit will last throughout, and if so that the passported benefits on the back of that will come?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we are not changing the existing system for people who are on that system. Therefore that system, with the way that pension credit is set up, will not change for those people.

[Baroness Sherlock]

Forgive me, but may I therefore invite the Minister to put it this way: the Government have no plans to end savings credit, change its current value or change access to benefits currently passported on it?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am happy so to confirm. As I say, for existing pensioners we have no plans to make any changes to the way that pension credit works. I have got a little bit more information. The cost of £10 billion is to get everyone on to single tier, and that is the cost to get all current pensioners to the illustrative £144 per week. I can confirm that cost is £10 billion per annum. This is a figure taken at 2016 and clearly that would reduce over time. The other issue that we discussed as we went through this was the 75% of people who see a change of less than £5 a week: this is not an average and most people will see only a small change compared to the current system.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I will first follow up on my noble friend’s point on savings credit. The Minister says that it will remain unchanged, but given that it is going to be CPI uprated, where the guaranteed pension credit is earnings related, at what point does the Minister expect savings credit to no longer exist because the guarantee has caught up with it? Therefore, although it is technically true that there will be no changes none the less it is surely also true that, X period of time on, given assumptions about inflation and so on, savings credit will in practice no longer exist.

[Baroness Sherlock]

I thank my noble friend. I think that when the Minister comes to read Hansard, he may notice that I asked him to confirm that its value would not change and I am sure that he meant to clarify the level rather than the value. One of the reasons is that, since they came to power, the Government have frozen the maximum level at which savings credit can be obtained. I wonder whether they intend to carry that on, in which case would we find that its value did, in fact, diminish.

[Lord Flight]

I am sorry to bother the Minister but is the £10 billion figure what I call gross or net? The key issue is that many older pensioners who would not otherwise qualify will qualify for various forms of income support in whatever is left of pension tax credits, and there really is a need to net all those projected costs off if they are not covered in the £10 billion to see what the actual net extra cost is. If, in that exercise, the Government discovered that the cost was much less than that, then I think this is something that could be thought about.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

In particular, my Lords, given that the Government are proposing to remove AIPs for those over 75, there is therefore going to be an annual means-testing of pensioners who, if they were 10 or 12 years younger, would have that £144 as of right.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I shall respond where I can. I think that I shall have to write on the future of the savings credit as a result of an earnings increase of guaranteed credit, as it is quite complicated. At this stage, I shall also have to write to confirm exactly where we are on the question of whether the figure is gross or net. In practice, I think that I will end up writing quite often on these figures because they are quite complicated and one wants to double-check them carefully. Offering responses on the hoof may be a little dangerous and I shall be reduced to writing more often than would be the case with some of the other things that we discuss. With those issues raised and with a process to deal with them, I again ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

I thank everybody who has participated in this debate, which has been very interesting. It has demonstrated that there really is a bit of a problem here with current pensioners who feel that they have been neglected, and I think that they have some justification for feeling that. I am very interested in what the Minister had to say, particularly on pension credit. I shall look at that very carefully when we have the opportunity to read what he has said this afternoon.

I am surprised that there has not been a rather better reception for the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. Quite frankly, I cannot see what there is for the Government to lose by having an annual review of pensioner poverty. I should have thought that it would be a very good idea, and it would certainly ease some of the concerns that pensioners have at the moment. In the mean time, I shall withdraw the amendment—

[Lord Freud]

I want to make it absolutely clear, if I did not do so in my answer, that that information is provided annually. I was by no means not accepting that amendment; I was just making the point that it was a good idea and, as such, had already been implemented.

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

I accept that the Government have the information and I am very grateful for that. On the other hand, we were hoping that there would be an opportunity in Parliament to discuss the results of a review annually. That would give us the opportunity, as parliamentarians, to see what the position was annually as far as poor pensioners were concerned. That was one of the aims of the noble Baroness’s amendment. However, I am very grateful for what the Minister has said this afternoon. We will look at it with a great deal of concern because we are still worried about what happens to existing pensioners. We know that some of them are upset and worried that they have been missed out in the pension review, which is what this Bill is all about. Therefore, I will certainly have a look at what has been said not only by the Minister but by everyone else in this very interesting debate. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendment 2 not moved.

Amendment 3

Moved by

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) Notwithstanding subsection (2), regulations may provide that any woman born between 6 April 1951 and 5 April 1953 and ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom shall be eligible to receive benefits under this Part.”

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, to try to pre-empt any teasing I shall apologise for putting my notes on a stand, but the alternative is to have them in very large font.

I support the equalisation of the pension age, although I think it has been too compressed. However, one cohort of women feel that they have been unjustly treated. I want, in particular, to raise the issue of those women born between April 1951 and April 1953. Women older than them will have retired at a younger age and enjoy their pension for longer. Women younger than them will qualify for the new higher pension. They are caught in the middle. They have experienced up to three years’ delay in receiving their own BSP from the age of 60, only to find that men born in the same year as them will, unlike them, get the new state pension.

Men are sailing smoothly towards the new pension, and for them nothing has changed. Women have faced mounting instability as their pension age is deferred. They have waited longer but got nothing for it, and they cannot afford to defer which, if taken as a pension increment, might bring them to the new state pension level. This is essentially the problem of government introducing a new and very welcome state pension, while being still in the process of equalising the state pension age. I recognise the difficulties that inevitably come with that.

I suspect that the Minister will say that given that women are drawing the old pension for two extra years, and that given women’s greater longevity, they will on average—and I bet it will be another mean average, not a median—be better off than men. There will be a sort of bell curve; they will be better off at the beginning, then not better off, and if they live that long, there will be a crossover point where women who live longer—it could be at 81 or 82—finally draw ahead in this lottery.

Averages, as the Minister knows very well, are deceptive. A working-class woman is likely to live less long than most of your Lordships—male Lordships—in the House at the moment, and therefore those figures will not apply. We will return to that debate obviously at much greater length when debating life-expectancy increases. Therefore any particular women may well be worse off.

However, it was noticeable that the Minister in the other place, while using those arguments in the debate on this issue in the first amendment there, did not draw the Committee’s attention at any point to the pension credit rules. Those rules are very interesting, very relevant, and, I think pretty devastating of the Government’s case. Is it not funny that they were not mentioned?

At the moment, many poorer men who have dropped out of the labour market between 60 and 65 are able to draw full pension credit on equal terms, ages and rates with women who are getting the BSP plus pension credit. In the same way—and this is, of course, part of the European directive on equality—men could get a winter fuel payment or a bus pass at the same age as women, which was at women’s BSP age, from 60 on, not at their own retirement age. The same rule applies to pension credit.

Therefore, when women’s BSP age was 60, men could draw pension credit to top up their IS for five years before becoming eligible for their own BSP at 65. When women’s BSP age rose to 62, men could draw pension credit from 62 until their retirement age—there are no cliff edges for them. They are now effectively getting an income the same as the BSP and the same as women at age 63.

Currently 167,000 men between 60 and 65 draw pension credit. That tops up their income support of nearly £70 to the standard pension credit figure of nearly £140. It doubles it. Incidentally, a higher number of men between the ages of 60 and 65 draw pension credit than the number of men between 75 and 79. To put it another way, just under a fifth of all men who draw pension credit—although some, of course, may be in couples—draw it before their state pension age. That is great for them. However, unlike women, when they reach 65, after 5 April 2016, they move smoothly on to the new and more generous state pension. We did not hear a word of this down the other end but, in other words, men have had a double protection: pension credit on women’s terms, followed by the new state pension on men’s terms. Not only were they not disadvantaged by being male, they were actively protected and, to that degree, favoured.

16:15

As I say, I thought it odd that the Minister did not choose to mention that in the other place. Instead, he spent most of his speech comparing this cohort of women with those women younger than them and those women older than them, to his satisfaction. He may well be right, statistically. However, he did not compare them with men, which was the whole point of the discussion, after all. Again, it is curious. By contrast women face a delayed retirement age, with of course no access to pension credit before it, but will then not be able to move on to the new pension when they reach retirement. You can understand why they feel they have been discriminated against—because, compared to men of the same age, they have.

The Minister may remind us of the cost of this amendment—some £150 million to £200 million, we were told down the other end. I remind him that, as the pension age rises for women until it reaches 65, thousands of men will each year drop out of the pension-credit-receiving cohort—they run alongside the women’s increasing pension age—until, by 2018, no man or woman will receive pension credit until they are 65, and then only if they fail to qualify for the new state pension. In 2009-10, 235,000 men aged 60 to 64 claimed pension credit, giving them effectively the same income as a woman on BSP. By May 2013, there were 167,000 men—that is today’s figure—a drop of almost 70,000, because women’s pension age had risen by 18 months. The savings from that drop in men no longer claiming pension credit would go a long way to meeting the cost of this amendment. I do not have enough stats to do a proper calculation; I have tried, but I can only guesstimate: for every year of the BSP age raised for women, the Government make—I think—up to £175 million of savings from men who drop out of the eligible cohort for pension credit. Obviously those savings will end when women equalise at 65, but in the meanwhile those savings could be set against the putative cost of a lower figure—some £150 million—for this amendment.

The Minister may say that those savings are not available as they have already been built into HMRC forecasts. He may not use that argument at all—I do not know—but, if he does, why would he accept that? HMRC has already claimed for itself all the savings from the rise of women’s state pension age, and all the £5.5 billion coming from the NIC changes. If it now claims the pension credit cohort savings from men as well, the pattern seems to be that all savings go to HMRC, so by definition there is never any money available to correct even quite honest anomalies or injustices.

Finally, the amendment applies only to women ordinarily resident in the UK. The Minister will know that there is well established case law on “ordinarily resident”, “habitually resident” and the like. This should ensure that the money does not flow to overseas women with little or no connection to this country, which the Minister in the other place was so anxious to avoid. Steve Webb moved amendments in the other place to that effect on bereavement benefits in July, so it is clearly appropriate to add this new subsection.

I do not accept the Government’s argument. This cohort of women is not gaining a lower pension but for two years longer compared to men, which in government eyes sort of evens things out. On the contrary, the pension credit rules have given protection to men—no cliff edges—which is now effectively denied to women. As that protection for men falls away as women’s pension age rises, it offers savings which, so far as I can tell, would substantially finance this amendment. That is fair, realistic and affordable; I hope that the Minister agrees and will think again. I beg to move.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 4A and 6, which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton. Amendment 6 is a probing amendment that would require the Government to conduct a review to determine whether all the women born on or after 6 April 1951 should be included in the scope of the new state pension arrangements. Amendment 4A—I apologise for its late tabling—would require a detailed assessment of the impact on those women who benefit as a result of derived entitlements.

We on these Benches will use the device of asking for reviews more than once in this Committee. I have said already that we are very supportive of the aims of the Bill and regard its direction of travel as continuing the work that we began in government. Labour understands the challenges of reform on this scale and the potential fiscal implications of some of the changes that many people will want to see to the system. However, we need to understand precisely what the implications will be and what the impact of these changes will be on different categories of people who will be affected by them. I have been very grateful to officials for doing their best to provide us with information, and I thank the Minister for giving us access to them and to it. However, it has still not always proved possible or straightforward to understand the impact of these changes on particular categories of people, and this cohort of women is a prime example.

It is our role in this House during Committee to try to get to the bottom of the detail of the impact of these Bills, and I hope very much that this review would enable the Government to do that. However, maybe the Minister can give us the information that would make that unnecessary. Despite the goal of a simpler system, there is still a lot of complexity in the system, as we have already heard—often, inevitably, in the transitional provisions. However, we will need to understand what the impact will be.

I have received a great deal of correspondence on this issue, as I am sure other noble Lords have, from individual campaigners and organisations concerned about the position of women born between April 1951 and April 1953, and my noble friend Lady Hollis has set out a range of concerns about their position. The headline concern that has been raised most often with me posits the position of a pair of male and female twins, born on the same date in that window, who are treated differently. The man will get the new single-tier pension and the woman will not, even if both have worked for 35 years or more or even if both of them are still working, with the woman having deferred her pension. My noble friend made the important point that unemployed men are treated effectively as if they are retired and get the equivalent to the amount that the woman would receive in pension. Those women are caught in the equalisation of the pension age. They say that they do not object to the equalisation but they feel that they have lost out in comparison with other women because, unlike women born before April 1951, they could not retire at 60 on a full pension. Those born after April 1953 get the full STP at the age of 63—that is, up to one year and 10 months earlier than men born after April 1953.

At Second Reading my noble friend Lady Donaghy gave a moving account of the life courses of many women of that age and the extent to which the way they are treated by society and the state has changed so markedly over their lifetimes; they really are a transitional generation. Whatever the Government finally decide, it is important that Parliament and the Government listen to their concerns before making a decision that they cannot be included.

We acknowledge that a line must be drawn somewhere but there are some questions to which I have not yet had satisfactory answers. First, as my noble friend Lady Hollis noted, there is the position of men born between 1951 and 1953 who are unemployed and get treated as if they were pensioners. Currently, a man in that situation who cannot claim the state pension, where a woman of the same age would, can get pension credit. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case? If so, the question has been raised with me as to whether these women have a claim in law on equality grounds and, if so, what that would mean. It might be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether the Government have sought legal advice on this matter and, if so, have they been assured that their position is safe? I assume that they were or the Minister would not have felt able to sign the habitual statement at the start of the process, but it would be helpful to clarify that.

The second big issue was the impact on this particular cohort of women. From having read the proceedings in another place, I think that the Government’s case is this: there are always cliff edges; there are always winners and losers and these are just the unlucky ones; these women will already be pensioners and some will have been able to draw their pension before 2016; they can always exercise the right to defer drawing down their pension and get a 10% uplift each year, which would effectively bring them up to the STP level by 2016; and only 70,000 of those 700,000 women born between 1951 and 1953 will be worse off, and the median loss will be only £6 a week.

The response of the campaigners to that case is this: some people will lose more than £6 a week, but even £6 a week is a lot of money, especially for 25 years. They are getting their pension earlier, but over their lifetime they will be disadvantaged. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that was the case and, if so, when the break-even point comes, since they could be expected to live for a further 10 to 15 years and in some cases many more, we hope.

Thirdly, the campaigners say that most women spend most of their working lives expecting to retire at 60, so this is a shock to them. Finally, they point out that not many people can afford to defer taking their pensions. The figures that were supplied to us by the department suggest that only 0.9 million people in Great Britain get an increment as a result of deferral, as against 10.8 million who do not. I think that the figure in total was 1.2 million. If that is the case, inevitably it is a minority activity. Effectively, therefore, the right to defer your retirement date is a bit like the right to shop in Harrods: we can all do it but we cannot all afford to do it, so I am not sure that that totally answers the question.

That leaves us with some unanswered questions which I invite the Minister to address. First, there seems to be agreement that 70,000 women from this cohort will lose out. I do not yet understand the Government’s case for saying that they are so confident that the other 630,000 will be better off remaining in the current arrangements. The Government claimed in the other place that most women would be better off under STP. In the Committee there, the Pensions Minister said that, in the first few years, 700,000 women would be better off on STP by an average £9 a week. The impact assessment says that, as a result of the STP valuation, around 650,000 women who reach state pension age in the first 10 years after implementation will get an average £8 more in state pension in 2013-14 earnings terms.

The question then is this: how is the cohort of women born from 1953 to 1960, to whom those figures refer, so different from those born from 1951 to 1953? In other words, if the people who just get in will be better off in the new system, why would the people who just miss out be worse off? I hope that the Minister can explain to me the reason for that.

I want to drill down into this. The only reasons that I can think of come in the form of questions. First, the Government say that 30,000 people will lose from the derived entitlements post 2016. Can the Minister tell us how many of this cohort—that is those 1951 to 1953 women—would have derived entitlements? If not, perhaps he would smile upon our Amendment 4A. Secondly, some divorced couples with pension-splitting arrangements might be worse off under STP. Does the Minister know how many of those are within that 630,000? Thirdly, do most of those women have 30 years’ national insurance credits? Is that a factor? How many of them would have enough to get access to a full single-tier pension? Fourthly, how many of those women are better off as a result of their getting pension savings credit? What might happen in the future given the direction of travel on that?

My final question is about the costings. In Committee in another place, the Minister suggested that the costs for bringing this group into the system would be an initial £150 million a year, peaking at £300 million, and cumulatively costing about £4 billion. I am not an economist so I am not disputing the figures, but I do not understand them. If only 70,000 women are worse off and by a mean £6 a week, I make that—admittedly, using my calculator—£21 million a year. Even if they live for 25 years after retirement, I cannot get that above half a billion pounds. I am not suggesting that that is a small sum, nor offering to spend it; I am just trying to understand why I am so far out from the costings given by the Minister in the other place. I apologise for asking so many questions, but this is a complicated matter. Before we make any decisions and before the Government are to proceed on this, we need to understand the implications.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said previously, there is great confusion among the public about the consequences of the Bill. I have to confess that that includes me. I, too, am feeling my way here rather than making authoritative statements.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, spoke about the men between 60 and 65 who are treated as pensioners because they are unemployed. I presume that that is a small proportion of men in that cohort and that the overwhelming majority have to wait until 65 to receive their pension, as opposed to those men who are unemployed during that period. Therefore, the statement that all men are treated the same as women applies only if they become unemployed, if I understand the situation correctly.

16:29

Of course, there are a lot of unanswered questions, but they work both ways. How can the Government say with any authority how much it will cost if we bring those women with a 1951 to 1953 date of birth into the system? In the same way, how can we say that those women will be disadvantaged? It is so difficult to say because lots of things potentially work in their favour as well as working against them by remaining on the existing system compared with the single-tier system.

For example, there is no minimum qualifying period under the old system, whereas between seven and 10 years’ national insurance contributions are required under the new single-tier system. The existing pension system allows additional payments under savings credit; that will no longer be available for those on the single tier. Those on the existing pension scheme are allowed derived and inherited state pension entitlement from partners, from spouses. That is not available under the new system, although one must accept that there will be a proportion of women in that cohort who have no partner and have never been partnered, so that would not apply to them.

As I said on Second Reading, this is a case of swings and roundabouts, although those women in that cohort do not see the advantages: they see only the disadvantages because that supports their case. For those reasons, what on the face of it appears to be a disadvantage for those women born between April 1951 and April 1953 compared with men of the same age is not necessarily the case.

Secondly, the reason why women born between April 1951 and April 1953 will not be in receipt of single-tier pension is because they will already be eligible for pension under the old system—the argument that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, put forward. Women will be able to claim pension under the old system for between two and four years longer than men of equivalent age who are not unemployed. For those men, that could amount to between £13,000 and £26,000 in basic pension payments that the women, under the old system, will receive but that men, under the new system, will not be entitled to.

Thirdly, the previous Labour Government reduced the qualifying period for a full state pension from 40 years to 30 years to help women qualify, but to ensure that the new single-tier pension is affordable it will take 35 years of national insurance contributions to qualify for the full single-tier pension. Those women born between April 1951 and April 1953 will have to have only 30 years’ national insurance contributions to qualify for a full state pension under the existing scheme.

Again, that does not help those women in that cohort who have 35 years’ or more national insurance contributions. As has been said in the other place, yes, there is the ability to buy additional national insurance contributions for those who fall short of the 30-year requirement or for people to defer receipt of their state pension until after 2016, in which case they will qualify for the single-tier pension, but again, there will be women in that cohort who cannot afford to do either of those things.

Taking everything into account, the DWP estimates that 90% of the women born between April 1951 and April 1953 would be better off under the existing system of pension and other benefits but, because of the complexity, it is difficult to understand how that figure has been arrived at and it would be good to receive some clarification from the Minister as to where those numbers come from, to reassure us that that is actually the case.

That still leaves some women in that cohort who will be worse off than men on the single-tier pension, the median difference being £6 a week—again, according to the figures from the DWP. It has to be said that, even for those women, whatever they will receive under the existing system, as a result of the Liberal Democrats in the coalition Government and the triple lock, will be more in basic state pension than they would have planned for under the previous Labour Government. Although they may not be in the 10%, according to the DWP figures, who will be disadvantaged, they will still be receiving more in basic state pension as a result of the triple lock than they would have anticipated receiving previously. We are not talking about taking money away from people; we are talking about people not receiving more than men born at a similar time.

Therefore, there will still be inequalities in the existing system because of the historic situation with women in the workplace taking time off as primary carers or for childcare and not receiving credits until the previous Government brought in changes to provide credits for that sort of situation. However, even under the changes brought about by the previous Labour Government, it would have taken until 2020 for women to receive outcomes from the full basic state pension equivalent to those for men. As far as the state second pension is concerned, it would have taken until 2050. When you bring about these sorts of changes, it is always difficult to decide at what stage they should be brought in, but it seems reasonable to do so at the date that the pension changes for those people who are not currently in receipt of the existing state pension.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, I wish to comment briefly on this group of amendments as much as anything to apologise for the fact that I should have declared an interest earlier. I am the chairman of the General Medical Council superannuation fund, as declared in the register of interests.

This is an important debate. We are all very familiar with the unintended consequences of different parts of the system affecting people in a way that might not have been fully appreciated, and I want to look carefully at what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has said. However, on a more strategic basis relating to the policy contained in the Bill, no one is denied any accrued rights, and that is a quintessentially important protection in provision. I was concerned that that was not the case but the foundation calculation is based on actuarial calculations with which we are all familiar within the basic state pension. Therefore, of course we need to look at some of these anomalies, and that is what this Committee is for.

In passing, the debates in the other place have all been based on this being a nil-cost reform within its own terms. However, my position is that that does not take account of the substantial savings that the Government will make over a very long period. For my money, I am willing to look beyond the self-contained envelope if the case is made properly, but, for me, the absolutely important and cardinal thing is that accrued rights have been protected.

Amendment 4, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is very important and well crafted but my real reason for speaking to it is that I think that everybody should be written to. Everybody who is subjected to this change should get a letter from the Pension Service, although obviously that cannot happen until Royal Assent and other mechanics have taken place. I was grateful for the very full answer earlier from the Minister, and I shall study it with great interest. That is the very least that is required. My noble friend Lord Paddick is absolutely correct that there is confusion. We are all slightly finding our way through some of these policy and operational matters. Within the terms of Amendment 4 as it is currently cast, I do not think it is unreasonable to ask for individual letters looking at the foundation costs and calculations that apply to each individual so that everybody knows where they are before this policy takes shape.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, these amendments centre on the group of women who will receive a state pension under the existing system, while men born on the same day as them may be eligible for a single-tier pension. We recognise that people are concerned about this issue and we have already reviewed the position of this group of women. Having looked at the numbers, our analysis shows that about 90% of the women in this group will receive more in state pension and other benefits over the course of their retirement than a man born on the same day as them with the same national insurance record who will be getting a single-tier pension. To be specific, this comparison excludes pension credit but includes savings credit.

The reason is that those women reach state pension age between two and four years before their theoretical twin brothers. Indeed, almost half the group are already drawing their state pension and, on average, will have drawn up to £26,000 before their male twins have begun to draw their pensions. I am excluding from that the unemployed group to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, drew our attention. This group of women were not affected by the Pension Act 2011 pension age changes; their state pension age was set back in 1995. We are increasing pension age to maintain sustainability and fairness between the generations. These interactions with pension credit are inevitable consequences of introducing single tier at a time of unequal pension ages. We do not want to wait until late 2018, when pension ages will have equalised, before introducing single tier.

In addition, being a single-tier pensioner, especially in the early years, does not necessarily mean people receiving a full single-tier pension. Under the current system, the median average entitlement for the women in this group is projected to be £125 per week. A similar valuation based on single-tier rules results in a figure of £131 per week—a difference of £6. These are median averages; about half the group would see no change in their entitlement at all. To pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Paddick, these women have benefited from the triple lock. Basic state pension will be £8 higher per week in 2014-15 than if their pensions had been uprated by earnings since the start of this Parliament. Almost half these women already drawing their state pension are benefiting from the triple lock.

It is often assumed that the new system will simply be more generous than the current system but, as the Committee will be aware, and as we will discuss in depth later, that is not necessarily the case. We will put in place a minimum qualifying period and close access to the savings credit. We will also reduce the deferral increment rates and cease the ability to derive pension from a spouse’s record. Many people will gain from single tier but there are those who will receive less, compared to the current rules. In response to the questions on costings from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, we assume that these women could choose the system that is better for them, although that is not necessarily an easy choice. However, that is the basis on which we have got to those particular costings.

16:45

[Baroness Sherlock]

On that point, have the Government therefore costed what might happen if they simply included this group in the system and not allowed them to choose?

[Lord Freud]

I will have to write with that estimate. There is every way of doing these estimates that one can imagine. That brings me to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, which is to review how many women in this cohort are projected to derive a pension based on their spouse’s record. We have published a paper on derived entitlement, which covers the projected outcomes for people as a result of removing these provisions. As one may expect, individuals reaching pension age in the few years before April 2016 will have similar national insurance records to those reaching pension age in the few years after April 2016. As such, we can assume that the proportion of women in the cohort under question retiring under the current system who benefit from derived entitlement is broadly similar to the proportion of women reaching pension age just after 2016 who may be disadvantaged.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Will the noble Lord write to us and spell that last comment out? If I understood it correctly, it was very revealing. He might like to repeat that last sentence for us and then perhaps enlarge on it in a subsequent letter.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, it is now in Hansard. We will spend some time on derived entitlement in later clauses, rather than going through that issue now. We will, I know, spend an awful lot of time on derived entitlement thanks to a certain set of amendments from the noble Baroness, so I have no fear at all that I will not be utterly explicit on this matter before the end of this Committee.

At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, recognised that a line had to be drawn somewhere, but she asked the House to think carefully about whether it is right that twins of different genders should find themselves in different positions. Equally, one could ask whether it would be fair for people who reach state pension age on the same day—for example, the 65 year-old man and the 61 year-old woman—to be in different positions. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, is absolutely right that a line has to be drawn. We have been clear and consistent that only people reaching pension age after the new system is implemented may receive a single-tier pension.

The noble Baroness asked whether these women would lose out. It is not a question of this particular cohort losing out; they simply will not receive a single-tier pension, just like everyone else reaching pension age before 2016. The Government have not changed these women’s state pension age and so there has not been a change in the pension that these women were expecting. Regarding the leading question on discrimination raised by the noble Baroness, I can confirm that any difference in treatment is as a result of the legislation providing for the change in pension age, which is not in this Bill, and we are satisfied that there is no breach of Article 14 of the ECHR on grounds of sex. This is justifiable in helping to pursue legitimate aims and achieving them in a timely way to achieve an equality of state pension outcomes between men and women generally.

[Baroness Sherlock]

I am trying to address these questions as I go, otherwise I will forget them. Does that legal advice also cover domestic law?

[Lord Freud]

That legal advice covers the full gamut of the legal position. On pension sharing, the average number of share orders is currently running to around 100 a year, so there is in practice a negligible impact on the gains and losses. We have written to all the cohorts affected by equalisation—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

We will come on to pension sharing later in much greater detail, but I am sure that the Minister will want to confirm to my noble friend that, as I understand it, the number of inquiries is 20,000-odd, compared to the number of take-ups. Secondly, I presume that what he is talking about is pension sharing in future only of the additional state pension, whereas of course at the moment anyone divorced can also take on the existing NI record—the basic state pension—of their former spouse if it is more favourable than their own. There are two sets of preferences or advantages to divorcees in play and only the first of those will continue, while the second will go.

[Lord Freud]

I can confirm what the noble Baroness says: I am talking about the additional pension, not the state pension.

To summarise: the women in this group are getting the pension that they expected when they expected it. We have produced analysis on this group of women as well as on the impact of changes to derived entitlement. We need a clear start for the changes and, in line with the 2010 reforms, believe that that should be based on reaching state pension age. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Sherlock]

Before my noble friend responds, I think that the Minister has ticked off all my questions and said that in fact these were incidental in terms of differences between the 1951-53 group and the 1953-60 group. Given that, I wonder if he could come back to the question that I posed: how is it, then, that those who retire in the first 10 years after implementation are apparently mostly going to be better off, whereas those in this group immediately before that will actually be worse off if they move on to the new system?

[Lord Freud]

It will be easier if I push that analysis of the figures into the letter-writing process rather than trying to summarise it off the top of my head, because it is quite complicated.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The Minister has been generous in giving us access to his Box, but a lot of our queries and questions came up as we were writing our amendments, after we had talked to the Box. We therefore fully understand that the Minister is not able to give us some of the detail, which requires some fairly elaborate statistical cross-cutting behind the scenes.

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. I was going to suggest that we can come back to this. We have run some sessions with the team, who are doing a magnificent job. This is central stuff; all the things that we are covering today and on Wednesday are technical and difficult. One of the things that I could offer would be another session on this area between Committee and Report. I think that on Report we will want to boil down what the real issues are and what the real amendments should be, because otherwise we will spend a lot of time, sound and fury on issues that are not quite the point that anyone was trying to make.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I think that that is prudent. We are dealing with a lot of stats. Certainly, I read the evidence from people who were witnesses to the Committee in the other place, as well as some of the stuff that came out in the Minister’s interrogation and speeches in Committee. Some of the discrepancies between that and what I call the “Apple Green Paper”—as that White Paper is neither white nor green—are because they cut the stats in different ways, and it is very difficult, if you do not have research staff, to recalibrate them to address some of the questions. We are not in any sense trying to put the Minister on the spot; we just want to elucidate, as far as we can, the information, so that we have a shared common body of knowledge on which we can base our estimate and analysis of this Bill. As the noble Lord will agree, that is primarily the job of this House, above all others.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kirkwood, for commenting on this amendment. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, I took it for granted that there would be accrued rights. However, if there had not been, the courts would have rather a lot to say about that. In every pensions Bill we have ever done—the 2004 Act, and so on—that has been established. It is good that the calculations, certainly in the paper and all the rest of it, are so clear as to what people can expect. That is very welcome.

To the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I say that the point that I was trying to make is not that all men were in the same position as all women between the ages of 60 and 65. However, essentially, of men who chose to take early retirement only about 2% or 3% chose to go on to JSA or incapacity benefit in that period. The others went on to IS and were topped up by PC. Those men who chose to take early retirement were effectively retiring at the same age as women. That may, to a degree, have been forced on them by unemployment, but they had a choice. They could have gone on to JSA but, perfectly sensibly, they chose not to do so. Instead they went into effectively a pension regime, originally from the age of 60, which was when the age for women was the same.

Of course, other men, who were in work, carried on building up their pension until age 65, primarily because those between 60 and 65 on PCs still carried on adding to their NI years, as I recall. However, those other men were able to build up their additional pension and thus protect it as they went through—essentially, SERPS. Women of that age would have had little, if any, entitlement to SERPS. They would have had entitlement—as will younger women—to S2P, primarily because of the extension of the credits that apply to them, particularly for childcare. Those were introduced quite late, so those women will not, for the most part, have had access to an additional state pension. Men who continue to work to 65, as most of them will—the noble Lord is right on that—will continue to build up that additional pension, which will be protected after they are 65.

The Government are taking a swings and roundabouts approach on this. I think that 167,000—originally 235,000 in 2009-10, and before that a higher figure—had the choice of the same pension as women, age for age. Women have had no such choice. That is why they face cliff edges in a way that men do not. The problem for us has been about cliff edges. The point that I was trying to push was that men did not face any cliff edges. Whatever their age when they retired after 60, they could have a smooth pension level that was the same as women, then they progressed quite nicely at 65; if that happens after 5 April 2016, they will move on to the new pension. Women have no such choice. If they tick their pension, the same as the men, at 63 the shutters come down and they can never move that next step on to the new state pension, which men could in their situation. Women have a cliff edge, while men have a nice smooth path down to paddling in the sea. That is what I was primarily concerned about.

The problem comes as we recognise that we should try to equalise the state pension age at the same time as the Government are introducing the new state pension. I recognise the difficulty. When I started work on this I took pretty much the Minister’s line—that this was on the one hand or on the other—but the more I worked on pension credit, the more I saw the number of people claiming it and how substantial their numbers were. Not 5,000 or 10,000 but a fifth of all men claiming pension credit claim it before they are 65. That means, in terms of savings and the rest of it, that many of them will have gone on to claim that after 65 under the old system. Given that substantial number, it is worth emphasising that women have had a double hit and men have had a smooth transition throughout. Whatever the Minister may argue—and I understand his stats—if you hold up the gender filter to this issue, you can see exactly, as my noble friend said in her speech, why women, rightly, feel hard done by. They are faced with a cliff edge and have no way of ameliorating it, unlike men have had over the past few years—in some cases the past five years—of their working-age lives.

However, we have gone as far as we can until we get further information from the Minister that may or may not help us to progress on this issue. With the consent of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

17:00

Amendment 4

Moved by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

4: Clause 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) The Secretary of State shall ensure the timely provision of relevant data to persons who may become entitled to a state pension at a full, reduced or transitional rate.
( ) Relevant data shall include such information as will reasonably enable a person to be aware of state pension accrued at 6 April 2016, the basis of which it may be revalued and the number of further qualifying years, if any, required to achieve a full state pension.
( ) Such information shall be provided as soon as reasonably practicable after 6 April 2016 and from time to time thereafter.”

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a gentle, probing amendment designed to give some respite to the Minister and to explore further the details of what is planned about the nature and extent of the communication strategy envisaged for the introduction of the single-tier state pension. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, touched on this, as did the Minister in responding to the first group of amendments.

We have been provided with a certain amount of information in the various briefing packs and we have had the opportunity to peruse the overarching strategy for communicating the reforms, which has been made available in the Library. I take this opportunity to commend the Bill team. We do not want to heap too much praise on them, as this is just the start of our proceedings, but I think that we have had some genuinely good information packs, which have helped. The problem with good information packs, of course, is that they generate additional queries, so forgive me if I pursue some of them.

One objective of the strategy is, rightly, to inform people about the impact of the reforms on their individual circumstances and the actions that they may take to improve them. That aspect is of particular relevance to the amendment. It seems to me that the state pension statement is to be the key way in which this communication is delivered, so the Minister may wish to comment on the statutory underpinning of such statements, if it exists, and on whether this might be improved.

Although the amendment focuses on STP, it does not negate the need to communicate to those who retire before 6 April 2016, especially in relation to the extended arrangements for paying voluntary NICs and the new class 3A NICs to improve state second pensions. I ask the Minister specifically what is planned in this regard. I suppose, given our earlier debates, that the key communication issue for those who retire before 6 April 2016 is why they are in a separate category, although I do not want to revisit the debate that we have just had.

Issues relating to the new class 3A have obviously not yet been fully developed and those who might be eligible are a definable group of all those who reach state pension age before 2016. The group that are particularly in need of information are those who are entitled to a state pension at the transitional rate. If they are to be encouraged to make rational savings decisions, such information as their foundation amount, any protected payments, the rebate derived amount where appropriate or any derived and inherited entitlement is key. Individuals should be made aware of how the revaluation of the various components is to work and they will need to be alerted to their potentially not meeting the minimum qualifying period, having fewer than 35 qualifying years, as well as not being able to add further to their STP.

It is understood that this information is still to flow via state pension statements, but following implementation of the STP it is not planned to make it proactively available, either as soon as the NIC information is available up to 5 April 2016 or otherwise. A post-implementation statement will be provided on demand and digitally but not otherwise, as I understand it.

A number of questions therefore arise. Can the Minister clarify precisely what is to happen between Royal Assent and in advance of implementation so far as state pension statements are concerned? Will these be made available proactively or will individuals have to ask for them? It is understood why a digital service is to be developed for post-implementation—that is to be welcomed—but there will be some for whom the digital approach will be difficult. That is surely the experience of universal credit. What other support will be available to these people? There is clearly some merit in being able to take stock of one’s state pension provision as close to 6 April 2016 as possible, so can the Minister say how long it is expected to be before the 2015-16 national insurance data will generally be available at individual level? How long does it take for that to filter through to the records?

Given more complex situations, how quickly is it envisaged that individuals will be informed of all their pension components, including the rebate-derived amounts, after 6 April 2016? What, if any, capacity will there be in the system for individuals to query, challenge or even appeal the details that they receive? We are told that there is not the capacity in the system to provide full details to everyone proactively—like the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, I think that there is a measure of concern about that. Just what is the capacity to provide such details for those who would likely be entitled to a state pension at the transitional rate? We are told that, post-implementation, state pension statements are to be provided on demand. Those who are clued up and digitally savvy will cope, but what monitoring will be undertaken to see what is happening to those who are not? What particular communication strategies are to be focused on the self-employed, who will be brought more fully into the system than hitherto?

Although the components of the calculation will generally be more straightforward for those who grow up entirely in the new system, they will still need information so that they can be reassured on their likely level of state pension income and the desirability of saving. Of course, some may enter the new system part way through their working life because, for example, they had been working abroad or had just decided to join the labour market. What in terms of communications is planned for those in this position? I accept that much of this will be work in progress, but I do not want to miss the opportunity to get an update on the latest position before we leave Committee. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I want to comment very briefly. I declare an interest, which I know is relevant to this amendment, as a board member of the Pensions Advisory Service. TPAS has recently completed a survey of just under 1,000 women on their pensions which makes the point absolutely for my noble friend’s request for an information and communication strategy to go out to prospective pensioners and pensioners. Of that 1,000 women, 36% did not know when their state pension would be paid; 74% did not know how much they would receive; 57% did not know whether there was a shortfall in their NI record; 25% do not know that the age is likely to change again; 54% have made no changes to their retirement plans; 27% wonder whether they will have to work longer; and 76% do not expect to be financially comfortable in retirement. I have before me a lot of quotes, some of which I may choose to use later on. Those figures suggest how wilfully uninformed far too many women are about what will happen to them over the next couple of years. That evidence from a TPAS sample substantiates my noble friend’s points.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I shall have to speak very quietly because I have lost my voice, so if anybody fails to hear to me, I will shout a bit louder after a few days. I just wanted to add to the important points made by the noble Lord. I can always remember receiving my state pension statement. It was a bit of a shock, because I always thought that I was so young that I would never receive one, but it did happen.

The most important aspect of this legislation is clarification of the words as they are written out, because this is a very complex set of arrangements and they need to have clarity of language. Those statements which I have seen are quite clear. I do not hold so negative a view as to how people will see the future world of their pensions. Just today, we have heard that we have now reached 2 million people enrolling in auto-enrolment for pensions—that is, 2 million more than there were 12 months or so ago who know about a pension because they have got into it. We have 3,500 employers. I welcome the British Heart Foundation, which has recently enrolled all its staff. So we know that people are becoming more involved and engaged with their pensions.

The second thing relates to something which happened to me last Friday. I was doing Lords outreach with two schools and the pension question came up. I do not know whether it had been planted by a teacher in advance but it came up. It is quite clear that when these matters are scrutinised, young people are beginning to realise that if we do not put those matters right they, too, will be having to pay more. I always save for my grandchildren, who are enthusiastic to hear that they will be paying to sustain me into older life—but, of course, I am not a recipient of the new single-tier pension. However, when we talk about this issue I wonder whether we should also try to include in it education from a younger age, so that when people receive any financial education within their school life, they can understand that pensions are not a matter for tomorrow or for when you are retiring; they are a matter for the day on which you start to pay and earn. This is a probing amendment but it is very important that, along with other measures which are going on, pensions are seen as an issue for all from now on and not one for when you are retired.

[Baroness Greengross]

My amendment is about a public education programme, which is necessary as so many people are in the same position, as has been outlined in noble Lords’ statements. Amendment 30 seeks to ensure that individuals are made aware of both their responsibilities and expected outcomes here; for example, in terms of state pension contribution years and amounts, and what outcomes they can expect and when. Given longer life expectancy and extended working patterns, it is not unreasonable to increase the number of national insurance contributory years from 30 to 35. People who have contributed for less than 35 years but for at least the minimum qualifying period of seven to 10 years are going to receive a proportion of the pension. However, it is absolutely critical that this change is clearly communicated to all individuals so that they can ensure that any years outside of work—for example, because of ill health or caring responsibilities—are counted as years of contribution and so that they can make appropriate private pension arrangements, should they wish to do so.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, these amendments relate to the crucial question of information. The Government have stressed at different stages of the Bill the move to reduce the complexity of the state pension to make sure that people understand their likely entitlement and are therefore incentivised to save enough to complement the support that they can expect from the state. This came up a lot when the Work and Pensions Select Committee looked into the matter. Citizens Advice, in its written evidence to the Select Committee, noted that a considerable complexity would remain in the system, mainly as a result of transitional provision. It accepted that as being unavoidable but said that:

“A commitment to a sustained communications programme could improve outcomes, manage expectations, minimise misinformation, promote action on NI contributions, and support personal saving for retirement”.

I think that was nicely put. The ABI said this to the Select Committee:

“Adequate communication of the change will be essential, or the clarity and simplicity of the new system could be undermined … No-one should feel unclear about the amount they will receive—and therefore need to save personally themselves”—

—a common view between the ABI and Citizens Advice.

The Select Committee noted that various witnesses focused on that issue. Sally West of Age UK said that,

“we are finding a lot of people are understandably confused”.

I think that that is an understatement. The Select Committee reported considerable confusion about the reforms. Many people wrongly believed that the introduction of the STP would mean that everyone would get £144 a week in state pension, because they did not understand the eligibility criteria. Others thought that there would be no means-testing at all; others thought that if they were due more under the current system, they would lose all that and get only what was due under the new system. The implications of having been contracted out or of not knowing whether you were contracted out or in was another area of confusion. It was noted that it was therefore important to,

“ensure that people have full information about their own future entitlement as well as a reasonable understanding of the reforms”.

17:15

I searched on the internet for some of the headlines at the time and found some that illustrate the point. The Sun had a headline: “Stay-at-home mothers in £144 a week pension boost”. The Mail said: “Almost half a million women to lose hundreds of pounds every year in Government’s state pension revolution”. It is possible for both those things to be true, depending on the people you talk about, but it illustrates that there is understandable confusion out there about what is going to happen as a result. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed out, if noble Lords struggle to understand the detail, it is not unreasonable that people who have not had all the documentation with which the Box has so kindly provided us are not yet completely clear.

That puts big pressure on the Government to get their communication strategy right. My noble friend Lord McKenzie has given a characteristically careful and thorough exposition of the nature of the challenge, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to his questions. There are a couple of specific questions which I should be grateful if the Minister would answer. One is the obvious one, which is to be precise about at what point and in what form someone could expect to be contacted to have explained to them the nature of their entitlement. Do the Government propose to contact people who had previously requested a pension statement to tell them that it may no longer be accurate or that the basis on which it was calculated may no longer apply? At what point will the Government be able to give us more detail about the nature of the communications campaign?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for this opportunity for the Government to set out our actions to support people in this area. I need to point out that when the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, says that he is offering some relief, I am reminded of the song by Tom Lehrer about sliding down the razor blade of life, but there we are.

On the noble Lord’s first question about the new class 3A voluntary NICs, we will have a debate in the new year, and will work with stakeholders to get a clear and simple offer to pensioners, which will include how we publicise that new scheme, so that information will be available.

Including financial education in the school curriculum and increasing young people’s financial capability is an issue of importance to this Government and apposite to the point raised by my noble friend Lord German. In July 2013, the Department for Education published a national curriculum framework with increased focus on financial literacy in both the mathematics and citizenship curricula. This will be taught in schools from September 2014. In 2012, we established the Money Advice Service to help people manage their money more effectively and better understand financial products, including pensions. The Money Advice Service is one of our key partners in providing information to individuals who are being automatically enrolled into workplace pensions. The department has also played an active role in developing the Money Advice Service’s new financial capability strategy to help tackle the knowledge gaps which can inhibit individuals from saving in pensions.

We know that the delivery of information and government policy around financial capability has the potential to build trust and engagement in pension saving, and we are proud of our progress in this area. Our Automatic Enrolment and Pensions Language Guide, developed with partners in the pensions and financial services industry, promotes a consistent and simplified use of language in order to ensure that individuals seeking advice can better understand the information. In October this year the Government published updated regulations setting out the information that occupational and personal pension schemes are obliged to provide to their members, and the frequency with which this is to be done.

I turn specifically to the state pension reforms in the Bill. We are committed to taking action to help people to understand the reforms that we are making and what it will mean for them. As noble Lords know, the current state pension system is fiendishly complicated. In a 2012 survey, in response to a simple true/false question, only one-third of people agreed that it was true that the Government provided a second state pension related to previous earnings. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, noted its complexity and gave lots of saddening statistics. That is precisely why we are reforming the system to make it—in principle—comprehensive to as many people as possible. We are tackling this systemic problem by creating a simpler state pension so that everyone can know both what counts towards their state pension and how much they can expect to receive. However, we recognise that the benefits of this simpler system can be realised only if we communicate the changes effectively to the public.

I turn to the noble Lord‘s amendment about the timely provision of individualised state pension information. The Department for Work and Pensions currently offers a state pension statement service, which allows people to request an estimate of how much state pension they may get, based on their national insurance record to date. Last year, 2012-13, over 600 statements were provided.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Six hundred?

[Lord Freud]

Six hundred thousand statements were provided. I assure the noble Lord that we intend to continue to provide people with an on-demand state pension statement service after the introduction of single tier in 2016. Our intention is that the service will be predominantly, though not exclusively, digital—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Why on demand? Why not automatically, as a right?

[Lord Freud]

The cost of providing it to absolutely everyone in the country would be large and, in capacity terms, would be too great to be able to cover everyone on that basis.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

If there were increased demand because of the changes that are taking place in the broader communications strategy, what is the capacity to deliver individualised statements? How many could the department cope with?

[Lord Freud]

One of the issues here is that we will need to talk, or write, to people who cannot get the information in the digital way that we are planning as our primary way of communicating. Clearly we will be in a position to do that but, until we have the service up and running, it is difficult to estimate what the underlying demand might be.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The more the Minister describes this, the unhappier I get. The people who most need the information are those who least know that they need to know it—they do not know what they do not know. For me, that was the clear result from the TPAS survey: they did not know that changes were happening and they did not know when they were going to retire or how much they were going to get, and they had not done anything about it because they did not know what to do. That is the first problem: that those who request it—the Minister’s 600,000 a year—are those who are probably more alert to pension issues and more capable of responding in that way.

The second point if we are going to do this digitally is that we are talking about a group, particularly women, who may very well not have access to any such digital back-up at all. My housing association is already seeing issues with this in spades regarding the universal credit. I am doubly worried if, first, we are only responsive to requests and, secondly, if we propose to do this digitally, those who most need help will not get it and they will be the ones who suffer an impaired pension, even though, had the Government acted differently, they might have had enough time to turn the situation around.

[Lord Freud]

Well, my Lords, I can just take you through our plans in this area so let me continue to do that. For those who cannot get digital information, we will ensure that they can still get the information they need. Our statements will give individuals their up-to-date state pension position, including their foundation amount, based on their national insurance record to that point. Where appropriate, the statement will tell them how many further national insurance qualifying years they need to reach the full amount of single-tier pension. As noble Lords will appreciate, it takes a few months at the end of every tax year to ensure full consolidation of national insurance records. However, as now, people will still be able to get a statement based on their contributions up to the previous tax year, and we will update our statements to reflect people’s full record for their pre-2016 years as soon as the relevant data are in place.

PAYE records are now mainly electronic but we are working on an assumption that records on account should be ready by October 2016 for the April introduction. As for the timetable for sending out statements, we can give people accurate information on their single-tier position when all their contribution and credits to that point are recorded on their national insurance record. From Royal Assent, we will include simple information about single tier, including the relevance of this estimate in terms of working out their single-tier foundation amount. From implementation in April 2016, our intention is to provide an on-demand, largely digital, statement service.

Regarding the noble Lord’s question on querying the details, in practice relatively few people currently actually do query. However, we want to ensure that the default position is as simple as possible and we will, as now, ensure that where it is required people can get a detailed breakdown of the calculation. For people who are unable to access digital media, we will ensure that they receive the support they require in a non-digital way and we will work that up. To revert to the point on the implied question of issuing everyone with a statement, the issuance of a large number of unprompted statements—potentially millions of statements—would be expensive in terms of IT costs, production costs, postage and staff. Our evaluation of previous unprompted statement exercises show that there has been little, if any, benefit, and solicited statements are a better way of getting information to people.

I turn now to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. We know that the statement service alone will not be sufficient to inform and educate the public about the simplifications to the state pension system. We are developing a wide-ranging communications strategy, informed and supported by work across government to build financial capability. This will sit alongside the work I described earlier around improving the provision of information across the pensions industry.

To communicate on the single-tier reforms, with HMRC we are already carrying out research, testing language and building on the lessons learnt from automatic enrolment. We are in contact with front-line workers and consumer representative groups. Clearly, it will be important to have an effective mechanism in place for assessing the impact of our communications activity. This will form a key part of our communications strategy. We will publish a detailed update of our communications strategy in the new year, setting out how we will raise awareness and understanding. We will of course communicate that with noble Lords from the outset.

I hope that I have assured the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that the Government are fully committed to ensuring people will continue to have access to information on their state pension position to enable them to plan effectively for their retirement and, as previously stated, we will share our communications strategy with noble Lords.

17:30

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

As ever, I am grateful to the Minister for his full reply. I think that I have ended up slightly more concerned than when I started on this amendment. I also thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. First, specifically the Minister referred to the opportunity to challenge a statement to see whether the information was right, which is not routinely done at the moment. I can understand that. Is there technically a right of appeal or does that arise only when the pension falls due for payment?

I do not think that we got an answer to the point made by my noble friend Lady Sherlock as regards at what point someone would receive a communication. I think the answer to that is that it would be only at the point at which they asked for it. I can see that an educational policy, financial literacy, and all those issues dealt with by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and the noble Lord, Lord German, are important and may give an enhanced understanding for people. I am trying to understand what would happen if there is no proactive approach. You could end up with very few people asking for a statement, and the percentage of people in the new system getting an early statement seems to be low. I still do not think that we have the answer to the question about the capacity of the department to respond to queries if there are more than the current 600,000 requested statements. I would have thought that there is at least some prospect of a bit of a flood of inquiries at least at the start when people seek to understand the new position, particularly if the broader education approach is to help and encourage people to understand what their potential provision will be in due course and, therefore, what additional saving they might, if they are able, undertake.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hollis, as ever, about some very helpful data which really underlines the importance of getting these communications right. The noble Lord, Lord German, made the point that this is not just for people who are retired or just about to retire. This is a broader issue about helping young people as well to understand the importance of saving. I had not heard the figure of the 2 million people who auto-enrolled. I am grateful for that. It is a huge achievement and it is great to have it announced while sitting next to my noble friend who was so instrumental in getting that under way.

Obviously, I will withdraw this probing amendment. I hope that the Minister may be able to fill in some of the gaps but I am still left very uncertain as to how most people will get that information expeditiously. I would have thought that most would want it.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Will the Minister think about the possibility of, say, when someone hits the age of 50, a pension statement or whatever being sent out? The whole push of the Government’s programme has been that people should have enough time to be able to make good any shortfall in their record.

They cannot do it six months before they are due to retire. If a statement was sent at 50 and then the usual one was sent a year before retirement when people may or may not be in a position to consider voluntary NICs or something like that, even that would be helpful if a statement cannot be sent out each and every year. I take the point about cost and effort but people need some snapshots so that they know what the position is as they go along at the ages of 50, 55, 60, 64 or whatever. Otherwise, we will find that a hell of a lot of people are going to remain on pension credit and two legacy systems will be running for 40 years.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I shall try to consolidate where we are here. We will provide full information on our communication strategy, and noble Lords will see that. We know that how and when you communicate is very important, and having a generalised communication strategy may not be most appropriate. As the noble Baroness said, there are particular points where we might want to get over particular bits of information, as is currently the case where people are informed about, for instance, the number of years of national insurance contributions that they have made when they reach a certain age. I would imagine that a sensible communication strategy, which we will show to noble Lords, will incorporate that kind of thing.

To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on appeals, people can appeal but not until state pension age, not least because, as the noble Lord will be fully aware, before then the pension is often a guesstimate. We are not able to tell people in advance what they are likely to get because the issue is so fiendishly complicated. The real question, which the noble Lord may ask, is whether, when the matter becomes dramatically simpler, we can provide that information, but then there will probably be no need for appeals.

The department tried automatic statements between 2003 and 2006, when more than 17 million were sent out. We stopped this activity after research showed us that it had a limited impact.

One issue on which we need to communicate is shortfalls and the opportunity to buy voluntary NICs. Rather than generalised information, some very targeted bits of information, particularly around that area, are far more likely to get people to respond and focus their attention on their interests.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Perhaps I may give the noble Lord another example, and this will apply to other amendments later on. You begin to get an increasing degree of ill health among some people at the age of 50. Women are now very often entitled to a carer’s credit, which, as the Minister will know, is much less heavy in its requirements than the carer’s allowance. However, the take-up is very low. Most people do not know about it at all and it is very hard to claim it retrospectively. Only when the Minister says to people at, say, the age of 50, “You’ve got this but the following credits may be available to you under certain circumstances”, will we know whether women, as they approach 63, 64 or 65, have built up an NI record on their own. The Government cannot be passive about this; they have to provide appropriate information to allow people to know both what they need and what they can do about it. It seems that the Minister is basically responding to those who already know that there is an issue and not to those who do not but should.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, just to wrap up this position, I do not think that any noble Lord in this Room will be under any illusion that we are not utterly determined to drive forward a transformation in both working-age and pension-age systems. One of the guiding principles for both those is simplicity so that people can understand what they are entitled to and there is an automatic process where you do not have to do so much work. It is an example of the kind of chaos that we have at the moment that people do not understand what their entitlement is. I am equally conscious of the figures in universal credit, where you have a clean working-age benefit. Two-thirds of the uplift of more than £2 billion per year that we are able to put through to people is due to giving them benefits that they do not currently claim. I do not think that there is any difference. Clearly, simplification and transformation are right at the heart of the Government’s strategy.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, before I withdraw the amendment, can I check on two points? The Minister said that it would be possible to go to the previous year’s statement on the normal basis by 6 April 2016. Would that statement include any estimate of what life would be like under STP or would it just be on the old basis? I accept entirely the Government’s intent to communicate effectively on this. It would be crazy to develop a policy like this and then let it fall because there had been inadequate communication, so there is not a challenge on the Government’s intent here. However, how will they spot the difference between those who are digitally able and those who are not? How long will it take for them to realise that there is a group of people here or there who have not accessed the system and that they therefore need to do something else?

[Lord Freud]

I shall take the noble Lord’s second question first. We realise that some people today are not necessarily digitally able or on the net, but this is the way of the future and we are looking to increase digital take-up and access and a lot of investment is going into that. It is interesting that the divide currently seems to be at age 45, with people pre-45 tending to be relatively familiar and people post-45 tending to be less so—this tells us something about the nervousness in Lords committees. However, clearly, as the system moves ahead over the decades, more and more people will take digital involvement for granted. For those who cannot today, we will need to supply other means of support and we have said that we will do that.

Statements before April 2016 will contain information to help people understand what the amount stated will mean if they reach state pension age after 2016—in other words, what the foundation amount that they could expect represents.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful for those further clarifications. I have just one final point—I promise no more. Is there a statutory underpinning for state pension statements? If there is not, should there be one?

[Lord Freud]

I complained about razor blades before. I am pleased to be able to inform the noble Lord that, no, there is not a statutory underpinning. I am not utterly sure as to why there should be one and whether that is a loss to the system.

I should be very interested if the noble Lord can explain why there should be one and to think about that.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Perhaps I could write to the noble Lord. It just seems to me that one would have assumed that the Government were authorising some formal way to produce this information, or have an obligation to. Perhaps that is the difference here: the more we move to a statutory basis, it imposes a stricter obligation on the Government. We might reflect on that, but we have cantered around the issue, so I withdraw the razor blade and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

Amendment 4A not moved.

Clause 1 agreed.

16:33

Amendment 5

Moved by

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

5: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Calculation of state pension
Regulations may provide that the state pension shall not be less than the single rate of the standard minimum guarantee pension credit plus 2%.”

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I hope that Committee will forgive me if just for a second I revisit Amendment 3 and pension credit costs. I pressed the Minister, but he did not give me an answer—I would be very happy for him to write me—about the annual savings from each cohort of men falling out of pension credit and where those savings go to. That was not part of his reply and it would be good to know.

This amendment proposes a 2% head space between the new state pension and what someone would get on pension credit. Obviously, it is a probing amendment, a peg to explore what the future level of the state pension vis-à-vis pension credit will be, and to give us information about some of the winners and losers on the income analysis, on which I am sure that my noble friends will be pressing the Minister.

In particular, I want to focus on the issue of means-testing. As far as we know, eventually only something like 3% of the means-testing in the system will drop out as a result of the proposed changes. One of the great virtues of the new proposed pension was that by bringing together the BSB, S2P and pension credit, it was to leapfrog some means-testing. As my noble friend Lady Sherlock said, we had to use means-tested pension credit when we came into government because pensioner poverty for the bottom third was so acute and the number was so large that we could not financially manage a sufficient flat-rate rise for all. So we targeted our resources, and the policy worked. However, as my noble friend Lady Turner will remember, although we pushed the policy through, it was not without insistent, noisy and continuous haranguing from the late, splendid Barbara Castle, who used to sit right behind me, muttering very loudly to Muriel as I would reach some fancy point in policy, “What’s she trying to say now? What’s she trying to say now?”, to the great amusement and glee of those on the opposition Benches.

That policy removed hundreds of thousands of people from poverty, so pensioners are now less likely than any other group to come within that category of poverty. However, it came at a price. As we know, means-testing is disliked, especially by older people and, no, it is not the same as giving your income details to HMRC for tax purposes. It is highly expensive to administer and open to error—I will not say fraud—for this group.

Above all, as the Minister rightly and sympathetically identified in his previous answer to my noble friend Lord McKenzie, those entitled to pension credit, such as the self-employed unsure of their income or elderly widows whose husbands’ pensions have died with them and who have never handled the financial pension arrangements between them, do not always claim. Unlike lone parents, who are savvy and feisty about their benefits—well, usually—and have very high claim rates, pensioners do not. For example, fewer than half of those entitled to savings credit claim it. In the past, fewer than two-thirds of those entitled to council tax benefit claimed.

Endless studies were undertaken into why, and I congratulate the DWP on its fascinating in-house research published last year by Maplethorpe et al on whether we could get a significant increase in the take-up of pension credit if pensions were made to the department’s random sample of 2,000 entitled non-recipients automatically and a further 2,000 ENRs who were followed through by DWP visitors. That was an imaginative and welcome piece of research.

It is a pity that the results were, for everyone I think, really rather disappointing. The money was welcomed at the point but after the trial period of three months DWP had added only about 10% to the number claiming pension credit, which was useful but not a breakthrough, when pensioners were required to submit their own forms—in other words, take the initiative in a means-testing pension credit. As the research identifies, it is about stigma and difficulty with the forms, but also we have long found that if a pensioner had applied in the past for another means-tested benefit—HB, for example—and been refused, they thought they were ineligible for any other means-tested benefit so did not apply. If a friend or member of their family had been refused after applying, they assumed that the case applied to them too.

Many of them felt that the money they got at the end of a lengthy process was too little to be worth it. They may be right because although the savings credit mean figure is something like a loss of about £34 a week, the median is infinitely lower because it is skewed by a few very high numbers at the end. However, pensioners worried—this is partly the result of some of the problems with tax credits—that if they were wrongly paid they might face having to repay money that they subsequently could not afford. Nor are they clear about income and savings rules; some pensioners with £5,000 tucked away for funeral costs think that that disqualifies them. A few thought that as they could manage without pension credit, although they were entitled, it was morally wrong to claim it.

This research, which builds on two previous pieces of research that the DWP has done over the past 15 years on pension credit that I am aware of, suggested to me that means-tested benefits are almost inherently troubled by the failure of a substantial number of pensioners to claim, and that the new state pension is absolutely the right way to go for the future. It has to be on an automated basis. Whatever may happen to other means-tested benefits, we hope that at least pensioners’ basic income in the new state pension will be safely delivered and in full. However, means-testing will continue for the 25% of future pensioners who are not owner-occupiers but who are on housing benefit in the rented sector, or for those with incomplete NI records. The reduction in means-testing is mainly because the new pension incorporates the means-tested guaranteed credit while abolishing the means-tested savings credit. That is actually why the numbers fall.

However, if the new pension is to reduce means-testing, as we hope it will do—though at the moment the statistics do not suggest by as much as some of us had hoped—it must, to use the phrase, put clear blue water between it and the new pension. At the moment, the difference between what a pensioner would get under the three tiers of state pension, possibly some additional pension and pension credit under the new state pension, could be less than £1 a week, although the triple lock for the pension, unlike the earnings link for pension credit, should widen that gap over time if the triple lock remains. Age UK has provided figures showing that means-testing will have fallen by just 3% by 2014 from what it would have been as a result of this. However, as my amendment suggests, 2% would provide a rounder figure—a £3 gap, I guess.

I am hoping that the Minister will give us some guidance on the difference in income for each path that a person registering for the new pension will take, and the winners and losers as a result, so that we can work further on those stats before Report. The Select Committee recommended such a clear space, although it did not suggest a specific sum. The Government’s response was rather interesting. They agreed it was necessary to establish,

“a firm foundation for saving”,

but believed that it was not necessary to put that in the legislation. I do not think that is good enough. Put very crudely, there is not much point in having a massive and welcome reform of pensions structure if at the end of the day many future pensioners, mainly women, lose derived rights, and many other pensioners, mainly women, are no better off than they would have been on pension credit because the new state pension is financially not sufficiently distinctive. I beg to move.

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall take advantage of the helpful peg of this amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Hollis. I completely accept that moving more rapidly to a flat-rate pension will bring losers and gainers. However, we need to have some confidence about the initial value of the single-tier pension and how its value will be maintained over time, in order to have confidence about the assessments of gainers and losers.

The figures and statistics that we have are based on the assumption of triple-lock uprating, which is far from assured over time. We know that the single-tier pension has to produce a series of outcomes: it has to be above the guarantee credit to address the disincentive to save; it has to be set at a level which reduces reliance on means-tested benefits; and it has to provide a firm foundation for private saving. However, whether it achieves those intentions depends in part on the starting value of the single tier and how its value moves over time. The White Paper therefore suggested that a single-tier pension should be worth £144 in 2012-13 earnings terms, but the extent to which the single-tier pension figure is to be set above the pension guarantee credit is very unclear.

At the time of the White Paper’s publication in January 2013, the illustrative £144 was only £1.30 higher than the guarantee credit—less than 1%—which was lower than the figure in the Green Paper, when the £140 illustrative figure was £7.40 above the guarantee credit, which is nearly 6% higher. In 2013-14 earnings terms, £144 would be worth £146.30—just 90p above the guaranteed credit of £145.40. We therefore have a lack of confidence about what the level of the single-tier pension will be at its introduction, what its uprating is likely to be over time and what its relationship with the guarantee credit is likely to be.

The rate of the new state pension will be set in regulations, and it is important to have some confidence about government thinking. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee commented that,

“we draw to the attention of the House that, for the first time, the rate of the state pension will be specified only in subordinate regulation”.

The Government’s impact assessment assumes uprating by the triple lock, but the assumptions about gainers and losers and pension adequacy could be significantly different if the triple lock were not applied. I also note that, when it comes to assessing gainers and losers, the notional figures include the previously contracted-out individuals. In one of the very helpful briefing sessions that we have been afforded, I asked whether we could see the notional figures for gainers and losers, excluding those contracted out at April 2016, in the hope that we could get a clearer picture of winners and losers. I was particularly interested in understanding more clearly who the winners and losers were from the base of the actual amounts that contracted-in individuals receive. I was interested to read a report this weekend, albeit in the Corporate Adviser. I quote from the article:

“The figures for mean gross state pensions, which give the clearest official picture of the level of combined basic and secondary pension of contracted in workers, have been omitted from the ONS’s 2013 Pension Trends paper”.

I understand that the reason for that is information provided by the DWP. For the sake of debate and for clarity, net state pension figures are only those payments paid directly by the state, whereas gross state pension figures are estimates of the total entitlement to additional state pension, which include those elements paid by private pension schemes that are contracted out.

17:59

The most significant paragraph in the article states:

“But the 2013 Pension Trends paper only shows net figures, meaning contracted-out and contracted-in individuals’ benefits are combined, giving no clear picture of winners and losers. It shows net state pension payments of £145.52 per week and to women of £111.95 per week, but these figures do not include payments made to pensioners that were contracted out of the additional state pension, and therefore do not show the actual amounts contracted-in individuals are receiving”.

It would be helpful to have the Minister’s comments on these observations, because I am concerned that we should understand how the analysis on gainers and losers relates to the base of the actual amounts that contracted-in individuals are receiving.

I shall make a point almost as an aside, but do so because it is something that I will probably come back to in a later debate. If private sector employees are going to meet the high national insurance contribution costs of both the employee and the employer through lower private pension benefit accrual, then what we are seeing is a transfer to the state system of pre-funded private saving rather than an actual gain for the individual. I accept that it is transferring a liability to the state and will reflect in the level of state pension that an individual gets but, in motive terms, I think that for some individuals overall it will not necessarily be seen as a gain. I would certainly be interested to hear the Minister’s comment on this use of gross and net state pension figures, and how that impacts the analysis of gainers and losers.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I shall say very little. I am so keen to hear the answer to that last question that I shall race through my contribution even more so than normal.

My noble friend Lady Hollis has done the Committee a service by opening up the question of the level at which the single-tier pension will be set at introduction. Both she and my noble friend Lady Drake have drawn attention to the rather dusty view taken by different bodies of the Government’s refusal to do this.

The Work and Pensions Select Committee was very clear about the fundamental importance of the principle that the STP should be set above the level of pension credit. That is primarily about means-testing, and I was grateful to my noble friend Lady Hollis for making the point that, contrary to what one would think from some of the headline messages, the percentage-point reduction in means-testing is really very small, being somewhere between 2% and 3%. That is not very surprising. One of the notes that we were given explaining means-testing and single tier confirmed what I think a number of us had expected, which is that, while there is a small reduction in the number of pensioner households claiming guarantee credit—pension credit—a considerable part of the reduction in means-testing on pension credit relates to those who would have received savings credit. It has always been very easy to reduce the number of people involved in means-testing: just make benefits less generous or take them away faster. You simply reduce the level at which you can get them. Taking a benefit away from people may reduce means-testing; it is not in itself an achievement. More interesting is what the combined effect is.

The Government’s response to the Select Committee was to confirm that it was indeed a principle of the STP that it should be set above the standard minimum guarantee and would be thus set, and that Parliament would be able to debate it as the regulations would be affirmative. However, as my noble friend Lady Drake said, the Delegated Powers Committee pointed out that this is the first time that this is being set not in primary legislation but simply in regulations which cannot be amended. I confess that this is not an area of expertise—along with many things that I talk about—but I presume that the reason for this is that, when Parliament is debating the introduction of a new system, it is impossible to understand the implications for anybody involved unless one knows the level at which it will be introduced.

I spent the entire weekend, apart from a brief outing to the marvellous Durham Johnston Christmas concert, going through all the details trying to understand the impact on different people of all these changes. They are all predicated on the assumption that this will be set at £144. If that assumption proves to be untrue, or indeed if the triple lock proves not to be the case, then I have no idea what the impact will be or who the winners and losers will be, and all our debates today and in the many joyous weeks that we have to look forward to will be rather academic. Can the Minister be tempted to give us some level of clarity, at least about what the minimum level might be, in order that we can understand better the assumptions that the Government are making? I raised this question at Second Reading and, I have to say, got a rather dusty reply. The Minister said simply:

“We will need to decide that closer to implementation when the level of the pension credit standard minimum guarantee for 2016-17 is known. I am afraid that I cannot reveal all tonight”.—[Official Report, 3/12/13; col. 192.]

So I confess that it is not with a hopeful heart that I await the Minister’s response, but I await with fascination his response to my noble friend Lady Drake.

[Lord Freud]

I shall start with the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referring to the previous amendment regarding men coming off guarantee credit. I commit to write to her with the data on the numbers coming off.

The central principle that these reforms represent is that the full amount of the single-tier pension will be above the basic level of the means-tested support for a single person. This provides a clear foundation for both private saving and automatic enrolment, and it builds on the broad cross-party consensus that has characterised the debate that there has been on pension reform: people need to save more, and to do that they need to know what they are going to get. The reforms are therefore not so much about spending more or less money on future pensioners but about restructuring the system to provide clarity and confidence to help people today to plan for their retirement.

In the White Paper, published in January 2013, we used an illustrative start rate of £144, which was above the minimum guarantee and forecast to stay within the projected spending on the current system. Every extra pound added to the start rate increases annual costs by £500 million in the 2030s. A start rate of 2% above the standard minimum guarantee would incur significant additional costs.

On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, on the narrowing of the gap between the standard minimum guarantee and the start rate of the single tier, the Green Paper said explicitly that the precise value of that start rate would need to be set at a level that met the affordability principle. The start rate that we will fix will need to be set closer to implementation, when the Government will be able to factor in both the 2016-17 level of the standard minimum guarantee and the latest economic and forecasting data.

The Committee will note that the regulations to set the start rate will be subject to affirmative resolution and will therefore be debated in this House. The noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Sherlock, asked why this is being done by affirmative resolution as opposed to in the Bill, as is the existing position. The different approach was flagged up by the DPRRC, although, interestingly, it did not recommend that we changed our legislative approach. That approach is consistent with recent legislation, such as establishing both the ESA and universal credit, and it is driven by not currently knowing what rate to use, given the enormous costs involved of getting that rate out even by a small amount from what it should be, relative to the means-tested level.

On contracting out, there is not a clear distinction between the people who are contracted in and contracted out. We estimate that even by the 2030s about 80% of people will have been contracted out at some point. The analysis we have done in the IA, as the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, pointed out, is based on the net state pension outcome, not the gross.

The stated intention of the Government is that the start rate should be above the standard minimum guarantee, and it is the Government’s intention that it should remain above the standard minimum guarantee into the future. That is why the Bill sets out that the single-tier pension will be uprated by at least earnings growth. There is flexibility in the legislation for discretionary above-earnings uprating, depending on the fiscal circumstances at the time.

I point out to noble Lords that where a couple both receive the full amount of single-tier pension, as a household they will receive almost a third more under the new system than the couples’ rate of the standard minimum guarantee. To promise a single-tier start rate at 2% above the basic level of means-tested support would mean that we could not guarantee that the reforms would be cost-neutral. With these reforms, we aim not to increase the amount spent on pensions but to provide clarity to support private saving.

On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on the decrease in the numbers of those who are means-tested being driven by the end of savings credit, clearly the answer is yes, in part. However, that money is being used to provide the flatter state pension that is central to these reforms and it allows us to provide the single tier in a cost-neutral package, while simplifying the system. Although there is no Baroness Castle to barrack us from in front or behind, or wherever she did it, it clearly makes sense to go to a system that is less—or as little—reliant on means-testing as possible. This is the way to do that and I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Drake]

Was I correct in understanding that the noble Lord confirmed that the figures that we have show that notional gainers and losers are based on the net state pension figures, not the gross, and that a certain category of payment was therefore excluded in that analysis? Those net figures will not include total additional payment entitlements.

[Lord Freud]

The noble Baroness is correct that the analysis is done on a net basis. I am dubious about whether a gross basis is even possible, so I will not promise to have an additional analysis done on a gross basis.

[Baroness Drake]

That prompts the obvious question: why not? However, will the Minister write to us on why the net rather than the gross figures are used, and why the gross figures cannot be used, so that we can fully understand the implications of the gainers and losers analysis with which we have been provided? Certainly I had not realised that there was that distinction. I was scrabbling at or delving into trying to understand this issue when I asked some of my questions at the briefing. However, I think the distinction between net and gross is quite significant, and it would be helpful to have an understanding of those two issues.

[Lord Freud]

I will certainly be pleased to write on the thinking behind why it is net. As I say, I am not in a position to commit to anything on the gross figures at this stage, but I will set out the latest position in that area in that letter.

[Baroness Sherlock]

It would be very helpful if the Minister could write and confirm that it was net. It would also be helpful if he confirmed that the gross figures were not available to him and explain why not. It would be helpful if he could simply clarify why they are not available or why he does not have them.

18:15

[Lord Freud]

For the noble Baroness’s sake, I shall repeat what I just said. I will write to confirm that they are net, although I hardly need to do so. I will write to say what the position is with gross analysis at this particular moment. I do not know whether that is to say that they are available, not available or whatever. I will just write to let the noble Baroness know the position.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am sure that the Minister will understand our need for clarity on some of these issues—whether it is net or gross; mean, median or average and so on—because they completely reshape the statistical base on which some of us are trying to base some of our contributions. The Minister is patient in taking our comments on this point, but we really need to know and we have not always had the statistics in ways that have allowed us to read across in a straightforward and simple form. This is not the fault of the Box; it is simply because that is the way in which, classically, statistics have been collected.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Drake, who emphasised both the need to deliver the Green Paper promises of a substantial headspace between the pension credit regime and the new state pension, and the way in which this is becoming narrowed. As my noble friend Lady Sherlock said, it is becoming very hard to calculate. I was checking back on what the Select Committee on Work and Pensions actually called for, and I really do not understand why the Minister cannot do this for us. The committee said in paragraph 34:

“There is no certainty about how long the triple lock will be in place and we believe that it is important that there is as much clear water as possible between the rate of the STP and that of Pension Credit. There appears to be scope for a bigger differential (either at the outset or over time) given the increased National Insurance revenue that the Government will derive from the ending of contracting-out and the overall long-term savings which will be made on”,

pension credit,

“expenditure as a result of the introduction of the STP. We therefore recommend”—

and I do not understand why the Minister cannot go along with this—

“that, when the Bill is before Parliament in the summer”—

that is, in the prior discussions at the other end—

“the Government publishes an analysis of (a) the cost of setting the STP rate at a range of higher levels; and (b) the level at which the STP could be funded if the additional NI revenue was used for this purpose”.

The Minister says that the whole of this project has to be cost-neutral. Yes, to an extent, but of course it is cost-neutral within a growing demographic population. When he talks about it being cost-neutral, I am never sure how much he is looking at the rise in life expectancy and so on and therefore at the number of claimants coming through, particularly for the post-war bulge. After all, the GDP figures show a drop for this group in going to pensions of something like 8.9%—I think I am right; I am doing this from memory—or about 8.23%. That is a significant drop in projected GDP going to a cohort that will actually have increased in number. When the Government say that this has to be cost-neutral, therefore, it seems to me that in practice, unless I have misunderstood the Minister, that could be achieved only by allowing the real value of the new state pension to fall simultaneously with the real value of pension credit. Perhaps he might like to write to us to confirm whether that is the case. However, as I have said, I do not understand why he cannot respond to what seems to be an entirely appropriate piece of analysis that was recommended by the Select Committee. Perhaps he could write to us and explain why it cannot be done.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Before my noble friend sits down, does she agree that the drop in the share of GDP would have been even greater had the uprating been by way of earnings rather than by the triple lock? It is maintained even at that 0.6% drop because of the triple lock assumption, which is far from guaranteed, as I understand it.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My noble friend is exactly right and I thank him for that. Perhaps the Minister could write to us on why this is not possible. Why we cannot follow previous legislation in doing pension Bills, I do not understand.

[Lord Freud]

Maybe to save myself a bit of ink in letters, I should point out that we have done the range of start rates. In the White Paper, we showed it at the £144 point and the £145 point, and to increase the figure by £1 would cost £500 million by 2030.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

On what price basis—is that in real terms, in today’s money? What are we talking about?

[Lord Freud]

Clearly, a quote done at that time would be using the money of the day. We would not be doing it in cash terms; we would be doing it in today’s money, or the money of that day. Yes, it was 2013-14 money.

On the question of neutrality, the reforms would cost no more than the current system overall and will not be more generous to future pensioners, so the additional national insurance revenue will not be recycled within the state pension system but will contribute to other reforms such as the cap on social care costs and the employment allowance, as announced in the Budget 2013.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I have to say that I am not persuaded by those responses but at this point, I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

Amendment 6 not moved.

Clause 2: Entitlement to state pension at full or reduced rate

Amendment 7

Moved by

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

7: Clause 2, page 1, line 13, at end insert “including any additional years that person may have bought back either on his pre 6 April or on his post 6 April 2016 contribution record”

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, Amendment 7 is another probing amendment so that we understand the buyback rules. By virtue of the Bill raising the number of qualifying years from 30 to 35, there will be some people, mostly women, who will come to retirement age with an incomplete NI record. I should emphasise here that in terms of buyback I am not talking about class 3A—the new proposals for the additional pension. Some of those missing basic years may have occurred before 2016; some may occur afterwards. It is crucial that we help people to have a complete record, otherwise many will need topping up by pension credit.

Buyback, as members of the Committee will know, comes through making class 3 contributions—what we call voluntary NICs. They cost around £13 a week, which is about £700 for the purchase of one year, and add £3 to £4 to your pension, for life, so that you get a payback within three to four years. That is a return of more than 25% on your capital, so it is a very good deal if the arrangements stay the same. Obviously, the class 3A proposals are meant to be actuarially neutral, so I imagine that they will not be as attractive. You can buy those extra years in the year that you are missing a class 1 contribution—husbands have sometimes bought them for their stay-at-home wives and rich kids have sometimes had their parents buy them for them—or you can revisit the record of your NI contributions close to retirement and see how many more you need to get a full state pension. If you can afford to, you can then buy back contributions for the missing years.

In the past, you were allowed to buy back your missing years either as you went along, so that they were current, or to buy back the last six years, especially at retirement. If you had missed a year, say 15 years before, it meant that you could not retrospectively cover it by buyback. That was changed after 2006 so that you could buy back any six years. That was particularly useful to women who might have taken a year or three off, say 10 years before, when they accompanied their husband to his new job in a new city or because her working life had, for a couple of years, been interrupted by caring responsibilities for which she could not then have been credited.

The Government have said, as I understand it, that up until April 2023 you can buy back missing years to 2006, which is good news. I have some questions. First, will that happen if you have already retired? In other words, could someone retiring in 2021 decide to buy back additional missing years? Or must, as in the past, that purchase take place within a year of retirement? Secondly, are you limited in the number of years you can retrospectively purchase to, say, six years within those 16, or could you in theory purchase up to 16 years at or after retirement—for example, if you are lucky enough to have a legacy, or something?

Thirdly, are you still able to purchase up to six missing years in any years before 2006, or has that now been wiped out? That is key. Those were the years for which women particularly suffered before the credit system was made more generous. I think that I am right to say that women who gained NI credits for their children up to 16, which is now reduced to 12, should be okay, given buyback to 2006, but what of the situation of a woman carer not eligible for the carer’s allowance but who today would be eligible for carer’s credit, which did not exist before 2006? If she were caring for a couple of elderly relatives, between, say, 2000 and 2004, she might well have lost several years of NI credit. Can she buy those years back?

As I said, I am not referring to the new class 3A. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that and put the rules on record. I beg to move.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hollis for opening what appears, from the expressions of those in the Minister’s Box, to be an unexpected line of engagement in the complex issues with which we are dealing.

The issue of buying back national insurance contributions has been engaged with most recently, as the Minister will realise, in 2006, when the six-year buyback was relaxed in certain circumstances of some complexity. I am conscious that we are moving inexorably towards the clauses in the Bill which in the House of Commons were described as being the complex clauses, which deal with transition. Clauses 2 and 3 deal with entitlement to single-tier pension where the national insurance contributions are all close to 2016, because of the provision in Clause 4(1)(c), but this seems as good a place as any to deal with this issue, which may well have been properly engaged with under a later clause because it lies within the years that my noble friend is interested in—more in the transitional phase than the projected phase of post 2016.

It is none the less a valuable issue. It allows me to take advantage of a completely coincidental e-mail which I received at exactly 4 pm today. With the permission of the Committee, I will read this set of personal circumstances to the Committee. I think that it illustrates the real challenge that the limitations generate for real people. I cannot imagine that this woman who has written to me and, probably, to other Members of the Committee, is unique. I will protect her identity by anonymising her, but will read just a couple of paragraphs to the Committee, if I may.

18:30

They state:

“I am writing to ask your help for those women who, like me, will lose our right to a basic and widow’s pension with the new bill. I have been married for over 30 years. For many years I worked, but my work was part-time, poorly paid, and only available during teaching terms, so I never built up my own record of NI contributions. I was still in education when the married-woman’s stamp ended. We thought about making up the shortfall in my NI contributions but money was tight and we always knew I would be able to claim on my husband’s contributions, particularly if I was widowed. We never imagined this would change. When I was unemployed I did not claim benefits (and therefore credits) because my husband was working.

I did have three years full-time work, which necessitated me working 200 miles from my home. My husband then became chronically ill with heart failure, and I gave up own work to help him remain working for as long as possible. It was hard for me to lose the chance of a career of my own but it was a sacrifice I had to make to help my husband facing this devastating illness. We felt we could manage without claiming carer’s benefits (which again would have protected my NI record), but when he did eventually have to give up work as his condition worsened we made sure that he claimed incapacity benefit, purely so that his NI contributions—and therefore, we thought, my pension—would be protected.

Again, we thought of buying me extra years, but were assured when we looked for advice from the Department of Work and pensions that I would be better off claiming on my husband’s record. My husband will reach pension age under the present system, with a full 35 years contributions, which we were always promised would cover me. At 59 I find that the pension promises which we trusted our entire lives are going to be torn up. If we had known this would happen of course I would have bought more contributions, signed on when unemployed, applied for carer’s allowance—but I can’t go back and change the past. The retrospective nature of these changes is terribly unjust and causes us both huge anxiety and fear for the future, particularly for when, as is likely, I am widowed, and lose three-quarters of our income”.

I am not arguing from these Benches for this particular relaxation of the rules at this stage. Engaging with these circumstances and this consequence of the operation of the rules relating to national insurance contributions in the circumstances that my noble friend so clearly laid out, gives us in this House a responsibility for people just such as my correspondent. I hope that the Minister will give me the opportunity at the very least to write back to her and refer her to the official record of today’s Committee to say, “There is an answer to your problem and that is what it is”.

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for this amendment on voluntary national insurance contributions. Of course, I register what was a very moving excerpt from the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, received today. A number of noble Lords may remember the significant concession that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, secured—or introduced —during the passage of the 2000 Act to smooth the cliff edge resulting from the reduction to 30 years of the number of qualifying years needed for the full basic state pension.

[Noble Lords]

The 2008 Act.

[Lord Freud]

I thought that I said the 2008 Act.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I am grateful to the Minister. On this side, we heard 2000.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I must have swallowed my “eight”. I apologise for my grammar. I add that there is no cliff edge with these reforms.

I welcome the opportunity to put on the record that single-tier pensioners will continue to be able to fill gaps in their national insurance record by buying back qualifying years of voluntary national insurance contributions. These will be taken into account regardless of when they are paid. If they correspond to a pre-2016 tax year, they will be included in the calculation of a person’s foundation amount. If they are paid in respect of a post-2016 year, they will count towards their total single-tier amount.

Given that we are in the process of reforming the state pension system, the Government have recently made changes to the arrangements for voluntary contributions to ensure that people can wait until they are able to request their foundation amount after implementation, before making decisions on buying additional years. We have adjusted the rules for people reaching state pension age under single tier to extend the time limits for paying voluntary contributions to 5 April 2023, for the tax years from 2006-07 to 2015-16. Usually, contributions are paid at a higher rate if more than two years have elapsed from the year in which they were due, but this rule will be suspended until 6 April 2019. This will mean that a person retiring after 2016 will have had a considerable amount of time, up to 17 years since the relevant gap occurred, in which to decide whether to pay voluntary contributions.

So people will be able to buy after the state pension age point. They can buy back as many as they need, right down to 2006, so if someone reaches their state pension age in, for instance, 2018, they can buy 12 years. I hope that I have addressed the noble Baroness’s points, and ask her to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, what the Minister has said is what I expected to be the case. However, he has failed to say whether the changes that we made in 2008 will be sustained—that is, whether, either before 2016 or after it, you can buy back years that were missed before 2006. I am perfectly well aware that you can go back to 2006 and carry on buying back to that date right up until April 2023, and I am pleased that the Minister was able to confirm that for us, but can you buy back years that were missed in, say, 2000 or 2003, up to 2006, which was sustained as a result of the 2008 Act? This all came into being in the first place because NIRS2 was flaky, and we turned mechanical failure into a moral virtue.

[Lord Freud]

No, let me provide clarity. The system does not let people buy back years before the 2006-07 point. We have relaxed the time limits because of the uncertainty around the new system. However, it is an insurance system, with the basic principle that you cannot insure after the event.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I may need to go and do some research, but my understanding of the 2008 Act was that there were circumstances in which you could buy back beyond the six years for a further six years, under very limited circumstances. It was open to married women in particular, I think, though I am not entirely sure and I will need to go back and check all this. However, maybe the Minister may just conclude this debate on the point at which the six-year limit is fine.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I thought that I had just said that we had made that concession a general one in practice.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I wonder if I could help my noble friend Lady Hollis here, although on this issue I am not sure why I should, as I was the Minister dealing with this and she was on the Back Benches giving me a hard time. My recollection, although I have not gone back over the detail, is that there was the opportunity to buy back outside of the six years, but you had a limited period in which to do that. I have forgotten what the deadlines were and I do not know whether that time has expired now; maybe it has and we are therefore back to the usual six years, with the extension that the Minister has explained. There were two systems and there was a limited opportunity to go back—for any length of time, as I recall—and you had to go back within a fixed period of time.

[Lord Freud]

Without indulging in too much nostalgia, particularly as I was not present in 2008—or was not present here—that relaxation was because of the change from 39 qualifying years to 30. That was specifically introduced to exclude the cliff edge, and the concession was only for people reaching their state pension age before 2008. As I said, I do not think that we need to get over-nostalgic. As they move through into the new single-tier system, both before and afterwards, people now have a broad ability to purchase extensive voluntary national insurance contributions, and of course we are adding to that capability with the new class 3A voluntary contributions. Therefore, there will now be a substantial opportunity for people to buy state pension.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I am sorry but I really disagree with the Minister on this. My noble friend Lord Browne showed rather movingly how losing the 60% dependency pension along with a failure to claim credits and the limitations on buyback that will continue to happen interlock to ensure that a woman who has done “the right thing” by her family at every point that she has been asked to make a decision, putting her family interest ahead of her own, will end up with an inadequate, incomplete and pretty minimal basic state pension. That was why we fought quite hard in those years to enable people to buy back missing years. I can see no moral difference between a rich kid living in Antibes having the money paid for them by their father as they sail around the place and a woman who failed to complete a year’s contributions because she accompanied her husband when he moved jobs or because she was caring for somebody and was not eligible for carer’s credit and is not allowed to buy back. The time limit of six years or so is entirely arbitrary to suit the convenience of the DWP and to try to impose this measure on people’s very different and complicated lives.

I still think that our position was right and that the position taken by the department and the Minister is wrong. By 2030 or so this will not be an issue, but a lot of people are going to retire in 2016 and their missing years will not be from 2006 to 2016 but from 1995 or 2000. The Minister is now telling us that those people cannot buy back the missing years, even at an appropriate price, although it will be no problem for somebody 10 years down the road to buy back years from 15 years beforehand. That inconsistency, as well as a failure to recognise the problems that many women have had in the past—which have bedevilled pension issues—in building up a coherent NI record, will remain with us if the Minister is not able to move on this front.

[Lord Freud]

Perhaps I may respond to a clearly impassioned speech by pointing out that we have announced the introduction of the purchase of voluntary national insurance class 3A contributions, and that is there precisely for the reasons that concern the noble Baroness. There will now be an opportunity to buy voluntary NICs and we will give full details of that.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Forgive me, but class 3A is for the additional state pension and not for the BSP. It will also be actuarially neutral, which means that it is going to be infinitely more costly. Nor have we heard any details. Unless I am mistaken, I do not think that this addresses the fact that a diminishing cohort of women will have spotty NI records by virtue of putting their family first at key points in their lives, just as my noble friend so eloquently described to us. The Minister has made no provision for them at all.

18:45

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I need to point out that we have a comprehensive means-tested system. People who have fallen through the net will be supported by that system. That is the way in which we have devised the support network for people who do not have a contributory record.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I shall withdraw the amendment, but I would have thought that the Minister would do everything possible to reduce the number of people having to fall back on pension credit as a safety net as opposed to getting them into the new system provided they pay their way. They have taken on these family responsibilities and are willing to pay for it, and the Minister is saying no.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My noble friend may wish to take this opportunity to have recorded the apparent inconsistency between the new policy, which allows class 3A national insurance contributions to be paid in an unlimited fashion—or if not entirely unlimited then in an extensive fashion—and the restriction of six years on class 3 national insurance contributions. She may wish to consider whether there is some indication of a relaxation of the clear policy until now of restriction in relation to national insurance contributions.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My noble friend is absolutely right, but we have probably pushed this matter as far as we can tonight. However, I am simply very unhappy about this. It is an unnecessary abatement of the possibility of allowing women who have done the right thing and put their family first at difficult points in their lives to make good their deficit in the NI record, whereas if she were wealthy, well informed, stayed at home and bought a year every year, she would be okay. That is not only a failure to recognise her family responsibility but a failure to recognise the position in which low-income women have always been placed in relation to pensions. We can do better than that. I hope that the Minister might want to see whether he can meet us on this in any way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

Amendment 8

Moved by

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

8: Clause 2, page 1, line 17, leave out “35” and insert “30”

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, this amendment is about the 35-year qualification period to get the full-rate single-tier pension—of course, that also applies to the reduced rate pension. I have tabled the amendment because a lot of concern has been expressed to me. Presently, there are 30 qualifying years for the basic state pension. That period of 30 years has been achieved after a fair amount of agitation in the past, and people are anxious to retain it. The Government, however, apparently argue that the 35 years is associated with a higher benefit, but this argument ignores the fact that most people will also have established some rights to the second-tier pension at that stage.

Under the present framework, a low-paid employee can establish an entitlement to a level of state pension equal to £144 if they have 30 qualifying years’ contributions or credit for the basic state pension, and of course they have to have 22 years for the second state pension. Putting in 35 years instead of 30 seems to a number of people simply to be going backwards. It is obvious that other people feel like that as well because my noble friend Lady Sherlock has tabled Amendment 16, with which my amendment is grouped and which again raises doubts about the 35-year provision. That amendment suggests that there should be a review to determine costs and benefits and so on.

I would be in full support of that if my amendment was not accepted. I would prefer of course to have 30 years rather than the 35, but my noble friend’s amendment at least suggests a review and would ensure that the matter was thoroughly discussed and a report issued to both Houses of Parliament. I would be in support of that as well. I beg to move.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Turner for her amendment, which, as your Lordships will have noticed, is grouped with an amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sherlock, which calls for a review of the phasing.

For the sake of some chronology in our thinking, a similar amendment to this was considered in the House of Commons after Clause 4. That was to the benefit of the debate in relation to it. The call for a review really belongs with Clauses 3 and 4 because it relates to transition whereas, as I have indicated earlier, Clauses 2 and 3 relate only to people whose qualification in terms of contributions has been achieved post-2016. In the words of the Pensions Minister, that makes it much easier and simpler to understand Clauses 2 and 3 than it does Clauses 3 and 4, which are significantly complex. However, my noble friends will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to go into the detail of all the elements of the transition. There are complexities there, some of which it would be helpful if the Minister explained to the Committee so that we had an understanding of the complexity and the consequences of it for individuals.

I will first address the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Turner, which challenges the imposition, as it were, of a qualifying period of 35 years so soon after we changed the law to reduce the qualifying period for the state pension to 30 years. It would be to the benefit of the Committee’s understanding of the Bill and the policies that instruct it if the Minister addressed himself, as I am sure he will, to the way and the processes by which that figure of 30 years was arrived at. It was probably best explained by the Pensions Minister at col. 141 of the House of Commons Committee stage on 2 July. He set out broadly that the existing state pensions structure had two elements to it: the basic state pension, for which there was a 30-year qualifying period, and then the additional pension—as we have come to know it in terms of the Bill, but which has different elements depending on which years one looks at—which could be built up from rights that have been built up over as much as 49 or 50 years of a working life.

The Minister then explained that in arriving at a period of contributions that should entitle one to an amalgamation of these two rights, he looked for a “weighted average”. He was challenged, probably correctly, as to why in earlier consideration of where it should lie he had favoured or indicated—at least in his evidence to the Select Committee—the figure of 30 years as opposed to any later figure. He was asked pointedly by my colleague Gregg McClymont whether there was a financial consideration as opposed to just some broadaxe approach at trying to work out somewhere that was appropriate, and which could do justice to those two elements as they were brought together.

The advantage that my noble friend Lady Turner gives the Committee is that she gives the Minister an opportunity to explain in more detail how the 30-year figure was arrived at and how it can be justified, as opposed to some broadaxe, weighted average-type judgment. If it is just a judgment that had to be made for speed and efficiency, the Committee ought to know that it is about the right figure and there is nothing more to it than that. That is the strong implication of the way in which the Pensions Minister approached his explanation in the debate in the House of Commons.

We on these Benches support the single-tier pension and recognise that at some stage, judgments have to be made, but it is much easier to support judgments if there is an explanation of the reasoning behind them to convince us why it should be 30 years rather than 32, 33 or whatever. Those figures are very important.

I do not think I will detain the Committee for nearly as long as my honourable friend Gregg McClymont engaged the Committee in the other place on the amendment that now stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sherlock. However, in introduction, I want to tease out one or two observations about the amendment that I think should properly lie in our discussion after the debate about Clause 4, to explain why a review is necessary. Once one gets a sense of the complexity of the transition and the interaction of different calculations, one begins to realise just how important it is to have a review informed by reality. Of course, a part of that reality is the level at which the single-tier pension is fixed so that one knows who are the losers and who is being affected

What really instructs the review is a defeat of expectations. The Pensions Minister engaged with the perception rather than the reality. I am not keen on trying to argue policy changes on the basis of perception. That is principally because for two years I was a Minister in Northern Ireland, where I was repeatedly told, “In this country, Minister, you have to understand that perceptions are much more important than facts”. No matter how good my arguments were, I was told, “But that is not how it will be perceived” in one community or another, and that perceptions were much more important than facts—so much so that I thought for a period of having one of those famous signs on the desk that Ministers and executives often have made, reading, “In this office, facts are more important than perceptions”, but I thought that that might have been provocative and decided that it would not be a good idea.

Greg McClymont argued, and I support him, that there is a significant group of people who have a similar experience to that expressed in the e-mail that coincidentally I received this afternoon—people who have a set of expectations that are defeated. Unless there is engagement with those issues and some sense of fairness, the fairness, simplicity and other measures that the Government have set for these changes will not be met.

In this case, there is a group of people who have an expectation that they will get the full rate of whatever the state pension is after 30 years of work or 30 years of national insurance contributions. They will be met with the reality that it now requires 35 years. I will come to this in some detail—I am not going to take that long about it—but I know that one can say to them that 30-35ths of this figure is more than 30-30ths, or more than 100%, of the figure that they were expecting. However, they are retiring into an environment in which other people are getting not 30-30ths of the figure that they were expecting but 100% of what the new figure will be. That is an important point to make.

19:00

When we engaged with this issue earlier in the Commons, the Minister suggested early on in his contribution that this matter was easy to deal with and that this challenge of moving to the new system while honouring the past could be dealt with without any sense of grievance, if we all went out and said this:

“You used to need 30 years for £110 plus something else”—

an interesting phrase—

“and now you need 35 years for £144”.

If we just keep using that phrase to people, the Minister said,

“there would be no confusion”.—[Official Report, Commons, Pensions Bill Committee, 2/7/13; cols. 164-65.],

assuming that everybody knows what “plus something else” means along with £110. The fact of the matter is that people do not.

We have already heard a considerable number of noble Lords in Committee this afternoon saying that the complexity of this is beyond some of them. I pick out the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, because he engaged with the complexity of it, but he served for many years in distinguished fashion as the chair of the very Select Committee engaged with all of these knotty issues. If he is struggling to be comfortable immediately with all this, what expectation can we have for people who, as the Minister suggests, do not even engage with this normally to ask the DWP for a statement of their pension entitlement?

We have an obligation to engage with these issues in a way that at least gives us the opportunity to get on record words of reassurance, rather than just of assurance. We should not just assert that everything will be fine when it may not for individual people who have an expectation. The debate was engaged with in that fashion and we were told that there was no need for confusion: it was a matter of perception, when the facts would be entirely different. I have no doubt that the Minister has a long speaking note in which all this explanation is set out. However, what has happened since that point of the debate in the Commons is extremely interesting. First, the Committee there was engaged for about one hour and 15 or 20 minutes in debating it. It started off as being relatively simple but it took about an hour and 30 minutes to debate it, when almost everybody in that Room understood that 30-35ths of £144 is more than 30-30ths of £110. However, there were complexities there.

Much more importantly from our perspective in dealing with this, since it was debated in the Commons—indeed, since our Second Reading—the Bill team and the Minister have, very helpfully, provided us all with this interesting briefing paper. It is headed:

“The move from 30 to 35 qualifying years and the transition to the single tier”.

Its introductory paragraph starts by saying:

“Some people have interpreted the move from 30 to 35 qualifying years as potentially disadvantaging individuals reaching State Pension age after 2016 and who may only have 30 qualifying years and were expecting a ‘full state pension’. This note sets out why people cannot be disadvantaged by the change in qualifying conditions”.

I will not go on, as others can read it. We have all got it.

So I picked this up with an expectation that it would solve all my problems for me and leave me with no confusion, no concern and no sense that anyone out there could have any degree of grievance. I have to say that it is well written—it flows and it is logical—but it is very difficult to keep up with. It is not straightforward. It is a bit like reading a Russian novel, where you have to keep going back to the first couple of pages to see who the characters actually are because they have so many names. The Joes, the Bills and the others in the worked-through examples that we are given are slightly difficult to keep up with, and there is a substantial non sequitur on page 3 or 4, where you have an expectation that you will turn the page and it will all be resolved, but that is it—you are not getting any more information about these two related people and you have to make up your own mind as to whether one is better than the other.

I do not want to go into this in any great detail, but I just point out this eight-page explanation followed the Minister saying, “All you really need to say is that the 30-35ths of £144 are more than 30-30ths of £110. There is no confusion and no need for a review, because it is already clear”. People who really know what they are doing, and who to a degree instructed this policy, set out to try to explain it. Eight pages later, they have done a very good job but what they have not done, which is extremely interesting, is engage with the one example provided by one of my colleagues in the debate in the House of Commons, about a constituent of hers whose working circumstances had left her in a situation where, like my correspondent today, she had a shortfall of national insurance contributions and no apparent way of making it up because she believed that she could not afford to buy them, but she was not poor enough to be on some form of benefit that would give her credit. I do not need to go into the detail of all that—I know that the Minister’s officials and he will be well aware of it—but in eight pages of engagement, the one example put to the Minister in the Commons could not be engaged with.

I share all that with the Committee for this purpose: to say that if, from the information that we have, we cannot answer these questions being put to us by others’ constituents or people who we engage with about how to bridge the gap and get into the position where you are no worse off, when you fundamentally believe that you are; and if we cannot reassure these people, who are not insignificant in number and are approaching this deadline—this cliff edge—knowing that they have fewer years than they need to qualify for what everyone else would consider the state pension, whatever we call it, then there is an argument for some other mechanism. That other mechanism should be a review. It does not really matter how it is done, but it should be a review.

For the reasons that came out clearly in the engagement between the Minister and my noble friend Lady Drake, such a review cannot be done until somebody fixes this pension rate because it is not easy to see. It is perfectly clear that the pension rate is not going to be fixed until very near the date of April 2016. It could perhaps be done by anticipation to some degree, but it seems at least arguable that it is best done as a review of the effects of phasing of the transition and the requirement for 30 years. Then one can see whether we should all be satisfied that there will be no confusion and that nobody will lose out because everybody is at least as well off as their expectations should have encouraged them to be.

I have one slight hesitation about that. That is that at one stage in the debate, the Pensions Minister said: “The problem with a review in this phasing is that if it makes recommendations, there will be an expectation that they will be implemented. If they are to be implemented, that will issue a degree of uncertainty into a system that we have spent a lot of time making much simpler and trying to get certainty into because it is to be the base for pensions income going forward and to encourage saving”. That makes me believe that he may think that a review might recommend change. Why would he deploy that argument otherwise? If he is as certain as the briefing paper that we received and his simple explanation of no confusion suggest that there is no reason for anybody to be confused, they should all just be satisfied that they will be as well off as they were entitled to expect to be.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

With respect to the noble Lord, it is slightly unfair to criticise this document for being so long and then not get the point that the pension for 30 years is £110, and the pension for 30 to 35 years will be £123. That means that somebody is better off. That is the point, is it not? It was unfair to attack civil servants for writing that long brief to make that point, when I am not sure that the noble Lord got it. They will be better off under this system.

I should like to make two other points. If we set it at 30 years now, there is no going back. We might like it to be 30 years, but the fact is that if we set it at 30 now there will be no going back if it does not work out. If we cannot afford it, it will not go up to 35 and we will have to stay with it; whereas, if it is at 35, there is the possibility of review and it could come down.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

Clearly, my carefully constructed argument was utterly wasted. I just want to make two points to the Minister, who may well not have been intending to look at me. I am not arguing for 30 years; I am arguing for a review. I was commenting on an earlier amendment, which is not in my name and which I do not support, for a reduction to 30 years, suggesting that it opened up an interesting debate about why it is 30, not 32 or 35. That is not for me to explain. The noble Lord can be reassured that I understand the mathematics, or the arithmetic, on this. I am just arguing for a review for reasons to do with the expectations of people whom I think are entitled to have those expectations.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

I am sorry if I lost the noble Lord’s argument in not realising that he was arguing for a review; I thought he was arguing to reduce it to 30. I think that makes my point, actually: it is easier to have the higher figure to start with and then review it down than to start with something lower that you then cannot afford.

My other point is that the additional contributions are very beneficial in their rate of return. Under the scheme, we are trying to encourage people to save. That is one of its main merits and motives.

19:14

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, under the single-tier pension we will be merging two schemes: the basic state pension, which requires 30 qualifying years for the full rate, and the state second pension, which you can contribute to for up to nearly 50 years.

Requiring 35 qualifying years for the full single-tier pension strikes the right balance. It will enable the majority of people who contribute to achieve a full state pension through either work or the comprehensive system of credits available to people unable to work, while still retaining the contributory principle. This leaves considerable leeway for people to have gaps of up to around 15 years in their working life and still qualify for the full rate. In 2020, the significant majority of single-tier pensioners—around 85%—will have 35 qualifying years or more. Our analysis suggests that in 2020 around 90% of male and 80% of female single-tier pensioners will have 35 or more qualifying years.

There is a simple response to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, raised about expectations. In the existing system, we have no such thing as a full state pension. We have £110 basic, plus who knows how much additional pension. It is complex and people do not know what to expect. That is exactly the point that the single-tier pension will address.

In the early years after implementation, people in Great Britain with between 30 and 34 qualifying years are just as likely as those with 35 or more qualifying years to have a higher state pension under single tier than under the current system. The transition calculation provides for a “better of” comparison at April 2016 so that the person receives the higher of their national insurance valuations based on old and new scheme rules, with the old rules being based on 30 qualifying years.

That will, in fact, advantage some people because, where someone does not have the 35 years needed for the full level of single-tier pension, they will receive a pro rata amount according to the number of qualifying years that they have built up, provided that they meet the minimum qualifying period. Someone with 30 qualifying years would therefore get a single-tier valuation of 30-35ths of the full rate, or around £123 per week, as my noble friend Lord Stoneham pointed out, less any adjustment for contracting out based on the illustrative single-tier rate of £144. In many cases, the single-tier valuation will be higher than the valuation that people would get under the current system, as 30 qualifying years of basic state pension gives an income of £107 a week in 2012-13 terms.

Furthermore, where someone’s foundation amount in 2016 is below the full single-tier rate, people will have the opportunity to increase this amount by gaining additional single-tier qualifying years before reaching state pension age through work, paying voluntary contributions or receiving national insurance credits. The current broad range of credits will be mirrored under single tier, and when universal credit is in place, it will extend credits to an additional 800,000 people who do not receive them under legacy benefits.

These arrangements recognise people’s contribution records in the existing scheme and allow people to have significant gaps in their national insurance record while still ensuring that 80% of new single-tier pensioners reaching state pension age by the mid-2030s receive the full rate of the single-tier pension.

The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, would require the Government to conduct a review of a phased transition for the move between 30 and 35 years for a full pension. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that there is little evidence that such transitional arrangements are needed. However, I need to point out that, if a review were to recommend a single-tier pension based on a 30-qualifying-year requirement, this would carry with it cost implications. The estimated cost of such a system, compared to a 35-year model, would be around £700 million per annum in 2030 and £2.9 billion per year by 2060.

Furthermore, to reinforce the point about uncertainty raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, a delay in defining the qualifying requirements for the new system, which a review would necessitate, would introduce uncertainty for those closest to retirement. The period following Royal Assent will be a crucial time for the delivery of single tier, and making fundamental changes at that point might well delay implementation. This moves back to the amendment raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about the importance of communicating the reforms and a clean communication. The point on the move from 30 years to 35 seems more of a communications issue than one of principle. To this end, helping people to understand how they may be affected, we have been conducting field work on communicating the impacts of the policy. I therefore ask noble Lords to withdraw these amendments.

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

I thank everyone who has participated in the debate because it has been very interesting. However, I have listened very carefully to the Minister and I remain unconvinced. Many people will wonder why on earth there is the change to 35 years when they were used to 30 years for the basic state pension that they have in operation now. They do not understand why there should be this difference and neither, in fact, do I. The Government have produced some information about costs, as has the Minister this evening, that seem quite fantastic to me. I will look at them very carefully because I will probably want to come back again, perhaps in a different way, when we look at the whole thing on Report. I will look carefully at what everyone has said in the debate because it is an issue that is of interest and concern to many people, otherwise I would not have put it down. However, in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

Committee adjourned at 7.22 pm.

House of Lords

Monday 16th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Monday, 16 December 2013.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

Death of a Member: Lord Roberts of Conwy

Monday 16th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Announcement

14:36

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness D’Souza)]

My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, on 13 December. On behalf of the House, I extend our sincere condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Monday 16th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

14:37

Asked by

[Lord Avebury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the outcome of their discussions with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, during her visit to the United Kingdom on 6 November.

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)]

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary met Navi Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, during her visit to London on 6 November. The High Commissioner discussed with the Foreign Secretary a range of human rights issues including Syria, Burma, Sri Lanka and Iran, and our preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative.

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has left out one of the items which I know the High Commissioner discussed with Ministers, and that is the call that she made for the strong and swift implementation by the Government here of their new legal obligation to extend the Equality Act to include caste in the list of protected characteristics. Postponing that question until the other side of the general election is incompatible with the obligation. In the light of the High Commissioner’s advice, can my noble friend say whether the Government will speed up the timetable?

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, the Government are committed to outlawing caste discrimination. However, we are aware that legislating on the basis of limited evidence carries a serious risk of unintended consequences, and we need to get the detail of the legislation right. My noble friend has been a huge campaigner on this issue. I can assure him that the Government are committed to it, but it is important to ensure that the consultation on what that legislation would look like is completed, as well as making sure that the relevant groups that would be affected are fully brought into the process. He will be aware, of course, of the report of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, published in December 2010, which unfortunately proved to be quite divisive because people used it to support both sides of the argument.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)]

My Lords, Navi Pillay has called for an international inquiry into war crimes committed during the Sri Lankan civil war and has said that the regime is now showing signs of moving in an increasingly authoritarian direction. Following the Prime Minister’s attendance at the CHOGM, what diplomatic efforts are the Government making to secure support for a strong resolution on Sri Lanka at the March 2014 session of the UN Human Rights Council?

[Baroness Warsi]

Of course, at the time that Navi Pillay visited the United Kingdom, the CHOGM had yet to happen. It was one of the issues that was discussed with the Foreign Secretary. We are keen to see some incredibly robust language and text at the Human Rights Council in March 2014.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, given that the visit of Navi Pillay took place just a few days after the United Nations Commission of Inquiry was here at Westminster taking evidence about the egregious violations of human rights in North Korea, and given the events of last week with the execution of Chang Song-thaek and the Amnesty International report which shows the expansion of political prison camps as part of the gulag system that incarcerates more than 300,000 people, can the Minister say whether Navi Pillay spoke to Ministers about the situation in North Korea and whether this was one of the issues we had on the agenda for that meeting?

[Baroness Warsi]

She did discuss that matter with the Foreign Secretary and it was one of the issues on the agenda. The noble Lord may be aware that an Urgent Question has now been granted for Wednesday specifically on North Korea. I look to the Lord Speaker to confirm that but, if that is the case, I can, I hope, answer that question in much more detail on Wednesday.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, to return the Minister to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the paving legislation on caste discrimination was agreed by this House in 2010. There was an overwhelming majority in the House in favour of including caste discrimination in our legislation not that long ago but it looks like that will not be implemented until after the next general election. The United Nations High Commissioner has asked for strong and swift implementation of the legislation. Can the Minister say whether that is compatible with her statement and the fact that it will now have taken more than five years to implement if the Government stick to their current timetable?

[Baroness Warsi]

As it stands, the timetable is that the public consultation will be held around February and March next year. That will be followed by some targeted sector-specific engagement with groups that need familiarisation with the new legislation, including certain employers, public authorities and the judiciary. It is anticipated that the legislation will come into force in October 2015, but I am quite happy to take back the noble Baroness’s comments to the Minister who deals with equality issues.

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, freedom of religious belief is becoming a bigger issue, sadly, around the world. What are the UK Government doing in terms of working, particularly with the Human Rights Commission, to promote freedom of religious belief?

[Baroness Warsi]

My noble friend will of course be aware that freedom of religion and belief is one of the six priorities for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Indeed, it is a personal priority of mine and something into which we have put additional resources and energy since my appointment at the Foreign Office. We are dealing with this matter on a number of levels through both the Human Rights Commission and our support for Resolution 16/18, which determined, among other things, tolerance towards minority religions. We have also instigated and chair a political track to this process. The first meeting was held at the beginning of this year and the second at the UN General Assembly in New York in September. We are proposing that a conference on freedom of religion and belief should be held in the United Kingdom next year.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister perhaps say a word about the resources available to the High Commissioner for Human Rights? I understand that the Government have in fact found an extra £500,000 voluntary contribution—a matter on which I am still waiting for a reply from the noble Baroness, following the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, some weeks ago. What are the Government doing at the UN to ensure that the resources for the High Commissioner for Human Rights in 2015 and 2016 are not constrained and reduced, as they currently are? Are we supporting an increase in those resources?

[Baroness Warsi]

I apologise to the noble Lord for the delay in responding. I did in fact sign the letter on Saturday so I know it is on its way to him. It may be on his desk this morning. In relation to funding, the noble Lord will be aware that as well as making our contribution to the UN general budget, which is about 5%, we make voluntary contributions to OHCHR of about £2.5 million a year. On top of that we make additional voluntary contributions, which can be anything between £2.5 million and £4 million. We were the seventh largest donor to the office during 2012. The 2013 figures have not yet been published but I assure the noble Lord that we are incredibly aware of the pressures on OHCHR in terms of its funding and that we do feel that it should be properly resourced. However, that does not stop us from making quite strong representations for better budget management. We are asking OCHCR to do more but we also think that it should do more with the money that it has.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)]

My Lords, closer to home, will the Minister take this opportunity to condemn the gender discrimination which is creeping into our universities and which apparently has the support of the people who control university education at the highest level?

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, I have strong views on this, but it may be well beyond the scope of the Question.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, when the Prime Minister visited China recently, did he have an opportunity to talk to the Chinese authorities about the thousands of executions carried out there every year?

[Baroness Warsi]

I am not sure of the specific discussions that took place on human rights but I will write to my noble friend on that point. He will, of course, be aware of the annual dialogue we have with the Chinese where these matters, among other things, are raised.

World Innovation Summit for Health

Monday 16th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

14:45

Asked by

[Lord Crisp]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the recommendation for improving mental health globally made at the World Innovation Summit for Health.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, we welcome the recommendations made at the World Innovation Summit for Health and outlined in its report, Transforming Lives and Enhancing Communities. Mental health and well-being is a priority for this Government. Our overarching goal is to ensure that mental health has equal priority with physical health, and that everyone who needs it has timely access to the best available treatment. We hope that other countries will afford it equal priority.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. I should have made it clear when I tabled the Question that I was really looking for a reply from the Department for International Development. I will, however, ask two questions.

I know that the Minister will be as appalled as everyone else by this report and its finding that 700 million people with mental health problems worldwide are not getting treated, as a result of which some find themselves chained up or caged. Does he think the report’s findings and recommendations are relevant in the UK as well as elsewhere, although, obviously, not in relation to being chained up or caged? DfID currently spends, essentially, nothing on mental health. What is it planning to do post-2015 to make sure that nobody is left behind, as the Prime Minister has set out in his report?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the principles espoused at WISH do indeed apply with equal force to mental health services in this country. Those principles are several, but I would draw the noble Lord’s attention to the need to draw on evidence-based practice; to strive for universal mental health coverage; to respect human rights and to take a life-course approach. We try to embody all those things in our mental health services. Regarding DfID, I can tell the noble Lord that there are a number of multilateral and bilateral programmes which are in train and supported by the Government. We are supporting work in the Caribbean and Bermuda and promoting work in a number of countries in sub-Saharan Africa. I would be happy to write to the noble Lord with a complete list of these.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

Is dementia included in this?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, in broad terms, dementia falls outside the scope of mental health but it is, of course, closely allied. Many of the principles that apply to good mental health care apply equally to dementia. We are, again, doing our best, in responding to the Prime Minister’s challenge on dementia, to ensure that those who contract this dreadful condition are looked after with dignity and respect in the appropriate setting.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, the WISH report, to which the Government are signed up, recommends key improvements to community care for mental health by 2020. Yet the recent FoI survey of 51 NHS mental health trusts by BBC News and Community Care magazine shows overall budgets shrinking by over 2%, including those for community mental health support teams, despite referrals to them rising by 13%. How is this consistent with pledging to achieve the WISH goal by 2020? What leadership and direction will the Government give to preventing this very disturbing situation from getting worse?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we need to hold the NHS to account by reference to the outcomes that it achieves. I do not belittle the need to spend sufficient sums of money. The National Survey of Investment in Adult Mental Health Services has indicated that reported spend on mental health services has continued to hold reasonably steady over time. I reiterate that mental health and well-being is a priority for the Government, as I hope the noble Baroness knows. We have clear indicators in the NHS outcomes framework, which will ensure that NHS England will need to focus on this area very closely.

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, it is extremely welcome that my noble friend has emphasised again that for the Government, under the Health and Social Care Act, parity of esteem between physical and mental health is to be maintained in this country. Perhaps I might press my noble friend a little further than the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, did. Have there been discussions between the Department of Health and DfID about DfID espousing parity of esteem for physical and mental health in its proposals, and have there been discussions with other government departments, such as the FCO, about the increasing abuse of mental health and psychiatry facilities for political prisoners in various parts of the world, not least in some of those countries with which we have good relations, including Russia?

[Earl Howe]

I will write to my noble friend on the issue of political prisoners. On his main point of principle about parity of esteem, that principle—which essentially works to ensure that mental health has equal priority with physical health—is central to government-funded mental health programmes overseas; in particular, DfID funds programmes that promote the rights of people with mental health disorders to ensure that their needs are equally met. We recently invested £2 million for an additional three years’ support to the Disability Rights Fund, which makes disability, including mental health issues, a key international development priority.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, people with learning disabilities are disproportionately affected by mental health problems, with three times as many people experiencing such issues. In this country we are very well aware of that, and despite our own problems, such as Winterbourne View, we actually lead the world in research and service development. This is not recognised in global initiatives such as the summit just referred to by my noble friend. What will the Government do to try to raise awareness of the mental health needs of this particularly vulnerable group of people?

[Earl Howe]

Often overseas we are working with very scant resources and the key is to build up the skills at primary care level in countries that are developing and may not have regarded those with learning disabilities as a priority for healthcare. It is a slow process but one that we are trying our best to support. Again, I would be happy to write to the noble Baroness with details.

Benefits: Sanctions

Monday 16th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

14:52

Asked by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what has been the impact of the application of the new sanctions regime for jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance claimants.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

The new sanctions regime was introduced in jobseeker’s allowance from 22 October 2012 and in employment and support allowance from 3 December 2012. We have released statistics on the sanctions up to the end of June 2013. They show that there has been little change in the volume of sanctions since the introduction of the new regime. Matthew Oakley is conducting a review of how we operate the sanctions system and will report back in due course.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It is not a matter of dispute that the social security system should involve rights and responsibilities, but I suggest that the recent, delayed data show a record number of sanctions, and raise the question of whether the sanctions are being fairly applied—particularly the JSA and ESA three-year sanctions. I ask the Minister particularly about the case of Reilly and Wilson v the Secretary of State. He will be aware that the Supreme Court dismissed the Government’s appeal and determined that the Government had a duty of fairness to provide enough information to jobseekers on an individual basis about available back-to-work schemes for them to make informed representations should they so choose. Will the Minister give an assurance that this is now happening, and that it is happening before the DWP seeks to apply the sanctions regime?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as part of the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act we passed earlier this year, we are having a review, which is being run by Matthew Oakley. He is concentrating on precisely the issues of communication that the noble Lord raised.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, one of the complications of the sanctions policy could be its impact on the Troubled Families programme. Will my noble friend confirm the number of instances of second-time sanctions, and how many of them were part of the Troubled Families programme?

[Lord Freud]

I thank my noble friend for giving me advance notice of that question. Only a small proportion of claimants are sanctioned two or more times. For high-level sanctions, only 5% received two sanctions and 1% received a third sanction. On the specific question about the Troubled Families programme, that provision is delivered by local authorities and unfortunately we do not have the data available at the present time.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, given that the Social Security Advisory Committee warned that sanctions tend to impact disproportionately on the most vulnerable and disadvantaged, and given that a recent survey of citizens advice bureaux showed that the new sanctions regime is having a severe impact on physical and mental health, with one respondent saying,

“The strain has quite literally smashed our family to pieces”,

what steps are being taken to monitor the unintended consequences of sanctions, as called for by SSAC? Will the Minister undertake to report regularly on the impact of sanctions on these groups?

[Lord Freud]

As I just said, we are having one review, undertaken by Matthew Oakley. My colleague the Minister for Employment is also looking at this area very closely, and I am expecting the details of the review that she is overseeing to be published reasonably soon.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister said that sanctions had not increased significantly. Perhaps he would look at a Written Answer given in another place to Mr Timms on 4 July, which suggested that the amount of money withheld from JSA in sanctions in 2009-10 was £11 million. Only halfway through 2012-13, it was £60 million. If it carried on at that rate, that would constitute a tenfold increase. Anyone who has ever been to a food bank will have heard horror stories about people being sanctioned for trivial or disgraceful reasons. Can the Minister please get a grip on this?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the relative figures are that since 2010 the volume of sanctions has run at between 3% and 5.5% whereas between 2005 and 2010 the rate was running between 2% and 4%. One of the most encouraging elements of the new regime is that the proportion of people on high-level sanctions has fallen quite steeply and is now down by 40% from 10,000 per calendar month to 6,000 per calendar month.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether the officials working in the DWP are working to targets, and whether this has any impact on the number of sanctions that are applied?

[Lord Freud]

We are not working to targets. We have made it absolutely plain that that is not our policy. We have had a study done on that by the head of JCP, Neil Couling, which reported in May and found that we did not run targets. Obviously, we collect management information, without which we could not give out the kind of data that is requested.

[Baroness O'Cathain (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend give us some indication of the sort of training given to those who deal with some of the rather disturbed people who go to jobseekers’ offices? I have seen several instances where the people in this very difficult situation get a bit disturbed about it and need a bit more sensitivity. I have mentioned this to the Minister before. I wonder whether the responsibility lies with the local authorities dealing with these issues or with the department.

[Lord Freud]

Jobcentre Plus advisers are well trained to look after their clients. One of the most difficult areas for them is always mental health, and that is something that we are looking to push further forward. We are introducing a mental health toolkit along the lines of that given to prime providers in the Work Programme.

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

People with special educational needs and physical disabilities are particularly badly hit by these sanctions. Will the Minister respond to the question put to him by my noble friend Lady Lister? Will he come to the House and report regularly on the impact on people with these difficulties?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I said earlier that I hope that we will be announcing the context of the review that my colleague Esther McVey is looking to produce. When I have that information, I will, of course, bring it to this House.

Employment: Tourism and Hospitality

Monday 16th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:00

Asked by

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their latest assessment of the number of people currently employed in the tourism and hospitality sectors.

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as chairman of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, the Deloitte report Tourism: Jobs and Growth, commissioned by VisitBritain and published on 21 November, states that the tourism economy directly supported more than 1.75 million jobs throughout the United Kingdom in 2013. When the indirect impacts of the tourism industry on the wider economy are taken into account, the number of jobs supported across the UK rises to 3.1 million—in effect 9.6% of total UK jobs.

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

My Lords, do not those significant figures and the fact that one-third of the new jobs created in the past two years have come from tourism emphasise why politicians should take tourism much more seriously? Is the noble Lord aware that the leaders of the campaign for tourism have had a meeting with the No. 10 policy unit and there has been a reply to a letter from the Deputy Prime Minister but, unfortunately, as yet, there has not been a reply from the leader of the Opposition’s office? Perhaps noble Lords opposite will use their good offices to elicit a response. Has he also seen in the Deloitte report, to which he referred, the projection that the likely 6% annual increase in international visitor spend in this country should by 2025 produce a situation where we have a surplus on our balance of payments tourism account for the first time for 40 years?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right in saying that tourism must be taken seriously, whether it is business tourism, sports tourism or cultural tourism. Tourism is worth £127 billion to the UK economy. I am aware of the Deloitte report and my noble friend’s reference. I am nervous of offering advice to the office of the leader of the Opposition, but I suspect that a letter should be swiftly drafted.

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Deloitte report also referred to the fact that 630,000 additional jobs will be created by 2025? That puts the figure at 9.9% of GDP. That is up there with some of the major industries in this country, such as financial services. There is a real need to put tourism at the heart of this country’s growth agenda. There are a couple of caveats in the Deloitte report. One is the need to encourage SMEs to get much more comfortable with the digital economy and to concentrate on emerging markets. Is there not a case for BIS, together with DCMS, to develop a programme specifically focused on encouraging SMEs to grow their offering in the tourism market? I should draw attention to my entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the noble Baroness absolutely strikes the right note. Tourism is at the heart of much of the UK economy. If you look at the countryside, there are constituencies where a very significant proportion of jobs are involved in tourism. It needs to be taken extremely seriously indeed. The other point is that whether the apprenticeships are in large organisations or smaller ones, there are great opportunities for young people coming into this industry. I take the point about SMEs. BIS is working extremely hard on apprenticeships. We very much hope that tourism will be part of the next tranche of Trailblazers’ apprenticeship activity.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the arts in the widest sense play a terribly important role in tourism, whether it is the West End theatre, the National Gallery or the Royal Opera House? These things are very important and a lot of organisations are quite stretched with declining subsidies. Given what he has just said, does he agree that subsidies should be seen as an investment?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

To pick up the noble Lord’s first point, it was very interesting to see in the list of those who went with the Prime Minister to China the number from the creative industries and tourism and heritage sectors. It is a very important part of why lots of people want to come to this country. It is why Britain is fourth in terms of culture and tourism on the Anholt brands index. I very much take that point. On the question of subsidy, it is a balance of the great opportunities our culture has to generate its own funds and government grant in aid.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome and endorse all that my noble friend has said. Does he accept that many tourists come here because of the beauty of our countryside, which is being increasingly despoiled by unsightly, uneconomic and unreliable wind farms? Can we have an absolute assurance that the Government will now turn their back on these curiously inefficient structures?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My noble friend should not tempt me on these matters.

[Baroness Billingham (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that the Government have at their disposal the most wonderful Christmas present they could give to millions of people, young and old, in this country and also for tourism, which could increase by up to 10%? I am speaking, of course, of the need to introduce a lighter evenings Bill into this House. It is an opportunity that ought not to be missed and the nation would be truly grateful.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I would very much like to grant the noble Baroness a Christmas present but it would not be the one she has in mind. In Scotland and Northern Ireland there are very considerable and enduring concerns about this matter. I think your Lordships would expect these matters to be dealt with by a consensus across the United Kingdom—I stress, the United Kingdom.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Monday 16th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Committee (3rd Day)

15:07

Relevant documents: 5th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, 3rd Report from the Constitution Committee and 12th and 16th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee.

Amendment 156B

Moved by

[Lord Rooker]

156B: Before Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
“Application in Northern Ireland
This Part shall not apply to Northern Ireland for as long as it is governed by a statutory power sharing executive based upon the Good Friday Agreement.”

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment would remove Northern Ireland from Part 2 of the Bill. Before I begin my brief remarks, I welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, to the Front Bench and send my sincere best wishes to his colleague—I think we would all do that—for a speedy recovery from his operation. We look forward to his early return.

There are many disadvantaged groups in Northern Ireland. To that extent it is no different from anywhere else but when one looks at representation, there is no Protestant working class representation in Westminster. Your Lordships’ House does not have the benefit of either Sinn Fein—which gets elected but is not represented at Westminster—or the SDLP, which gets elected but does not use this place. This means that we never get the whole story from Northern Ireland, from either side of the divide. I am no expert and my 52 weeks as one of the last direct rule Ministers does not make me one. However, I did collect some messages: fairness and equality are paramount.

We reminded ourselves last week of how young democracy is in South Africa, at 19 years. It is a lot younger than 19 years in Northern Ireland. I recall being at a civil society reception. At the time I had ceased being the Minister but was still the spokesman in this House; it was obviously before the change of Government. I was asked what the approach of the new Prime Minister would be. Would he take as much interest as the previous Prime Minister had when they got devolution back? They would still want some help and some tender loving care, but not nannying—no one is saying that at all. People are prepared to learn from their own mistakes. Progress has been made. However, it was known then, before and after devolution came back, that it was a fragile situation. It is still a fragile situation today, and will be for many years to come.

I was reminded this week by boxes in the dark areas of my home of the advice given to the ministerial team in 2005, when we arrived after the election. I will not quote from it because I would be asked to provide it. However, the central message, beside minding the language one used, was about this issue of community working across the divide, in which I include the divides of rural and urban, blue collar and white collar, and working class and middle class—all of which overlaid the divide of religion and the issue of two member states sharing one island. In fact, I wish the politics were divided down class lines and other factors rather than history and religion.

I want to put to the House five short quotes from A Shared Future which was first published in 2005, but the points are as relevant today as they were then. On building a shared future, it said:

“The potential of addressing the problems of disadvantaged communities will significantly depend on closely aligning community development and community relations work. Community development in disadvantaged communities is largely delivered through the work of the voluntary and community sector that has made a powerful contribution to the achievement of better relations between communities”.

Another paragraph, about investing together, made the point that resourcing the voluntary and community sector,

“identifies the importance of the community development work of the sector and the contribution this work plays to building community cohesion. It is important, therefore, that the capacity of the voluntary and community sector to deliver community development is maintained and reinforced”.

It went on:

“In recent years there has been considerable focus on the difficulties of alienated working class communities. It should not be assumed that the needs of protestant and catholic communities, whether urban or rural, can be met through similar approaches to community development and community relations work. The needs of the two main communities—urban and rural—will be different and, therefore, different approaches … will be required”.

Talking about action at community level, A Shared Future said:

“There is a clear recognition that the voluntary and community sector has made a powerful contribution to the achievement of better relations between communities. It is important that that role is underscored, especially in the most disadvantaged and interface areas”.

My final quote from A Shared Future makes the point:

“Government also recognises the contributions made for example by employers, churches and other faith-based organisations, minority ethnic groups, trades’ unions, children’s organisations, women’s groups, health organisations and youth organisations. These organisations continue to have a role to play in helping build relationships across Northern Ireland. These contributions will be important as Northern Ireland moves forward to a shared society”.

Virtually all those groups I have just mentioned, one way or another, are involved in campaigning, however one looks at it. Looking at the situation from a Northern Ireland perspective, equality legislation is dealt with slightly differently from the rest of Great Britain. I refer, of course, to Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act. It is paramount that the needs of that legislation are watched like a hawk by all the groups in Northern Ireland. Indeed, when I was a Minister there, it was watched by Ministers and we were held to account.

It is crucial—others in this House will know the operation of this much better than I do—that that legislation applies to Northern Ireland in a way that it does not apply to England, Wales and Scotland. There is an insistence there, from a legal point of view, on the promotion of equality of opportunity between persons of different religious beliefs, political opinion, racial groups, age and marital status, between men and women, persons with a disability and without, and persons with dependants and without. There is a meticulous approach to this and people campaign about it. I do not know how a charity or other campaigning group would be able to pursue campaigning on Section 75 around an issue that arose during the year before a general election. I am a bit concerned about that because it seems to have been ignored by the drafters of the Bill.

15:14

Finally, I come to the report of the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement, chaired by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, which was published last week and which we will no doubt hear a lot about. I draw the attention of the House to a recommendation on page 43. It states:

“The Commission is of the view that the nuances involved are complex, multi-origin and difficult to untangle. The potential to do harm in Northern Ireland with hastily adopted legislation is likely to be of a different order to that in Scotland, Wales and England”.

I draw attention to a further paragraph on the same page:

“True democratic engagement in Northern Ireland is unlikely to be achieved if ill-prepared legislation severely curtails the abilities of NGOs to forge links between communities and to work together to influence the policies that affect them, irrespective of which political party is in power in Westminster”.

We have to bear in mind, of course, that political parties in power in Westminster do not stand for election in Northern Ireland, which is a factor that must be taken into account. The last point I want to draw attention to on page 43 is where the commission recommends, as part of a review of provisions, that the Government should:

“Re-examine the proposed rules for coalition working, taking account of the necessity of coalition working across divided communities to moving the peace process forward in Northern Ireland. Explore ways to ensure that regulation does not discourage small community groups and charities from working in coalition”.

The coalition referred to there is a coalition in the normal sense of the word. Northern Ireland is not governed by a coalition but by a statutory power-sharing Executive. It is nothing remotely like the situation we have here at Westminster. The political parties virtually own the departments; they are carved up in the process following the election. I am not complaining about that, but the point is that the campaigning groups, charities and NGOs in Northern Ireland do a different kind of work, in the main, from what they do in England, Scotland and Wales. There is obviously a crossover in how they work with the elderly, the disabled and other things, but there are unique factors in Northern Ireland. Groups were set up during direct rule in order to get action because the politicians were not there. It was not appropriate for direct rule Ministers to deal with it, flying in and out a couple of times a week as we were, but as far as the groups were concerned, there was no political structure. Groups were set up to deal with issues. Many of those groups still exist. The last thing they need to be forced to do, as this legislation almost invites them to do, is to align themselves with a political party during the election; notwithstanding, as I have said, the fact that the parties in power in Westminster do not stand for election in Northern Ireland.

As I have said, I cannot make a massively detailed case—I am not an expert—but I know enough and am concerned enough about the issues drawn out in the commission report to ask the Government to think seriously about them. There would be no complaints from Wales, England and Scotland because the political structure in Northern Ireland is utterly different and it is a very young democracy. The power-sharing Executive must be made to work. The unspoken rule from Westminster to the Northern Ireland politicians is, “You’re never getting direct rule again; you have to sort this out yourselves”. We need to nurture cross-divide working and not put barriers or hurdles in its way. Part 2 of the Bill has the potential to do that and I hope that the Government will think seriously before they make further progress. I beg to move.

[Baroness Blood (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as patron of many charities in Northern Ireland, but mainly as a campaign chair of the Integrated Education Fund, which I shall come back to.

I strongly support this amendment, from my noble friend Lord Rooker, which I consider to be a crucial amendment to the lobbying Bill. The amendment acknowledges the unique circumstances in which Northern Ireland is governed by the statutory power-sharing Executive. I also want to take this opportunity to highlight how, in my part of the world, the work that charities and community groups carry out has never been more important.

As many of you already know, I am a proud Belfast woman and I am especially proud of how far Northern Ireland has come and grown over recent years. Since the Good Friday agreement, I have watched a fledgling Northern Ireland Assembly climb many mountains during its power-sharing journey. Throughout that journey, the power-sharing Executive have had the support and engagement of the many charities and community groups working in Northern Ireland. Before the signing of the Good Friday agreement, charities and community groups played their part in holding the front line. My standing here today and being in the position of talking to you is very much a symbol of that, as I was part of that grass-roots community movement. We were ordinary people, working on the ground, campaigning for a better, more productive and ultimately more peaceful Northern Ireland, and I believe that all of us together played our own small part in helping to bring about huge changes. Often very difficult work is still being carried out today by the different charities and voluntary groups; I could give noble Lords many examples of victims’ and children’s issues, equality issues and issues about the aged, but I am not going to take up the House’s time by going down that route. That work is relevant and vital in helping to support the work of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Change is not easy, and democracy is not easy, and I would urge that in Northern Ireland many charities and community groups allow vital spaces for engagement, where voices can be heard. The importance of this cannot be underestimated; without these outlets, fear and frustration can only fester and grow. In many different ways and on many different platforms, I believe that these campaigning groups, referred to by my noble friend Lord Rooker, have enabled voices to be heard. A lot of the time, it may not be what our politicians have wanted to hear, but that is yet another reason why the work is so important. By listening, supporting and highlighting the voices of groups that might not otherwise feel connected in any way to the governing of the society in which they live, these organisations continue to play a vital role. This work and contribution of the community groups has helped to develop and bring about new policies designed to create a better Northern Ireland for all of its citizens.

As I have already said, this amendment highlights the special circumstances of Northern Ireland—a Northern Ireland governed by a statutory power-sharing Executive based upon the Good Friday agreement—and my noble friend Lord Rooker has already referred to many issues around that. The work of charities and community groups helped to lay the foundations on which the Good Friday agreement was built. I could give noble Lords many examples of all the charities with which I am involved, but I shall give an example of the one in which I am most deeply involved—the work that is done by the Integrated Education Fund. We do things in two ways. First, as campaign chairman, I know that we fundraise to enable schools to be opened to educate children and young people of all faiths and no faith to sit together side by side every day and to learn together. Secondly, we lobby our elected politicians to try to bring about policy change in our education system to lead to a shared future, which 90% or 95% of the people in Northern Ireland crave. No integrated school has ever been established by the system; it has always been established by parents who want to see this change. That work was crucial then and remains crucial to this day.

I began my speech by highlighting the fact that I support this amendment, and I urge the Minister to do the same. Without it, the Bill would have an immense negative impact on the work of charities and the voluntary sector in Northern Ireland.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)]

My Lords, my intervention will be brief. When I came into the Chamber, I did not imagine that I would find myself on my feet so soon. I have long admired the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, through a series of mutual experiences over 30 or 40 years.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blood, will recall the run-up to the ending of the first programme of Making Belfast Work. The right honourable—and now Sir—Richard Needham, who was then the Minister responsible for the programme, discussed with me whether it would be sensible to bring the communities, particularly those in west Belfast, together at Hillsborough on a social occasion, where the total agenda would be what we should do at the end of the first four years of Making Belfast Work, particularly on community relations. It was a high-risk thing to do, and we went into it slightly quaking. I cannot remember if the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, was there, but she is nodding, so I think she probably was and I would have expected her to be there. I hope she would agree that the evening was a tremendous success in terms of the meeting between the communities on both sides. I also greatly admire what she is doing in the context of integrated education.

I return to the first thing that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said about community development, which I regard as being an absolutely key part of the process of reconciliation within Northern Ireland.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has raised the specific case of Northern Ireland, which he did in such a deeply felt and powerful way.

The Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement, which I have the privilege to chair, carried out two consultations in Northern Ireland—one before our first report and one before our second. It would be fair to say that, as a result, we became not just concerned but seriously disturbed by the possible harm that the Bill as it now stands could do in Northern Ireland. Consequently, we put forward a number of recommendations, reflected in later amendments which I am not going to mention now; I will speak to them when we reach them. However, I hope that the Government will pay particular attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, especially about the manner of government in Northern Ireland, which is so different from that in Wales, Scotland and England. It may be that the Government will bring forward quite specific amendments—whether or not they accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—in addition to those which the commission will be putting forward.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not have the same experience as my noble friends who have already spoken so powerfully about the dangers of this Bill for Northern Ireland, but I was privileged to be a member of the Opsahl commission on the future of Northern Ireland about 20 years ago. As part of that commission we invited anyone to give evidence about anything that concerned them. We were particularly impressed by the evidence that we received from local civil society groups, especially from the women in those organisations, working within and across divided communities to help bring peace and social justice to Northern Ireland.

As it happens, 10 days ago I was in Belfast with the Associate Parliamentary Group on Women, Peace and Security, which is undertaking an inquiry into the application to Northern Ireland of UNSCR 1325 on women’s roles in post-conflict situations. To my amazement, I discovered that our Government did not accept that Northern Ireland had been in a conflict situation, although there are groups currently campaigning on the application of UNSCR 1325 to Northern Ireland. When we heard from civil society groups, one of the overwhelming messages that we received was that women in deprived communities feel that they are being silenced, partly by the men in their communities and partly because their role in achieving peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland is simply not being recognised. My fear is that this Bill will further silence these women who are active in local community groups.

My noble friend Lord Rooker talked about equality legislation in Northern Ireland. Again, the overwhelming message we received was that Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is not producing gender equality in Northern Ireland; in the name of gender neutrality, women are being disadvantaged. Again, these are issues around which campaigning has taken place. As well as the implications for Northern Ireland—I hope that the Minister will take heed of my noble friend’s warnings in that regard—this issue also illustrates an important point made by the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement, which I congratulate on producing a first-class, useful report in no time at all. One of the issues to which it draws attention is the failure of the Government to provide a detailed equalities impact assessment. This is very relevant to the Northern Ireland situation where, as I say, women’s voices in particular could be silenced. The report says that the commission is not aware that any progress being made in this regard during the pause—that is, with regard to an equalities impact assessment. Therefore, I would be very grateful if, as well as referring specifically to the point about Northern Ireland, the Minister will advise your Lordships’ House whether any progress has been made on an equalities impact assessment in relation to this piece of legislation.

15:31

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who has performed a very real service in putting down this amendment and raising this issue. I had the privilege to be the chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in another place from 2005 to 2010 and saw at close hand the establishment of the power-sharing Executive. Two things struck me: first, it was remarkable—indeed, unique—and, secondly, it was fragile, as events of the past weeks have reminded us. We must do nothing that may, even inadvertently, damage what has been achieved—something to which successive Prime Ministers have contributed. Without Sir John Major’s trail-blazing work, I do not think that Prime Minister Blair would have been able to bring about the Good Friday agreement. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, nodding in assent.

A great deal has been contributed by a great many people to establish something truly remarkable which is an example for the rest of the world. The last thing we must do—even inadvertently, as I say—is to jeopardise or threaten that. Therefore, I appeal to my noble friend the Minister to say that he recognises the importance and the sensitivities of this crucial subject, that the implications for the United Kingdom as a whole would be considerable and profound if the achievements of recent years were put at risk, and that he will ensure that, as the Bill proceeds through your Lordships’ House, the Government recognise the vital matters that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, so rightly and judiciously mentioned.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with the points that other speakers have raised, but I support the amendment for a further reason, which is that the politics of Northern Ireland differ from those of the rest of the United Kingdom. Noble Lords may say that that reason is more apparent in Part 1 of the Bill, which deals with political parties and lobbying. However, we should remember that the parties that campaign in Northern Ireland may also receive funding from individuals and organisations in the Republic of Ireland. The Republic is reasonably generous in giving citizenship to those who are not domiciled there. That line of thought should suggest to Ministers that there are additional reasons for ensuring that the civil society organisations and charities that have made such a profound difference in Northern Ireland can continue to do their work.

[Lord Horam (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Electoral Commission. However, I am speaking for myself on this occasion and any further remarks I make in this debate are not from the Electoral Commission.

The burden of the point of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, which I take very seriously, is that civic society plays a special role in Northern Ireland because of the nature of the political settlement there. The solution he proposes, which is to exempt Northern Ireland entirely from the provisions of the Bill, is only one possible solution to the problems. Another solution was put forward by the commission chaired by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, which goes into the issue in some detail. The noble and right reverend Lord points out that if the registration levels were raised, and if the costs of security and safety were exempted from regulation, that would be another way of dealing with this issue, rather than exempting them from the Bill as a whole.

As to the other remarks made by the previous speaker, the noble Baroness was quite right to say that, in relation to donations, for example, which have played a very important part in the political tragedy, if you like, of Northern Ireland, delegated powers under another Bill allow the Secretary of State to bring in provisions as he thinks fit and as his judgment suggests is wise. That is a third alternative to exempting Northern Ireland entirely from the provisions of the Bill. It would be rather stark to do that, given that—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, would agree—in essence we are trying to normalise the situation in Northern Ireland as we go along. Therefore, we could give it special attention by all means, but to exempt it totally from the provisions of the Bill would be too stark when there are alternative ways forward.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I would very much like to support my noble friend Lord Rooker in what he has said and the amendment he has put forward. I also very much welcome the comments made by my noble friend Lady Blood, particularly with reference to integrated education. I totally share her views that the integrated education movement in Northern Ireland is a vibrant force and absolutely crucial for the political future of education there. I only wish it had more money and even more clout than it has to influence the political parties in Northern Ireland.

I preceded by some years my noble friend Lord Rooker in being a junior Minister in Northern Ireland. Well, he was not a junior Minister: I was. I was so impressed by the vitality, energy, vibrancy and effectiveness of the voluntary sector. It is something that one has to experience in Northern Ireland to sense the way it is. Anything that would muzzle the voluntary sector would be a retrograde step. I have more recently, through my membership of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, been involved through one of the committees in dealing with many parts of the voluntary sector. That vitality continues to make such an important contribution to democracy in Northern Ireland.

As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, politics in Northern Ireland is a bit different. We have there a coalition compelled by legislation—although I am bound to say, as an aside, that it is quite to be expected that there will be arguments within the coalition in Northern Ireland through the power-sharing Executive. The coalition here is beginning to follow in the steps of the Northern Ireland Executive in that respect. Perhaps it is churlish of me to draw attention to that.

The voluntary sector has an enormous part to play in developing democracy and institutions, and in seeking to establish change in Northern Ireland. I very much hope that the effect of the Bill will not be to muzzle that effectiveness. That is why I welcome the contribution of my noble friend Lord Rooker in bringing forward this amendment.

[Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)]

Perhaps I might add a little to what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, said earlier. I had the good fortune to be a member of his commission. I am bound to say that, before I started to hear the evidence from Northern Ireland, I had very little understanding or knowledge of the particular effects of the Bill, as it is currently drafted, on Northern Ireland.

The commissioner who went over on the commission’s behalf, Georgette Mulheir, is the chief executive of Lumos, a children’s charity. She came back with some truly powerful evidence from those from whom she had heard, and made more than one visit. Some of her work was done before Second Reading in this House, and some subsequently. I understand that latterly one of the Ministers—I believe it was Tom Brake, but I shall be corrected if I am wrong—went over on one occasion and took some evidence, but that was of course after the Bill had been drafted and gone right through another place, and after our Second Reading here.

If I had not had the benefit of the material that we had heard, I would have had no idea of the damage that the Bill as currently drafted could have in Northern Ireland. What came back was that non-governmental organisations’ participation in the democratic process over there is one of the key components of the peace process. The engagement of young people in campaigning, and the close co-operation with all-party groups, was viewed by virtually everyone as a way of strengthening the possibility of lasting peace in Northern Ireland and a real alternative to a return to violence—which, after all, was the way in which young people participated in politics in Northern Ireland for far too long.

The commission’s view at the end of the day related both to the limits—the registration limit and the spending limit—which in our view it would be wholly wrong to lower, and of course to the way in which coalitions work. One of the most powerful examples of how unintended consequences can occur with a Bill such as this—and I cannot believe that the Government wanted to produce this result—was the example given in the commission report about the Human Rights Consortium in Northern Ireland, a group of 180 small organisations from right across the political divide. It would be hard to think of a more disparate group. It got together to campaign for a Bill of rights. Under the Bill as currently drafted, that coalition would have fallen foul of the registration threshold, the spending limits and, in some areas, the constituency limits. It would have been wholly impossible for that group to get together, knowing that it would face the regulatory burdens of the Bill, with a criminal sanction at the end of it. I cannot believe that an organisation such as that, which was working hard and involved people who had never spoken to one another sitting down and campaigning together, is something that the Government would wish to destroy. That, in effect, would be the result of the Bill as it stands.

Whether the right course is, as my noble friend Lord Rooker suggested, to take out Northern Ireland altogether, I am not sure—because, of course, transparency should go across the board in the United Kingdom. However, unless there are changes to the thresholds, to the way in which groups can get together to work, and to the regulatory burden that is imposed, the amendment will deserve to be supported at a later stage.

I am bound to say that the commission spent a lot of time looking at many areas that we are going to come on to. This is not a Bill that can be tinkered with and cherry-picked, in the sense that the amendments put forward by the commission stand or fall together as a package. This House may have to make a decision when eventually we hear what the Government’s views are. Not a single government amendment has been put down today—because, we are told, they are listening, as I am sure they are. The question is: will they act to put the Bill right? If at the end of the day they have not done so, we would be better off with the present state of play for the next election.

Most important of all—it is one of the commission’s recommendations and makes sense from all that has been said by those noble Lords who have spoken and who know about Northern Ireland—the issue needs to be looked at in real detail, not in the rush of a couple of months or weeks. It needs people to sit down and produce a proper piece of legislation, not something cobbled together in a rush since July, as this Bill has been. If that cannot be done before the Bill leaves this House, it will have to be done after the 2015 election. If the changes are not made, I am bound to say that I hope that we will look closely at the whole of Part 2 at the end of the Bill’s passage through this House, to see if we would not be better off without any of it until after the next election, when the job can be done properly.

15:45

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friends Lord Rooker and Lady Blood. Using a deep understanding of Northern Ireland, they have demonstrated why this badly drafted and poorly thought-through Bill has the potential to be so damaging there. My noble friend Lady Blood has huge experience in campaigning in Northern Ireland as part of a grass-roots movement and I pay tribute to her work as chair of the integrated schools movement—a movement which I fully support, does excellent work and must never be muzzled in any shape or form. I very much hope that the Government will heed her advice.

I am sure that I will not be the last in the Chamber today to pass on my sincere thanks to the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement, specifically the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, my noble friend Lady Mallalieu and the other commissioners. By seeking evidence from across the UK and by formulating proposals and testing them against the needs of charities and NGOs, they have highlighted how remiss the Government have been in failing to do any of that. We are told that today is to be an extension of the consultation. However, our constitutional role in this House is to scrutinise the Government and revise their proposals. Committee stage should enable noble Lords to debate government proposals and then to table the necessary amendments for Report. Instead, we are being treated as a focus group for the Government to gauge how little they can get away with changing. I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord to give us a cast-iron assurance that, at the latest, we will see any government amendments which might be forthcoming after Committee by the Tuesday when the House returns following the Christmas Recess. That means that the amendments would have to be tabled on the Monday and published on the Tuesday. It is only right that noble Lords, especially those who are engaged with the commission, have an opportunity to look at the amendments properly and to table their own amendments at Report.

As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, on Friday night we had a terrible reminder of how fragile the peace in Northern Ireland is: a large explosive device was left in a busy area of Belfast, at a time when many were out enjoying themselves with friends or colleagues ahead of Christmas. Despite the worrying scenes on Friday, however, a huge amount of progress has been made, and it must not be jeopardised in any way. From the beginning of the Troubles at the start of the 1960s until the Good Friday Agreement, 1,800 people lost their lives in Northern Ireland. One in five people had a family member killed or wounded in the fighting. So we must support the people who have created, and are attempting to sustain, the delicate balance there in the wake of the Good Friday Agreement and, of course, earlier agreements.

As the commission report says:

“NGOs and charities in Northern Ireland are frequently working on issues that relate to ensuring the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement”.

I was particularly struck by the evidence relating to equality issues and was interested to hear what my noble friend Lady Lister said about women’s voices in Northern Ireland.

As my noble friend Lord Rooker said, the voluntary sector in Northern Ireland has made a huge contribution to nurturing understanding between the two communities there, especially in disadvantaged areas. In a post-conflict society, freedom of expression cannot be taken for granted. Non-governmental organisations carry out roles that do not necessarily come easily to governments in such circumstances. The evidence gathered and presented by the commission on civil society provides us with a vivid example of this in an extraordinarily wide-ranging and inclusive campaign for a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.

As my noble friend Lady Mallalieu mentioned, more than 180 community groups have come together as the Human Rights Consortium, including human rights organisations and disability charities. Strikingly, it also contains republican and loyalist ex-prisoners and the injured police officers’ association. The consortium’s campaign is driven by the belief that, in a society emerging from a conflict that has proved to be so scarring, a Bill of Rights can play a vital role in building confidence in a new legal framework. In its own words:

“While there are rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, this is special for our country because here we have a country where I have been brought up to be British, and that was just the way it was, and my neighbour across the street was brought up to think they belonged to another country, but using rights we can work together to form a new contract with the government of our country, which is Northern Ireland. That is why it is so important to people, particularly in working class communities, but that benefits the whole community right across unionist and nationalist and that is why it is so important”.

The consortium’s campaign shows how the Government’s insistence on bringing forward proposals which expand the definition of regulated activity and expand the definition of what has to be counted toward that expenditure while reducing the thresholds for registration, has muddied the waters.

In 2009, representatives from the consortium appeared before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. In that appearance, they had the opportunity to present and explain some important polling that they had carried out. It showed 75% public support for a strong and inclusive Bill of Rights. The sample for the poll was weighted so that different communities in Northern Ireland were represented, and the consortium was able to tell the committee that the breakdown of its poll showed high levels of support for a Bill of Rights across different religious communities.

As the Bill is currently drafted, this polling, designed to pressure the Government into action, appears to be a qualifying expense. The Government wish to lower the thresholds of registration in Northern Ireland to a very low level at the same time as widening those definitions. However, there is not a single reason why the thresholds as contained within the existing PPERA legislation could be said to be too high.

Noble Lords on the government Benches may have spotted that much of the campaign that the consortium ran took place under the previous Government, and they will be wondering about my enthusiasm for protecting its rights. But that is what being in government is all about. The huge majority of protest is aimed at whoever is in government, because civil society, NGOs and charities all know that if they want a change of policy they will have to convince whoever is in power. Civil society can be awkward for a Government to deal with. It needs to be, because in a democratic society its role is to scrutinise and to hold to account. It seems as though the Government have not fully understood that, and that is the central problem with the Bill.

I would be grateful if, when the Minister responds, he could outline the detailed changes that will be made to protect the rights of civil society in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I would be particularly grateful for the Government's response to the recommendation from the commission that:

“In advance of introducing any new legislation, Government should”—

this is in relation to Northern Ireland—

“Undertake full, in-depth and considered consultation with a range of organisations in Northern Ireland and with the Stormont Parliament itself to ensure that civil society's contribution within the unique political environment of post-conflict recovery is not jeopardised. In particular, ways should be found to ensure that pre-election regulation does not inhibit progress in towards full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement”.

I trust that we will have several assurances from the Minister in response to this short debate.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)]

My Lords, as this is the first of no doubt many occasions on which I shall speak in this debate, I should put on record that I am a member of the board of the Saint Magnus International Festival and a member of the Kirk session of St Magnus Cathedral congregation in Kirkwall, both of which are charities registered with the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for introducing this debate and Committee sitting. With the indulgence of the House—and perhaps responding to some of the things that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said—perhaps I may first update the House on the consultations that the Government have had, and benefited from, over the past six weeks. I should also like to indicate how grateful we are to the many campaigning groups, charities and others—and Members of your Lordships' House—who have taken the time to discuss these matters.

My noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire has written twice to noble Lords offering discussions—and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for his expression of good wishes to my noble friend Lord Wallace. I assure the noble Lord that no one wishes my noble friend a speedier recovery than I do. My noble friend texted when I was on my way down south from Scotland today to say that he was home. Somewhat alarmingly, he also said that he might be watching some of our proceedings on the parliamentary TV channel. I asked him to check his blood pressure levels before doing so.

I know that my noble friend has valued the meetings that have taken place, as have I. There have been meetings with nearly 50 organisations to discuss how the Bill might affect them, and there has been correspondence with many more. Organisations which we have spoken to reflect the diversity of civil society in the United Kingdom, including large charities, campaigning organisations, umbrella organisations and specialist organisations.

I wish particularly to express my thanks—the noble Baroness said that it would not be the last time that that would be the case in these debates—to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and other members of the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement for its comprehensive second report on the Bill. Campaigning groups have made numerous suggestions about changes that might be made to the legislation, many of which are reflected in the amendments that have been tabled. We have been considering these suggestions carefully. I do not accept that this House is a focus group; it is important that this House should scrutinise government legislation. We thought it equally important, in framing the amendments we would bring forward, to have the benefit of full and thorough exchanges on the amendments that have been tabled both today and on Wednesday.

The noble Baroness has asked for a guarantee that the amendments will be available on the first sitting day after the Recess. While it is one that I would love to give, I am sure she will understand that I cannot do that with certainty, although we aspire to it. At any other time of the year it might be easier to do so, but as the Committee will be aware, quite frankly it can be difficult at this time of year to make sure that all the people concerned are in the right place. However, I take the important point that those who have taken a particular interest in this Bill are given proper notice of the amendments that the Government are to propose before the House comes to debate the Bill at Report stage.

One area where we have heard consistently that more clarity is needed is over the guidance as to which activity might or might not be caught by the electoral test, and I may be able to say something about that in the course of replying to the specific points raised by the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. The Government believe that it is essential that campaigners have clarity on how they are to comply with the third-party regulatory regime. The Electoral Commission has a power to produce guidance for third parties campaigning in elections, and indeed has exercised that power in previous elections. Campaigners require clear guidance to support them and help them understand the revised regime, and I am reassured that the commission recognises this too. It makes clear in its briefing notes that it is committed to working with the United Kingdom’s charity regulators to produce clear and reliable guidance that will help charities to understand how to comply with both electoral law and charity law, and I say that without pre-empting subsequent debates that we will have on charities. Also, I would say that the sooner this guidance can be produced in draft, the better. As a Government we are open to working across the House and with the electoral and charity commissions to give campaigners the guidance they need. It may be that we will hear in these debates in Committee how best the commissions can support campaigners in a thorough and timely way.

Charities and campaigners have also expressed fears that low-level campaigning and expenditure will be regulated as a result of this Bill, and that small organisations will face a disproportionate reporting and compliance burden. Our belief is that there should be greater clarity about who is campaigning for the electoral success of parties or candidates, but we do not want small campaigners to be dissuaded from taking part by the fear of having onerous burdens placed upon them. Therefore in line with the commitment made by my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire to the House on 5 November, the Government will bring forward on Report amendments to increase the registration thresholds in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As I have said, we will listen to the debates today, but the Government believe that the substantial increase in the threshold currently set out in the Bill is appropriate.

Finally, as a preliminary, the Government are committed to bringing more transparency to campaigning by third parties before the 2015 general election, but having listened to the views of campaigners over recent weeks, I seek to reassure noble Lords that we agree with those who think that the provisions of Part 2 should be subject to review after the 2015 UK parliamentary general election. That election will provide the earliest opportunity to understand the effectiveness of the provisions of Part 2. The Government therefore commit to laying this review before Parliament, and an amendment to this effect will be introduced at Report stage. As I have said, beyond that I do not wish to pre-empt the debates today and on Wednesday. Of course, the Government wish to hear views from across the House on the amendments which have been tabled, and I hope that these points and a short statement will assure your Lordships that while the Government are absolutely committed to the increased transparency that Part 2 will bring, we have been listening and will continue to listen to those who have strong views on this legislation.

I turn now specifically to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. As we have heard, it would exclude Northern Ireland from the provisions contained in Part 2. That exemption would stand for as long as there is a statutory Executive based on the Good Friday agreement, which is in place. I readily accept that there is a different political structure in Northern Ireland, where different parties compete for elections, than is the situation in Great Britain. It is clear that there is a particular situation in Northern Ireland and it is important that the legislation should take account of that.

I have been particularly struck by the contributions that have stressed the importance of civil society, not just across the United Kingdom but particularly in Northern Ireland, and the role of community groups in developing policies. I think the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, said that, very often, in the years when there was a lack of political leadership, community groups were very important in coming together and giving leadership on specific policy issues. We do not in any way wish to negate the impact that they have had or the work that they do. The Government recognise that and I hope that I can reassure the House by saying that we do not believe that that important work would in any way be prejudiced or jeopardised by the provisions in the Bill.

16:00

Clearly, the Government strongly support the work that has been done building on the Belfast agreement and indeed, as my noble friend Lord Cormack properly pointed out, the work done prior to the Belfast agreement by Sir John Major when he was Prime Minister, which sometimes is not given as much credit as it merits. It is clear from very recent events that the situation is fragile and we recognise that it is very important that we build on that. We would not wish to do anything that jeopardised it.

Perhaps the most important point to make is that organisations in Northern Ireland, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, will incur controlled expenditure under the Bill only where their activities,

“can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success”,

of “parties” or “candidates”. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, mentioned Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act and the importance of the equality provisions there. I recognise the noble Lord’s experience and will certainly read what he said again, but I cannot in any way see how, having regard to that section, it actually impacts on organisations which might reasonably be regarded as intending to promote or procure the electoral success of a particular party or particular candidates.

The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, my right honourable friend Tom Brake, who I am sure will keep a close watch on this particular debate, went to Belfast recently to meet with some of the groups in Northern Ireland that were concerned that they may be caught by the provisions of the Bill. He discussed the controlled expenditure test and heard from a number of those groups how they scrupulously ensure that their campaigns are non-partisan or include representatives from all the parties right across the political spectrum. Nothing could be further away from falling within the trigger for regulated activity under Part 2. That being the case, a campaign need not worry about being caught by the provisions of Part 2, if indeed it is striving to build relationships across the communities and is not being in any way partisan in terms of promoting one particular candidate or one particular party.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, mentioned coalitions and the difference between the “statutory” coalition, as he properly described it, in Northern Ireland and the coalition we have here. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, would say, in the context of the Bill, we have been talking about coalitions of interest groups and community groups. I noted specifically what was said. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, quoted the following passage where, in reviewing the provisions, the commission chaired by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, called on the Government to:

“Re-examine the proposed rules for coalition working, taking account of the necessity of coalition working across divided communities to moving the peace process forward in Northern Ireland. Explore ways to ensure that regulation does not discourage small community groups and charities from working in coalition”.

I say again that groups that are coming together, which we would encourage them to do, to move the peace process forward and to promote cross-community working, provided that in doing so they do not promote the electoral success of a particular political party or particular candidates, will not be caught by Part 2.

In a similar vein, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, mentioned the Good Friday agreement and the Human Rights Consortium that is trying to promote a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland. As I understand it, the consortium is a well established campaigner for an inclusive Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, which has charitable status and a wide and diverse membership. It has been advocating for a broader set of provisions to be included in a Bill of Rights. However, that advocacy would not be a regulated activity. The Human Rights Consortium’s activities around a Bill of Rights would only be regulated if they could,

“reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure the electoral success of a party or candidates.”

The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, talked about the polling that had been done, the purpose of which was to put pressure on the Government to take action on a Bill of Rights. Pressure on Government to take action on a particular policy is not the same as trying to procure the election of one party or candidate. Based on that position, the activities of the Human Rights Consortium would be regulated by this Bill only if it were to encourage people to vote for a political party or to support particular candidates in a future election. So far as I am aware, the Human Rights Consortium does not support particular parties or candidates. Its purpose is to pursue a policy aim and provided the organisation does not campaign for or against the electoral success of a political party it is not the Government’s intention to regulate that activity. We therefore find it difficult to see how the work of the Human Rights Consortium would be caught by this proposed legislation.

My noble friend Lord Horam raised the issue of thresholds and limits, which was also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. As I said, we do not believe that the activity itself would be caught but, as my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire indicated, we will raise the registration thresholds. My noble friend Lord Horam mentioned other concerns with particular relevance to Northern Ireland. There may be extra costs for third parties such as security-related expenditure. The Government have heard concerns like this while consulting and listening over the past six weeks; we will consider them carefully and I fully expect to return to this on Report.

I hope noble Lords will understand the Government’s view that it is important to bring transparency to political campaigning which reasonable people could see was intended to procure the success of particular parties or candidates. We are absolutely committed to maintaining the Northern Ireland peace process, and we are aware of the impact in devolved areas of the United Kingdom. However, the burden on small campaigners should be addressed by increasing the threshold levels. In the particular case of Northern Ireland, some of the concerns expressed actually identify why the Bill is not the threat which many people have perceived it to be. Trying to build a cross-community consensus is not a partisan activity and should not give rise to concerns.

We will want to look at the very important points which have been made but I hope I have given reassurance that these kinds of activities, which the Government wish to encourage, would not be caught by the Bill. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will reflect on that and be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

Can the noble and learned Lord give an answer to my question about whether any further work has been done on the equalities impact assessment? This is not relevant only to Northern Ireland but, for the reasons I gave, is particularly so there.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I apologise for overlooking my scribbled note. As part of the impact assessment at the time the Bill was published, we said that 30 third parties were recognised by the Electoral Commission for the 2010 general election and that there were no robust equalities data covering these groups. However, we did not believe that these proposals would have an adverse equalities impact because of the wide range of groups that were registered. There is nothing to suggest that there was a preponderance of gender equality organisations. We therefore do not believe there is particular impact in that regard.

In the 2010 election in Northern Ireland, 10 third parties spent a total of £26,773 while £27,000 could potentially have been spent by each third party. The total for 10 third parties was, therefore, less than what one could have spent. Only two incurred expenditure above the current £5,000 registration threshold.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

The Minister said he did not think that the Human Rights Consortium would be captured by the present legislation because it could not reasonably be interpreted as wanting,

“to promote or procure electoral success”,

of a particular party or candidate. However, does he agree in principle that in an election year, such a human rights consortium, which might be opposed by one of the parties standing for election, could actually be caught? There are some very important subsections in the Bill. Clause 26(4)(c) says that,

“though it does not involve any express mention being made of the name of any party or candidate”,

and proposed new subsection (4A) says that,

“it is immaterial that it can reasonably be regarded as intended to achieve any other purpose as well”.

Therefore, there could be a human rights consortium, which as a result of those two subsections could possibly be interpreted as supporting a particular party or candidate. Real difficulties remain, even if that particular example would not be caught.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I think this is at the heart of much of this debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Royall said, if the activity being undertaken included extensive polling, the purpose of which was to get a Government to act in a particular way, and one applied a test of,

“reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success”,

of a party or candidates, I do not think that it could be interpreted in that way, unless one had a very vivid imagination. It is a leap to see activity that is clearly directed towards trying to address or change government policy as being intended to procure the election of a particular candidate.

As I said in my opening remarks, there is quite an onus on the Electoral Commission and the guidance it has given. It has given guidance on this in two previous elections without any apparent problems; I think we will return to this issue more fully in the next group of amendments. It is stretching things quite some distance to think that what is actually the perfectly legitimate purpose of an organisation, to campaign on issues relating to establishing provisions to be included in a Bill of Rights, can be seen as an intent,

“to promote or procure electoral success”,

of a particular party or candidate.

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the contributions. As I said, I am no expert on this but I know enough from my own experience to know that we are on thin ice.

To deal with the last point first, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, said, the whole point is that the parties make it a political issue, not the groups. Let us be clear about this. Having read my original ministerial briefing, I will be mindful of the language I use, but let us face it: Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 would not have been put on the statute book by a majority Government in Northern Ireland. That is a fact. But that legislation operates the pressure on all the parties in Northern Ireland to have transparency.

I saw things in Northern Ireland that you do not see in annual reports that are published in England and Wales and Scotland, which we get from the Printed Paper Office, such as an analysis of the religious make-up of participants, because they are checking the Equality Act. The Equality Unit there takes it really seriously, but it is not that unit that makes it party political; it is open to a party to say, “Hang on a minute, we’ll show our true colours: we are not in favour of this right”. Automatically it becomes a partisan issue, and that is where the danger lies. But that point has been made.

I fully accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Horam: there are other ways of dealing with this. This is a black-and-white issue of taking Northern Ireland out of Part 2. There has to be another way of taking account of the situation in Northern Ireland. I genuinely think that we have to take account of a situation that is different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom.

I also want to say on the record that nothing I have said or implied is in any way a criticism of the power-sharing Executive in Northern Ireland. I think they have done a fantastic job. I once sat in the Public Gallery in Northern Ireland during my time as chair of the Food Standards Agency, because it is a UK body. I watched Question Time and almost had tears in my eyes. It was a pretty rubbishy Question Time but it was there, across the Floor of a Chamber, using words to fight each other and not weapons, and that is the way of the future. We want to make sure the fragility is strengthened, not weakened.

I fully admit I had never set foot on the island of Ireland until I went there as a Minister but the Northern Ireland Office today cannot be the same as it was before devolution. It was unique in Whitehall. The political director was one of the most senior civil servants. The last one became the Permanent Secretary. They had fingers on things that did not happen in other departments. I would like to know that the equivalent of the political director in the Northern Ireland Office today is satisfied with this process in this Bill. I am concerned that those who know about the nuances and the organisation to make these things work are comfortable with it. I would certainly like to have a note on that before Report or a Statement from Government.

16:15

My final point is on the issue of using this debate as consultation. I have just had the privilege of chairing a Joint Committee on the draft deregulation Bill. I cannot say much; we will publish on Wednesday. However, when Ministers came to see us, they said our pre-legislative scrutiny was part of the consultation. We did not accept that. The Government cannot use Parliament as a consultation sounding board when they are going to come back to Parliament and say, “This is what we have decided; vote for it. And by the way, your consultation fits this process”. There is something wrong with the logic of the situation for legislators. It is fine for Government to listen to our voices and concerns in the normal way but in no way should any Government say, “We have consulted on this and we had these meetings in Parliament. Now we want Parliament to follow the consultation we had”. That has to be wrong. It is fine to consult with interest groups, parliamentarians and outside, but not with Parliament prior to legislating through Parliament where the Executive have a majority. There is something wrong with that. For a start, it cannot be in the textbooks on good governance. The Government can listen to what we have said, by all means, but then they must come back and show that they have listened. I genuinely believe that the noble and learned Lord will do that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 156B withdrawn.

Clause 26: Meaning of “controlled expenditure”

Amendments 157 to 159 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 159A

Moved by

[Lord Hardie]

159A: Clause 26, page 12, line 35, leave out “intended” and insert “having as its principal purpose the intention”

[Lord Hardie (CB)]

My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I will also speak to Amendments 159E, 159F, 160D, 160E and 160F. As this is the first time for me to speak about this part of the Bill, I should declare an interest as honorary president of Capability Scotland, a charity that is concerned with provision of services and support for multiple-handicapped people.

Controlled expenditure requires two elements. The first is that the activity resulting in the expenditure must be within the definition of what is controlled. Secondly, the expenditure must reasonably be regarded as intended to promote the electoral success of one or more registered parties or candidates within certain categories. Section 85 of the 2000 Act is restrictive in its scope. It confines controlled expenditure to the production or publication of election material made available to the public or sections of the public. In that situation it would be relatively easy to assess objectively whether the intention of the published material was to promote the electoral success of individuals or registered parties. However, Clause 26(2) of the Bill extends the meaning and scope of controlled expenditure by expanding the activities from the mere production and publication of election material to include the various activities listed in Part 1 of new Schedule 8A to the 2000 Act added by Clause 26(2)(a) and Schedule 3. These activities include market research, public meetings, rallies and media events.

Many organisations with a legitimate interest in the democratic process indulge in such activities at different times. For example, charities and others may be involved in campaigns throughout the year, highlighting the plight of those in our society who are poor, homeless or otherwise disadvantaged, including the disabled. These campaigns might intensify at Christmas and throughout the winter months when the consequences of having no shelter or hot food are more acute. At other times, they may concentrate on the inability of the poorer members of society to afford heat, light or other basic essentials. These activities are not associated with elections and they are not confined to the year immediately preceding an election.

A campaign to make poverty history in our society might suggest various solutions directed at unemployment, the level of wages and benefits, the price of energy or other measures. It might involve organising public rallies and media events. If such a campaign started before the commencement of the regulated period before an election, expenditure could be incurred with impunity, but one might expect such a campaign to continue during the regulated period in the lead-up to an election. If that happened, different issues would arise.

If the organisers considered that there was a risk that their activities might be interpreted as having an intention to favour a candidate or a party at the forthcoming election, they would be obliged to incur the cost of the administrative burden imposed by the Act of having systems and personnel in place to comply with the Act and make the return. If they genuinely believed that they were not covered by the Act, but ultimately found out they were wrong, as I will explain later, they would face prosecution and a criminal penalty.

Similar consequences would apply to local campaign groups concerned about a local issue, such as the threatened closure of their hospital, the route of HS2 through the constituency, fracking or the existence or otherwise of wind farms. If no party or candidate had policies about such matters, the local campaign group, or the charity, as the case may be, could spend money without fear of contravening the rules about controlled expenditure, but what if—and this is a point that was raised on the previous amendment—a candidate with such policies emerged after the start of the regulated period or an existing candidate adopted them in the course of his campaign? The intention of the campaign by the local group or charity would not have altered, but the organisers would risk prosecution if after that time they continued to incur expenditure without complying with the provisions about controlled expenditure, the reason for that risk being that it might be argued that a subsidiary intention of the campaign was to procure the electoral success of the candidate who had adopted it, even if he or she were not mentioned. While such an intention may not be the aim of the organisers of the campaign, and might not even be in their contemplation, it may be a consequence of their campaign. In that situation, if an objective evaluation of the case resulted in the conclusion that such an outcome could reasonably be regarded as a subsidiary intention of the campaign, the consequence would be a criminal conviction and a financial penalty for those responsible for the campaign.

The risk of such consequences might well induce organisers of a campaign to abandon it in the regulated period prior to an election. That cannot be desirable. We should encourage participation in the democratic process, particularly in the period immediately prior to an election. We should not threaten with prosecution campaigners who are genuinely concerned about social, local or other issues of genuine concern to the electorate.

I accept, of course, that there have to be some controls but where the scope of controlled activity is being extended as widely as in this case, the control should be proportionate and we should make some allowance for the genuine subjective intention of campaigners. We can achieve that balance by restricting controls and consequential offences to expenditure where the principal purpose of the expenditure is to achieve electoral success for candidates or parties. This is the aim of my Amendments 159A, 159E, 159F, 160E and 160F.

If the noble and learned Lord the Advocate-General does not favour this solution, perhaps a more acceptable one would be to introduce a statutory defence to any criminal offence, similar to my Amendment 160D. If that route were preferred, I accept that it would necessary to redraft the clause as it currently includes a reference to the principal amendment. Without such a defence, we risk criminalising campaigners who are genuinely concerned about issues that matter to the electorate and do not seek to promote the electoral success of a candidate or candidates or a political party or parties. I beg to move.

[Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)]

My Lords, this amendment and the subsequent ones, such as that carefully drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, give me the opportunity of raising an issue of concern to a number of charities. Much has been said about the role of charities in respect of lobbying activities and a number of reassuring comments have been made during early stages of this Bill. However, I am particularly concerned about the activities of all-party groups within Parliament. Many of these groups are in the medical research field and are serviced and provided with financial, secretarial and other support by charities. They are dependent on this to a considerable extent. Of course, one would say at once that if they are all-party groups and their membership includes Members of the Commons and of this House from all parties, surely they cannot be construed as lobbying in search of electoral success. That is an entirely reasonable conclusion to draw. However, there is always a possibility that a particular all-party group may be so dominated by members of one political party that its attitude to an approaching election could change quite significantly.

I want to give noble Lords an example. I speak as the life president of the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign. I served on an inquiry by the All-Party Group on Muscular Dystrophy, which conducted a lengthy inquiry over a 12-month period, rather like an inquiry by one of your Lordships’ Select Committees. It took a great deal of written evidence and held public meetings to which a number of witnesses were called. The Muscular Dystrophy Campaign covered the costs, including the expenses of those giving evidence. We discovered in that inquiry that boys with the most severe form, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, who, when I started work in that field in 1950, were dying, often grossly deformed, in their teens, were now, with greatly improved care, living into their 30s and some even into their 40s in places such as Newcastle, Oxford, Queens Square in London, Oswestry and a number of other centres, with wonderful rehabilitation and respiratory support.

However, that inquiry demonstrated that in the south-west many of them were still dying in their teens. That was also true in the north-west. When we produced this report, which went to all the major health bodies across the country, and it went to the South West Strategic Health Authority, the executive director, Sir Ian Carruthers, was so shocked that it immediately put another £1 million into care for patients with muscular dystrophy and other neuromuscular diseases in that area. Mike Farrar, then the chief executive of the North West Strategic Health Authority, said that anything Ian Carruthers could do, it could do better, so it put money into those services in that area.

That was clearly lobbying with a view to improving services and influencing the activity of health service organisations. There are a number of people working on that and many other charities to do with things like stroke, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease, and another inquiry into Parkinson’s disease has just been conducted, demonstrating a similar unevenness of standards of care across the country. The question is whether the all-party groups serviced by these charities are at risk under the Bill. It is crucial that we have an answer from the Minister about this. Many of the charities which service the all-party groups have expressed serious concern that their activities might be adversely influenced by the provisions of the Bill.

16:30

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

My Lords, I first congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, on the amendment, and my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries for the work of his outstanding commission; I do not think that anyone has seen such a piece of work from the charity.

Having not spoken at Second Reading, I will beg for just a couple of minutes to put one point to the Minister. These are the most critical of the amendments. They convey the fundamental problem, which is that while the Bill and its predecessor are trying to regulate electioneering, they are actually hitting a whole range of legitimate charitable activities. The Government may not even guess at the damage that will be caused by this, all the way up to the review—which is of course welcome.

I have spent nearly 40 years working with aid organisations, personally assisting in the development of advocacy. It is a vital part of their work, bringing issues of poverty reduction to the attention of the public during an election campaign. Mr Brake told MPs that charities would not be caught by controlled expenditure. I am not sure that the Government yet appreciate that with national, European and local elections, and possibly referendums, all at different times, the Bill will or could hurt charities throughout the five-year period, not just leading up to the election—although we are going to discuss that period.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, demonstrated, there are grey areas everywhere in the Bill, even if we accept the Government’s undertakings in the Commons on definition. I have much sympathy with the Liberal Amendment 160, which is coming up and attempts to exclude charities altogether; however, it may already be too late for that, as they are already regulated under PPERA and the Charities Act. The amendment should attract the Minister, since it makes the point that if the campaign is not specifically related to a manifesto or proposed legislation, it should not be counted at all. It will be difficult enough making the calculation, but at least the Minister should see the point of the amendment. It is much narrower than subsequent amendments and should be easier for him to accept.

On smaller charities, there is a myth that Clauses 26 and 27 would not have an impact on them. As we know from coalitions, there is a close relationship between the larger charities, such as Oxfam and Christian Aid, and the many smaller ones which they themselves have sponsored. However, these may now be more independent and in some cases have grown much larger. So the smaller, specialist agencies are often concerned with single issues such as appropriate technology, fair trade, anti-slavery or other aspects of human rights in Burma, Tibet or Sudan.

Some of the issues are highly political. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, mentioned all-party groups; there are many active all-party groups on specific subjects. These might well be brought to the attention of campaigning politicians. At the same time, the size of these charities, while in some cases bringing them over the proposed threshold—I welcome the Minister’s assurances about the threshold—is not sufficient to justify the added expense and work involved in what I call selective accountability and monitoring in relation to the Bill.

The point about counting volunteers has already been made. It is often the smaller charities that depend on volunteers, especially in times of emergencies. We have also heard about coalitions. In spite of what the Minister said, I feel that they could also be caught by the Bill quite unnecessarily—as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, pointed out. I therefore urge the Minister to consider accepting the amendment on Report.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I think that this is the first time I have spoken in Committee, so I remind the House of my various interests with campaigning groups and charities set out in the register of interests, and also declare my lifelong activity as an election agent, which, I have no doubt, will continue.

I, too, thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, and his commission for the outstanding body of work they carried out in a limited time and for the reports they have produced. This is only to the good as we look at the Bill in detail. I also thank the Government for the large amount of activity which has taken place. For example, my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire has met something like 40 representatives of separate organisations to discuss their concerns about the Bill, and we had a letter this weekend from my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness making it absolutely clear that the Government are in listening mode. I hope that noble Lords will not get too tied up in whether this is consultation or not. The fact is that we are scrutinising legislation and that the Government are listening to that scrutiny. We do not always get that in Committee in the House of Lords, from different Governments, and we should make it very clear that it is welcome.

Much discussion is still taking place within coalition circles, within the Government and between the Government and other organisations, not least the noble and right reverend Lord’s commission. That discussion must continue and we must continue to do what I believe the Government, or at least substantial parts of the Government, are now doing, which is to seek a consensus on the Bill that will achieve the objectives behind it and will not have the damaging, chilling effects that are feared by so much of civil society.

We have two main slates of amendments here which come through the different groups. One slate of amendments has come from the commission of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and we have another which my noble friend Lord Tyler has been working on with ferocious energy over the past few weeks. Together they add up, if not to a perfect answer, at least to a very satisfactory means of scrutinising the Bill, by putting forward a number of positive suggestions. I understand that the commission has said that it would like us to take its slate as a package. In practice, as the noble Baroness said, if we come up with something successful at the end of this process, we will end up with a series of compromises, as we always do, but the Bill will not be any the worse for that. There are various other amendments in this group, including three of mine that I will speak to briefly in a minute.

It is absolutely right that the commission chaired by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, looked at all this from the point of view of campaigning groups and charities and of civil society. That is the purpose for which the commission was set up. But I hope that it will be recognised that that made the consultation that the commission carried out, and is still carrying out, incredibly valuable as it is, one-sided in one respect—that is, that people involved in fighting the elections, candidates and political parties, were not part of the consultation. When we scrutinise this legislation, we must find the right balance between protecting the interests not just of candidates but of the democratic process itself on the one hand, and preventing damage to civil society on the other.

The dangers that this legislation rightly sets out to prevent and challenge are, first, that at national level we do not see our national politics taken over by the super-PAC-type organisations that we see in the United States, and by what has been described as “big bucks from big boys”—usually boys, but perhaps sometimes girls as well. In other words, we should not allow money to dominate. That money is inevitably from large corporate interests, most if not all of them on the right. We should not allow them to take over politics in this country as has happened to a worrying degree across the Atlantic. Furthermore, we should not allow people to buy particular constituencies simply by throwing a large amount of money at them—far more than the candidates themselves are allowed to spend under the regulations. Those are issues that we will come to later, but that is the basic aim of Part 2, as I understand it. It is very important that we balance that against all the concerns and the proposals put forward to try to address those concerns.

I have three amendments. My Amendment 159C is similar to an amendment in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries: Amendment 159B. It would exempt from controlled expenditure rules a range of activities related to legislation before Parliament —before devolved Parliaments and Assemblies—and proposals being actively put forward by local government, government agencies and so on. In other words, the normal campaigning and lobbying activities of charities and campaigning organisations ought not to be prevented during the period in which the expenditure is controlled.

Amendment 159D is another probing amendment, more probing than the previous one. It would exempt from controlled expenditure rules any campaigning that was not specifically related to the functions of the bodies being elected during the regulated period. There are obviously major holes in that amendment, and concerns with it, but there is a question as to how far the expenditure controlled by third-party organisations should relate specifically to the functions of the body that is being elected during the election period, and how far it is just general political activity, even if it is totally unrelated to the functions of the Scottish Parliament or whatever it might be.

Amendment 160A would exclude from controlled-expenditure arrangements,

“expenditure”,

that,

“is minor, insignificant, inconsequential or incidental”,

or any similar words that the Minister would like to consider. The question is to what extent there will be in practice a de minimis provision within the Bill and to what extent there will be a requirement to look at whether to some extent, even if it is a very small extent, it might be intended to affect electoral support, and how far it is absolute. It is a similar question to the questions put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, but on a more de minimis basis.

16:45

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made the point that we are trying to make certain that the normal activities of non-party charities and NGOs are not prevented and must continue. I also want to thank and congratulate my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth on this excellent commission report. The five weeks we have had, which have not been nearly long enough, have resulted in a considerable amount of work and consultation. At the same time, I am disappointed that there is not a list of government amendments, arising out of that consultation, for us to look at as well. I hope that those will come.

The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, mentioned the package. During the rest of this Committee stage, I shall be referring to this package of recommendations made in the report. However, I believe that the package goes wider than that. I think there are three parts to what we are trying to do in this House. The first is what I mentioned when asking for the pause, saying that the request was not a wrecking but a saving motion. It was saving the Government from themselves and from wrecking the voluntary sector. That is hugely important. We must make absolutely certain that the voluntary sector can continue—that is, the non-party bit—and it must be maintained. Secondly, there is the package of recommendations which I hope will be accepted. We are looking no further than the 2015 election, because the third and key part of this package would seem to be the post-election review, based on what has been learned. Bearing in mind that everyone is keen that the process should be transparent, I think that what eventually comes out should be based on careful examination of what happens during a natural event, rather than the presumption that this or that might happen, when we know that many of the measures in the Bill have nothing to do with the day-to-day activities of non-party organisations.

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for providing the time and, acknowledging that it is too short, I hope that during the remainder of this Committee stage we can be constructive and make certain that these normal activities are allowed to continue.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, because I very much agree with the last points that he has been making. I think there is wide agreement in this House that we have to do our job to make that process to which he has referred a reality. I am grateful, too, to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, and to all his colleagues. It was a formidable task that they took on; they did not stop at the first hurdle but kept going and have produced some extremely helpful and notable recommendations.

As is recorded in the register, I am a patron of many charities and I am sure that other noble Lords are too, but I have also had experience in the past as a full-time employee of Shelter, which is exactly the sort of charity and non-party organisation that we think is so important to civil life in our country. I am extremely proud of the work that such organisations have done and are doing, and I continue to support them. So I hope that your Lordships will understand that I come to these issues with very much the same background, interests and enthusiasm as members of the noble and right reverend Lord’s commission. I recognise that the work they have done is an extremely valuable contribution to the discussion of these issues.

Before I come to Amendments 160B and 160C, in the name of myself, my noble friends and others, I wish briefly to address the stand part debate which is also in this group. At Second Reading, I said:

“You could plot on a graph transparency on the one hand and bureaucracy on the other in very many areas of life. If transparency is low, the regulatory burden tends to be low, too. If accountability is strong, it is likely that the regulatory burden will be significant. The threshold is a question of where we plot this legislation on that graph. … It will be our responsibility in your Lordships’ House to get the balance right when we come to Committee”.—[Official Report, 22/10/13; cols. 902-3.]

That, surely, is our principal occupation today—to get that balance right, which is a crucial role that we have to undertake between now and Report in January.

After meeting a very large number of charities, community groups, third-party campaigning organisations and their representatives, it is clear to me that the amendment which I and my colleagues have put forward would go some way to meet that objective. However, I am the first to admit that I am no great expert when it comes to getting the amendment absolutely right. Many others in the House are greater experts in that regard. However, I endorse the concerns expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, that we must be careful about the unintended consequences that could arise if the Bill were implemented in its present form. That is why the amendments that I have tabled have had broad support from third-party organisations, which accept that there is a problem in ensuring transparency in relation to those who are campaigning.

The Bill refers to expenditure that,

“can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success”,

in respect of a party or candidate. There is wide acceptance that there should be greater transparency in relation to organisations that are determined to undertake that role. Indeed, everyone to whom I have spoken is absolutely clear that an extremely important part of the role and responsibilities of your Lordships’ House is to try to avoid confusion and to deal with a lack of clarity and the excessive constraints of the 2000 Act. Indeed, that sentiment was shared by the commission of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and he has endorsed Amendments 160B and 160C.

Amendments 160B and 160C deal with two discrete issues that have come up time and again in my discussions with a large number of organisations, and have been a feature of our debate this afternoon. They do not attempt to rewrite the basic definition, which the Electoral Commission has advised is not susceptible to constructive alteration. The benefit of that definition, as it stands, is that it has 13 years of practical experience attached to it and it is an objective test—namely, “What would a reasonable person think someone is doing?”, not “What did that person think they were doing when they did it?”. The latter would be much more subjective. We can never be sure of someone’s intentions but we can come to some conclusions about what a reasonable person would think those intentions were. The amendments seek to make these things clearer still.

Amendment 160B sets out the principle that the endorsement of a campaign by a candidate does not imply that the campaign concerned necessarily supports the candidate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, referred to a similar situation. This is a very worrying misconception about the Bill and is much featured in the case studies reported to us: that is, the notion that the endorsement of a campaign by a candidate can be construed as that candidate receiving support from that campaign. The more one thinks about that, the more illogical it is, but it is clearly a perception and, as is so often the case, a perception can be even more influential than reality.

I recall regularly speaking of the good work done by community groups in my former constituency. If, by so doing, I could have won the implied support of those groups, it would have been wonderful. If everything that I supported had automatically reciprocated that support, I would have got an even bigger majority than I did, but, of course, that was simply not the case. The policy objectives of non-party organisations will often receive flattering praise from a candidate, but the feeling may not be mutual. That is precisely the grey area that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred to just now. It is not absolutely clear in the Bill that it is not reciprocal. We deserve to try to make sure for everybody’s benefit that the Bill is so improved that we know precisely where we are. That needs clarity. I hope that Members of your Lordships’ House will accept that our amendment is intended to do precisely that—to clarify the situation.

Amendment 160C gives an opportunity for the Minister to address some other matters that are ambiguous under the PPERA 2000 definition of non-party campaigning; that is, the extent to which the remotest praise for a candidate by a campaign can be said to be “promoting or procuring” his or her electoral success, or that of their party. In particular, we have all seen in the past—indeed, I think I prepared them when I was not a Member of either House—the score-cards of different parties’ positioning on different policies. These assess the policies of various parties against the policies of that particular organisation. Again, it may seem to us within the political system that it is perfectly logical that it does not automatically mean that you are seeking to procure or promote the election of a candidate, but we need clarity for everyone outside that that is the case. People are not normally involved in the political process. It is not absolutely clear at present whether this activity would or would not be regarded as promoting or procuring the electoral success of the party or candidate that comes out best in that score-card assessment. Again, a little more clarity would be extremely helpful. Even if we were forced back on to the 2000 Act, rather than producing this new Bill, we would be wanting to deal with that particular problem as a matter of urgency.

A remote suggestion that a candidate has done something right by, say, an organisation congratulating that candidate at a press conference for adopting a particular policy, is a grey area in precisely the terms that have already been referred to in this afternoon’s debate. It is important that we should make sure as soon as possible that this amendment could provide an opportunity to clarify the situation once and for all. The Electoral Commission advice is that a non-party organisation could not be accused retrospectively of “promoting or procuring the electoral success” of a candidate or party, just because that party or candidate had adopted some of the positions of the organisation. The House, however, is entitled to ask the Minister this afternoon to give that position his very clear attention so that we can be sure that we are clarifying the law as it stands and as it would seem to be intended in the Bill.

Can he also shed some light on the position after a candidate or party announces its support for a policy which is supported by a non-party organisation? My understanding is that, providing there is not a massive increase in the scale of the organisation’s campaigning clearly as a result of promoting the candidate who is supporting its view, then it would not reasonably be regarded as campaigning for that candidate simply by virtue of doing what it had been doing all along. Again, however, it is a grey area. I would welcome some greater clarity.

Some clarity on these issues is just what a lot of campaigners—be they charities or not—are asking us to undertake this afternoon. That is our principal task in your Lordships’ House. We generally do it very well. I hope that we are going to do it again today. These amendments are vital tests to see whether this Bill can be made both clearer and more workable than the present law. I hope, therefore, that they will be given the very active consideration of the Minister as well as other Members of the House.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, I, too, should declare my interests as listed in the register; in particular the fact that I am a trustee of the Woolf Institute. I would like also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for working so assiduously, conscientiously and sincerely to try to move this terrible Bill on from where it started off in order to achieve something that might be workable.

I should like briefly to comment on the attempt by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, to achieve a better definition of “controlled expenditure”. The commission thought very hard about that definition but, in the end, we felt that in the time available we could not come up with anything better than what we have at the moment. We reckoned that the political reality was that we had to work with what we have under the heading, “Meaning of ‘controlled expenditure’”. However, our strong recommendation is that this is one of the areas that is to be considered by the review, which the Minister has assured us will take place after the 2015 election. Certainly if the definition of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, were to be accepted, it would immediately exempt all charities from the Bill because, of course, their primary purpose cannot be to promote or procure the election of a particular party.

17:00

I should like to comment, again briefly, on Amendment 159B in my name, which concerns legislation going through Parliament during the regulated period. It is fundamental to the working of our democracy that if legislation is going through Parliament every non-violent means to oppose it should be allowable. Another point, which the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, has made, is that an unscrupulous Government might reserve their most controversial legislation for the election year in order to mute or dim down any possible opposition. I therefore very much hope that the Government will bring forward an amendment along those lines.

I have added my name in a personal capacity to the two amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, Amendments 160B and 160C. Both seem to be pretty obvious and I shall not repeat the reasons he gave. However, perhaps I may anticipate, rather too boldly, the response that the Government are likely to make: that these kinds of issues can be dealt with in guidance. However, the strong message that we picked up from charities and campaigning groups was that they would like to see far more clarity in the legislation itself—exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was calling for. These are just the areas in which clarity in the law is essential. For instance, as regards score-cards, mentioned by the noble Lord, members of the commission and charities generally picked up two conflicting messages from two different Ministers in the other place. One seemed to suggest that score-cards were perfectly allowable and would not be caught by the Bill; the other seemed to suggest precisely the opposite—and we have that on record. If two Ministers in the other place who are meant to be supporting the Bill are actually sending out different messages, this highlights the need for something to be stated as clearly as possible in the Bill.

[Baroness Mallalieu]

My Lords, I support what has been said, not only by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, but by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I am aware of a number of campaigning organisations that have been to see Ministers, expressed their concerns, and been told repeatedly, “You have absolutely nothing to worry about; you would not be caught by any of this”. It is a reflection of the way in which the Bill has been drafted that if those Ministers have got it wrong, they should not have been in that position in the first place because it should have been clear to them. It is still not clear whether, for example, a rally, a demonstration, a march, a rural manifesto, a score card or even a round-robin hustings with all candidates present would fall foul. All that needs to be made absolutely clear. I echo what has been said by the noble and right reverend Lord: it is no good getting a quango to do the drafting; we want Parliament to do it so that people can see what is allowed and what is not.

Perhaps I may add to what has been said about the amendment in this group that I am particularly concerned about, and on which I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us straightaway today—Amendment 159B in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, which removes from the provision expenditure relating to campaigning on,

“legislation before Parliament during the regulated period”.

Such campaigning would relate to the success or failure of legislation that was currently before Parliament in that year, and must necessarily come to an end, one way or another, at Prorogation. It would not therefore, on the face of it, directly affect the election.

I again mention an interest here: I am a supporter of Stop HS2. What would be the position if the campaign to stop HS2 could not campaign during the next year from the time this Bill is due to become law, while the hybrid Bill is passing through this House? It is expected here in the early part of next year. What of a Bill like this one? If this Bill were to reach the statute book after Christmas and another Bill in the future were to come forward before Parliament—one which directly affects the way in which campaigns can be conducted during an election period, and perhaps with some draconian restrictions—it could not be right that campaigning against that legislation should be restricted in this way and that expenditure should be controlled if we were in a year before an election.

I will repeat the point I made earlier: an unscrupulous Government could effectively muzzle opposition for an unpopular measure and would have a positive incentive to bring forward their most unpopular measures in that last year of a fixed-term Parliament. I cannot believe that the Government would wish that to be the position and I hope the Minister will be able to make it clear that he will accept this amendment or something very much like it.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

I too am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, for giving us a chance to discuss this very important matter this afternoon. I have not participated in the Committee stage of this Bill so far, so I need to declare an interest as a trustee of various charities, which are in the register of interests, and as the official reviewer of the Charities Act, appointed by the Government 18 months ago.

I would like to ask my noble and learned friend for some reassurance on the implications of Clause 26(2); in particular, I am following through the remarks of my noble friend Lord Tyler about unintended consequences. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred to round-robin meetings at general election campaigns, and I want to use that as a practical example. If a charity were to invite all parliamentary candidates in a particular constituency to one of the round-robin meetings, I presume that it would not then be caught, because it is not promoting or procuring the electoral success of one or more particular registered parties. However, suppose it was decided by the charity specifically not to invite one party: does that then mean that it is caught because—by leaving one party out—it is promoting or advocating the policies of the rest?

The particular concern that has risen in my correspondence was from black, minority and ethnic charities, which may not wish to invite—for obvious reasons—the British National Party to one of their round-robin meetings. They are concerned that, by so doing, for perfectly obvious reasons, they may inadvertently fall into the trap of, or the category caught by, the provisions of Clause 26(2). This is a narrow but important point for these quite vocal minority charities, and I hope that in due course, perhaps by writing to us, my noble and learned friend will put on record whether these people’s fears are groundless.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

It may help my noble friend to know that, in the most recent guidance put out by the Charities Commission, entitled Charities, Elections and Referendums, there is quite a large section on public meetings and who is invited to them. It is profoundly commonsensical, so he will have some reassurance. It will not, of course, apply to non-charitable NGOs, but at least it applies to charities.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I am grateful to my noble friend. Of course, we are now talking about the Charity Commission: the question is, will the advice from the Charity Commission and that from the Electoral Commission be joined up? This is an issue which we shall come back to later, with amendments. I do not doubt what my noble friend has said, but the heart of the problem is the confusion about whether the thinking is joined up and what might fall through the cracks between the two sets of guidance.

[Baroness Pitkeathley]

My Lords, I declare my interest as patron of several charities, but particularly as vice-president of Carers UK, a campaigning charity.

I have always had a lot of bafflement about the Bill. I am baffled as to why it was introduced in the first place by a Government who have always set such store by the big society, who have repeatedly assured charities of the vital place that they occupy in public service provision and, moreover, who have set such store by putting the consumer voice at the heart of policy-making.

I am baffled, too, by how the Government have spent the pause period. It was intended to enable them to listen and think again as the result of the extraordinarily negative reaction to the Bill, especially Part 2. Clearly, the Government have neither listened nor thought again. I remind them of what consultation means: it means not only listening, but acting as a result of what you have heard. It is clear from what others have said that we still have not had enough reaction from the Government. We now hear that the Government’s reaction and the actions that they propose will not be given in time for this Committee stage and perhaps not until very near Report. The provisions of the Bill, I am afraid, remain excessively broad in scope. There is too much discretion for the Electoral Commission and far too much uncertainty remains. That, as we have heard from other noble Lords, will trip up charities and stifle their voices. Why the rush for this Bill? It is clearly not yet fit for purpose.

The commission on the other hand—I pay tribute to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and his commission—has used the pause very effectively indeed. The result of its work is before your Lordships in the form of the excellent report and package of proposals that have been put together, which we shall debate not only in this section but elsewhere in the Bill.

So far as controlled expenditure is concerned, I will only say that it is vital that there is clarity—indeed, not just clarity but certainty—about whether and when which activities will count towards controlled expenditure. The group of amendments, particularly those of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and his colleagues, will go some way to addressing that issue, and I urge the Government to accept them.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I also join in wishing the absent noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, a speedy return—not that we do not feel safe in the hands of this noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, but it would be nice to see them both running around again. I also declare my interest as a patron of the Blenheim Trust and trustee of the Webb Memorial Trust.

I echo the concerns expressed by a number of noble Lords about the Bill and support the thrust of their amendments, which aim to make this bad Bill a little less bad. I also want to argue that Clause 26 should not stand part of the Bill. As has been said, the Government paused, but not for long enough and, more seriously, they then did nothing. There was no consultation—which as we have just heard is about more than just listening—because whatever they heard they made no changes. Even today, after all that, we have only the promise of a review about whether the Bill is fit for purpose after we have had an election with it, and the promise of a revision of the thresholds, but without the all-important figures before us. The Government’s inaction is in stark contrast to the NCVO and the Harries commission, as my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley just said.

The NCVO heard from 140 of its members and engaged with MPs, civil society and lawyers, and, as we have heard, took evidence. It talked, it thought, it listened and responded. The Government, by contrast, refused a proper committee to take evidence but then failed to use the time to produce their own amendments. They have failed to ask for written evidence and they have failed to produce a report of what they heard.

They have still failed to believe the warnings of chill, uncertainty and criminal sanctions—warnings and concerns that the Women’s Institute, Crisis and Sense About Science have repeated just this morning despite, or perhaps because of, the meetings that they have had with Ministers. The Government have failed to listen to the Royal College of Nursing, which says that the Bill will restrict the activities of organisations that seek legitimately to influence public policy in the run-up to an election. Indeed, the nurses say that if they are curtailed from raising concerns, this may pose a risk to standards of care in the NHS. Not only did the Government not heed these warnings, they have sought to dismiss them by asking others, not themselves, to change their view of the Bill. It is really no good the Minister today, or indeed Mr Brake, telling these groups that they need not worry if their own lawyers and the Electoral Commission tell them that they may well be in scope.

17:15

The Government were forced to apply the brakes to this Bill to avoid defeat in your Lordships’ House on 5 November, but instead of using that pause to think again, they left the Bill unamended, with its chilling effect on democracy. I am sure that that is not what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, expected when he withdrew his Motion for a longer pause. He said that he hoped the Minister would exercise flexibility, and that if, when the consultation gets under way, it cannot be done in time, consideration should be given to pushing the Committee days further back to enable proper examination. Today, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has used the word “disappointed”. It is not delay we seek, unless perhaps to the Report stage if we are not to agree the amendments in advance. What we want is a proper response from the Government before they push on with this ill judged and ill thought-out legislation: the wrong Bill aimed at the wrong target and in the wrong way.

There are two major problems with the Bill. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has said clearly that,

“the political voice of a charity is an important contribution to our democracy and enhances the work of Parliament”,

but that the Bill remains incompatible with that role. That is a serious allegation. By seeking to introduce detailed restrictions to the work of the third sector, the Government do not achieve transparency but instead engender fear. That is, I think, because they understand nothing about what voluntary organisations do and how they help those whose interests they represent.

As I have said, I am a trustee of the Beatrice Webb Memorial Trust, and we should remember what that great lady did after she wrote the minority report on the Poor Law. She campaigned vigorously for its findings to be adopted, and of course she had to campaign against a Government. As a result of her campaigning, society and politicians listened and learnt. They stopped blaming the poor for their poverty and they set about implementing policies to prevent poverty and to care for the sick, the old, the disabled and the workless. I will ask the Minister: how much of what Beatrice Webb did would be ruled out by this Bill?

Our fundamental rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are crucial to democracy. We tend to take them for granted because we are free to speak out, organise, march and protest. The stated intention of the Government is simply to stop wealthy individuals having an undue influence on the outcome of an election. Hurrah to that, because democracy must not be for sale, but, as Georgette Mulheir, about whom we have already heard and who worked on the commission chaired by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, pointed out, we in this House must find ways to ensure that that intent of the Government does not have the effect of curtailing the human rights of citizens to freedom of speech, assembly and participation.

Georgette Mulheir is not alone in worrying about this. The BMA is worried about how it could raise concerns and seek to influence public policy for a whole year. It thinks that the Bill could have unintended consequences for apolitical bodies, restricting routine activity on public policy.

What is the reason for the Bill? Is it about Sheffield Hallam? When the Minister comes to reply, perhaps he can he confirm my interpretation—

[Lord Greaves]

I have listened with great interest to the noble Baroness, but it seems that all she is doing is repeating her Second Reading speech. What we have heard about so far, and what we have down for Committee, is a whole series of amendments probing particular parts of the Bill and putting forward very constructive and, in many cases, sensible proposals to improve it. Why is the noble Baroness still making a Second Reading speech, and why has the Labour Party not put down a single constructive amendment for discussion in Committee?

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

We have a clause stand part debate and the point is to argue that this increase in scope does not belong in the Bill. That is the purpose of this, and the clause stand part debate is in our name. It is absolutely because we do not accept the enormous expansion that this clause brings in. We had expected, at this stage, because of the pause, that the Government would give an indication, even if not through amendments, of their response to the dissatisfaction at Second Reading. Our surprise is that we meet today, five weeks later, and there is not a single indication that the worries raised either by the two reports from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, or at Second Reading, find themselves in any way reflected, given that no government amendments have been tabled for today.

[Lord Tyler]

Is the noble Baroness’s position that she wishes to leave PPERA 2000 just as it is, unamended? That is not the position of the commission of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, or indeed of any of the organisations that I have met. It therefore seems extraordinary that she is prepared to leave that status quo in place.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I do not think that any one clause quite does that, but it is interesting if that is the noble Lord’s interpretation. Assuming that we take the Government’s intention as genuine—we can perhaps agree that this should just be about transparency—our view is that the extension of the scope has the unintended consequence of extending it from purely publications to an enormous range of other activities and things such as staff costs, transport and hire of halls. That fundamentally alters the position, which is what we are questioning. Is the effect of the Bill the same as the intent—transparency—or is the effect the chilling one that every charity and community group is telling us about? It feels like watching the Army march, with one young soldier out of line and his mother saying, “My son is marching properly but everyone else is out of step”. It seems that everyone who is commenting on the Bill has worries about the effect—except, of course, the Minister.

It was interesting and very noticeable that Lib Dem Members stood up when I used the words Sheffield Hallam. Can the Minister confirm my interpretation—it would also be interesting to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler—on whether, had the Bill been an Act in 2010, so looking backwards rather than forwards, the NUS-Lib Dem antics over tuition fees would have been permissible? My reading is that they would not have been, that the NUS would have been caught had it spent too much. I have the feeling—and the NUS shares the figures on this—that, including events, press campaign tools, photographs, travel and related staff costs, the photos of those various Lib Dem candidates pledging not to increase tuition fees would have been caught by these rules, therefore requiring the NUS to register and account for all its costs. The interesting question is whether that would be the case.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I wonder what the noble Baroness is thinking. Activity by candidates, which is caught by other parts of the PPERA, is completely different from non-party expenditure, which is what we are debating in Part 2 of the Bill. I want to give the noble Baroness the opportunity to tell me what I may be missing, but activity by candidates seeking election is clearly political.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

The NUS and other student groups have raised an interesting question about work done in the year before an election. Can the noble and learned Lord assure the student groups—and it is the Bangor student union that has been writing to noble Lords—that they can continue to campaign? The fact that student groups are concerned is another example of the uncertainty about this issue. It is not just charities: other groups would also need to be concerned that expenditure on a campaign like tuition fees—or the Stop the War coalition, which we knew rather a lot about—early on before a general election could fall within this. If a political party adopted what another group had been campaigning on and that became a big issue at an election—I recall that the Iraq war was such an issue—then the work done maybe 12 months before the election would be caught by this provision. If we understand it correctly—and this is why a stand part debate is absolutely right for this bit—this clause would have the effect of expanding the scope of the Bill to bring into account the cost, in that 12 months, of activities like rallies, marches, hire of transport, stewarding and all those sorts of things.

The other point I want to raise on this clause is the administrative burden brought in by the addition of these types of activities; they are separate from publications, which are relatively easy to account for. It is interesting that another part of the Government is doing a lot about getting rid of red tape at the moment. Last month, this House agreed a statutory instrument allowing small companies to no longer do full accounts if they do not exceed two of either: gross assets of over one-third of a million pounds, a turnover of over two-thirds of a million pounds or an average of 10 employees. That will not apply to charities, which are excluded, but it will exempt other small groups from having to do full accounts. However, those exact same groups, having been relieved by BIS from all that red tape, will, because of the extended activities related to the items included in this clause, have to go through an enormous, complicated, bureaucratic form-filling process.

This is not about taking the big money out of politics. These groups are not about getting elected. They are about giving a voice to the unrepresented and the unheard. They are a key part of our democracy and perhaps that is what the Government do not like. They have not responded to the concerns of these groups. The Electoral Commission—the Government’s own adviser—says:

“Because the Bill brings some kinds of activity into the regime for the first time, we have said to the Government that the wording that defines controlled spending needs close consideration and scrutiny … to assess the cumulative impact … on campaigners, taking into account … the scope of controlled spending … lower thresholds”,

which we will come to, “lower spending limits”, which we will come to,

“new limits on spending in constituencies”,

which we will come to, and, “concerns about administrative burdens”. We will come on to these points, but they all flow from this clause, which extends the scope. The Electoral Commission urged the Government to think very carefully about the wording. As we have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, those concerns remain or he would not have moved his amendment.

I am sorry that some noble Lords seem to think that this is a Second Reading issue. To me, this is a part of Committee, a way of saying to the Government that if what they intend is transparency and this Bill fails to produce it but instead produces unintended consequences of fear, of people not campaigning when they want to, surely this is the point for us to say to the Government that the wording of this clause is not good enough. The Government should both explain why they have failed to find a solution to the concerns that were raised at Second Reading and give a reason to the House why this clause should stand part of the Bill.

17:30

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate on the core definition. In particular, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, for moving his amendment, which initiated the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, indicated correctly that the stand part debate was part of this group. Actually, the next group also includes amendments relating to Clause 26.

Clause 26 seeks to amend the definition of what is regarded as controlled expenditure for recognised third parties. I want to be clear about what we are doing and what we are not doing. Yes, we are widening the range of activities for which campaign expenditure by a recognised third party will be treated as “controlled expenditure”. Schedule 3 inserts a new Schedule 8A into the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The new Schedule 8A expands the activities that will count in a way that closely reflects the scope of the rules for political parties. That change means that not only will written “election material” be regulated but so will other events such as media work associated with an election campaign by a third party. The next group of amendments goes over these changes in some detail.

What we are not doing is widening what the spending must be about. Expenditure is only controlled expenditure if it,

“can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success”

of a party or candidates. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Greaves—who I hope will continue to be an election agent for many elections to come—for summing it up. He said that in seeking the objectives of greater transparency, we should not have a chilling effect. That is an objective that we share and seek to implement in this Bill. We do not want our national politics taken over by super-PACs—as he said, “big bucks from big boys”—and we do not want a situation where it is possible for a third party organisation to spend more than the candidates can legitimately spend. I agree that what we are seeking to do is a listening exercise. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, summed it up correctly. What Governments do in Committee is listen, get the mood of the House and reflect on what has been said, and that is certainly what we intend to do.

We are aware of the concerns expressed by charities and voluntary organisations that the proposed test will impact upon their normal day-to-day activities. The Government believe that, by not changing the existing test for controlled expenditure, charities, voluntary organisations and other campaigners should be reassured that their normal engagement with public policy will not be subject to regulation as long as it cannot,

“reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success”

of a party or candidate.

I will pick up two specific concerns that were expressed. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, expressed that concern about small charities—we will come on to the thresholds later—but he also mentioned the importance of volunteers working with small charities, which I certainly recognise. I can indicate to the noble Earl and to the House that volunteer costs will not have to be included in the calculation of staff costs because volunteers are excluded from the calculation of staff costs by virtue of Section 87(2)(b) of the 2000 Act.

My noble friend Lord Hodgson asked about hustings meetings if not all candidates are invited. My noble friend Lord Phillips made reference to Charity Commission guidance on this. My understanding is that the Electoral Commission has said that it expects non-party campaigners to apply a similar approach to current hustings guidance. Subject to any change of approach in that guidance as a result of the review that is taking place, this would mean that the costs of a hustings event involving political parties will be controlled spending under the non-party campaigning rules only if all the following conditions apply.

Those conditions are: the event features party spokespeople—hustings events that feature only local candidates will be covered by the candidate spending rules, as at present; that the event is open to the public, rather than just members of the organisation that is organising the hustings; that the event features party spokespeople and not all parties contesting the election are invited to attend; and that organisers cannot provide objective reasons for their decision as to which parties to invite, such as the parties’ prominence or track record in previous elections. I recognise that this is an issue and I will certainly write to the noble Lord and ensure that that letter is available, not only, I suspect, to Members of the House but to those who have a wider interest in this matter.

The test that I am referring to has been in existence since 2000 and was in place for the 2005 and 2010 general elections. These elections did not see charities and other campaigners being prevented from engaging in and influencing public policy, although I take the point that it is “other activities” and any possible changes to the threshold that are giving rise to concern.

The amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, would amend Clause 26 so that only activity that can reasonably be regarded as intended for the “principal purpose” of promoting or procuring the electoral success of a party or candidate is covered. However, we believe that the introduction of a “principal purpose” test could lead to greater regulatory uncertainty, as well as an obvious avenue for avoidance, which could undermine the rules as a whole.

On the point of regulatory uncertainty, the Electoral Commission has expressed concerns that we would be retaining a familiar test but introducing a new subjective element which could lead to significant regulatory difficulty. Determining the “principal purpose” of any expenditure adds a new layer of judgment and complexity to the test and therefore could complicate rather than clarify.

The test also creates an obvious avenue for avoidance; for example, a regulation campaign presented as mainly trying to recruit members and donors could clearly also be seen to be promoting electoral success, and in these circumstances might not be covered. Under the “principal purpose” test, the fact that there was a clear intention to support a party or candidates would therefore be immaterial and not subject to regulation.

This issue was looked at by the Committee on Standards in Public Life back in 1998, which led to the establishment of the 2000 legislation. Paragraph 10.78 of the committee’s report refers to activities in the 1959 general election—I can just about remember accompanying my parents to a polling station and having the day off school. It says that,

“a privately owned steel firm, Stewarts and Lloyds, ran a series of advertisements in daily and Sunday newspapers, most of which were thought to have large Labour readerships. The advertisements were clearly intended to discourage voters from voting Labour. That is not, however, what they said. On the contrary, the Stewarts and Lloyds slogan insisted: ‘It’s not your vote we ask for, it’s your voice. Speak up against state-owned steel’. In one advertisement, published in the pro-Labour Daily Herald, the firm stated baldly: ‘This advertisement is not trying to sway votes in any political election’”.

The committee goes on to say:

“It is clear to us that advertising of this kind … has as one of its objects or one of its foreseeable effects, though not necessarily the only one, promoting the electoral prospects of one or more political parties and damaging the electoral prospects of one or more others. It is simply naive to imagine that organisations that send out explicitly political messages in the midst of election campaigns, or shortly in advance of them, are engaged innocently in generalised, nonpartisan promotional propaganda”.

That is why there is concern about introducing a subjective element.

The first recommendation of the most recent report of the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement, on the definition of regulated non-party campaigning, says:

“PPERA and the Lobbying Bill include a definition of non-party campaigning that is both ambiguous in meaning and makes too many campaigning activities subject to regulation that are not intended to promote or procure the election of a registered party and its candidates”.

If the campaigning is not intended to procure that, by this very definition it will not be regulated or controlled expenditure. The only difference is whether there is a subjective test or an objective test. For reasons of trying to minimise avoidance, the objective test is the proper one. Amendment 159B tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, amends Clause 26 so that any campaign which can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success involving legislation going through Parliament during the regulated period would not count as controlled expenditure. Again, to incur controlled expenditure a third party must be carrying out an activity that it would be reasonable to regard as intended to promote or procure the electoral success of a party or candidate.

I take issue with one thing that my noble friend Lord Greaves said relating to campaigning during a Scottish parliamentary election or a European election over issues in Parliament at Westminster. He said that he thought that normal campaigning activities ought not to be prevented. I am interested in the words he used: “ought not to be prevented”. There is nothing intentional here to prevent activities. If it is an activity which would pass the threshold and be seen as intended to promote or procure an electoral advantage for a party or for a candidate, then it is for registration for regulation. The purpose is not to prevent it. I understand why he said that; it is a common slip of the tongue. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked how many of Beatrice Webb’s campaigns would be ruled out. There is nothing here that would rule them out unless they reached the spending limit, which the Green Party did not even reach at the last general election.

However, I take on board the perfectly legitimate concern that I have heard at a number of the meetings I have had about the possibilities of a chilling effect. That is why it is important that we look at these issues and try to ensure that we have proper transparency without introducing a chilling effect. I plead guilty at some of the meetings to a slip of the tongue that this will rule out a particular sort of campaigning. It is not surprising that some charities and third-party organisations get the impression that they will not be allowed to campaign, but that is neither the purpose nor the effect of this part of the Bill. If you are going to undertake campaigning activities which would procure or promote the electoral advantage of one party or a candidate, then if you reach a particular threshold you should be registered and there will be the transparency that goes beyond that. We can debate the size of the spending limit it would be subject to, but many of the charities which have expressed concerns would come nowhere near the top spending limit that has been suggested in their normal activities.

[Lord Greaves]

I accept everything that my noble and learned friend said about the difficulty of getting absolutely clear in our minds what we are talking about. We are of course talking about whether expenditure comes within the regulation, not whether it is ruled out. However, let us imagine that during a UK general election the Scottish Parliament is considering a Bill that is highly controversial in Scotland and that is being promoted by the present SNP Scottish Government but opposed by everybody else. If organisations in Scotland lobby on that Bill during the regulated period running up to a UK general election, will they be caught or not? That is the question I am asking.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Our view is that if it could reasonably be seen that the purpose of that lobbying was to get the Scottish Government to change their mind, then no, the organisations would not be caught. However, if to further that campaign they were to say, “And by the way, in this general election don’t any of you vote SNP because that will only encourage them”, then I think that would cross the threshold. But if the focus and intention was to try to change the policies of the Scottish Government with a particular piece of legislation, it would not be a campaign that was intended to influence the outcome of the United Kingdom general election.

17:45

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

Is this not a fundamental threat to democracy? Let us take an English example. One party wants an extra runway at Heathrow. That is opposed by another party. If this is going through during an election year, surely campaigning groups should not be hindered in any way. They should have no curb on their election expenditure at all. It is a fundamental fact of democracy. They should be allowed to campaign.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, of course they will be allowed to campaign. I agree that it would be a travesty if they were not allowed to campaign. But if that campaign then crosses a line from campaigning on a perfectly legitimate issue to saying, “In our campaigning we advise you not to vote for A, B, C and D and to vote for F, G, H, J and K”, it is not that they are stopped from doing that; it is just that it becomes a regulated activity and they will have to account for the funds that they spend on promoting the election of particular candidates or the non-election of others—and there would be a top limit, just as political parties have limits on what they are allowed spend.

There is no question of them not being allowed to campaign. I fear that sometimes this debate has been unfortunate—as I say, we have all possibly been guilty of using loose language at times—because the impression has been given that we would not be allowed to campaign. It is not that we would not be allowed to campaign; it is just that if a campaign moves from a campaign on an issue to a campaign that seeks to promote or procure the election of a particular party or candidate, it becomes regulated expense.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I am sorry to delay the Minister further, but with due respect I do not think he is really facing up to the difficulty of the present definition of qualifying expenses. I agree with him that if a particular campaigning group says, “Therefore you must vote A, B or C”, of course that would need to be regulated. But it still might be liable to be regulated even if it did not do that, because the Bill is quite clear that you do not have to mention a particular party, and that it does not have to be your primary purpose. It could be reasonably interpreted that if one party is supporting an expansion at Heathrow and one is opposing it, by implication the campaigning group wants one party elected rather than another. There are fundamental difficulties here.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That reflects some of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Tyler, to which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, lent his support. We are grappling with real issues here as to the clarity or otherwise of when people will cross a line. I accept that there are some cases which are quite clearly on one side of the line and others that are nearer the margins. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said that some people had been advised by the Electoral Commission that what they were proposing to do would be regulated. I would say to them, “Take the advice of the Electoral Commission. If it says you should be regulated, then register”. There is nothing stopping people campaigning. In fact, they might campaign with a lot more confidence if they know that they are doing the right thing because they have taken the advice of the Electoral Commission.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I dread going on to other clauses, because I am going to get told off, but this is rather important. Registration is a threat to many of these organisations. They do not have the staff to fill in the forms. Charities are worried that by being registered with the Electoral Commission rather than the Charity Commission, it will look as if they are political because of the word. The bureaucracy of it frightens them. Some organisations will be responsible for 15 or 20 local groups. They will get caught by coalition funding. The Minister says, “Let them register”. The problem is, that in itself is a threat. Maybe he has misunderstood the threat of registration to these organisations.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I do not think that I have, because I indicated that one of the concerns we have is the potential chilling effect. I am trying to make it clear that the threat is not that they cannot campaign at all. I regret sometimes the language used. It may be inadvertent, but the problem is that if we as politicians dealing with the Bill say that people will not be allowed to campaign on certain issues, it will be picked up outside and people will believe that they might not be allowed to campaign on certain issues. I hear what the noble Baroness says about the threat. I do not believe that registration is necessarily a threat. It is part of trying to secure transparency, as my noble friend Lord Tyler said. It is trying to secure the right balance, because the more transparency you have, the more likely it is that you will have more regulation. We are doing an important task as a Committee, which is to put up issues to make sure that we try to achieve the right balance.

In relation to other amendments, my noble friend Lord Greaves sought to exempt activities relating to research, press conferences, meetings and the lobbying of government and other legislative bodies. Again, the same explanation applies. The day-to-day activities of third parties, including working with legislative bodies across the United Kingdom, is not, and under the Bill would not be, subject to regulation under PPERA. Only activities which a reasonable person would regard as intended to promote or procure electoral success are captured.

Amendment 159D is about the same issue: issues being debated in another legislature. In the European election, the European Parliament cannot determine whether Britain continues its membership of the European Union, but it is not impossible—it does not need too much imagination—to think that it might be what third parties might be campaigning on in the forthcoming European elections. If that is what they are campaigning on to promote one party over another, it is not unreasonable, if they meet the thresholds, to require them to register.

The noble Lord, Lord Walton, talked about the all-party groups and the important work that was done in relation to muscular dystrophy. I understood him to ask whether the charities that support those groups with staff will be covered. It is difficult to see how the work of all-party groups—he knows this, as he showed in his remarks—could be caught or how the groups could be promoting electoral success in the reports they produce. However, the difference might be if one of the charitable bodies that had been supporting the all-party group were to turn around and say, “We helped produce this report. Member X and Member Y are really good people and people should go out and support them”. I am not suggesting for one minute that they would do that, as charity law might make it very difficult for them, but that would be trying to procure an election result and so on. Simply supporting an all-party group doing the very valuable work that the all-party groups do could not be seen as promoting a particular—

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

If, say, an all-party group on heart surgery had decided, on excellent scientific advice, that it wished to support the continuation of paediatric cardiac surgery in one centre but not in another, which was in a different constituency, would that be regarded as being in breach of the law?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

In all these hypotheticals, you hesitate, but I cannot see how supporting what must essentially be a medical judgment by a group to support a particular centre over another—it is not supporting a particular candidate or party over another—would constitute trying to promote a political party. It might be promoting a particular medical centre, but that is not the same as a political party.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I accept that the issue relating to APPGs is difficult, but I am sure that there is—forgive my ignorance—an anti-smoking APPG that may well be wholly in favour of standardised packaging for cigarettes. We know that we all agree on this measure, at the moment, but if, six months before the election, this had not been resolved and the APPG still seemed to support the introduction of standardised packaging on cigarettes—which is something that the coalition used to be against and we were in favour of—would that be caught by the new law?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I find it difficult to see how an all-party group, supported by all parties, would fall foul of something, because by its very nature that would be difficult. The noble Baroness raises a point that was at the core of the points made by my noble friend Lord Tyler about when there is a change in a particular policy. This brings us to an important issue about what should be in the Bill and what should be left to guidance. This point was also made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, who asked about groups changing their policy position in the middle of the controlled period.

[Lord Hardie]

I was not speaking about a group changing its position but about a group remaining constant and a candidate then adopting the campaign. I accept that retrospectively the expenditure is protected, but what about prospectively? What about future expenditure?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I apologise; I misrepresented the point. What happens if the group maintains its campaign and one party suddenly comes on board and, presumably, one party breaks rank and retreats? The Electoral Commission’s guidance is clear that if a party or candidate subsequently adopts a campaigning organisation’s policy, it will not be caught unless the campaigning organisation draws attention to the fact or increases its campaigning as a result. In addition, a group must be reasonably regarded as intending to procure electoral success. If at the time a party or candidate does not have a policy on the subject of the organisation’s campaign, it is very difficult to see how it could be seen to be promoting that candidate or the party. Indeed, it would seem to be impossible to objectively argue that a policy campaign by a third party could be intended to favour a party or candidates if those parties’ or candidates’ views on the policy were unknown at the time.

A question was also asked about the scorecard count. A third party setting out a scorecard 11 months before an election could reasonably be regarded as trying to get parties to change their policy, not necessarily to promote electoral success. However, a third party publishing a scorecard a week before election day might be regarded as promoting the electoral success of a party or candidate.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, put his finger on it by saying that many of the groups he has talked to would rather that this was in legislation. On the scorecard issue, I sought to show that there were shades of this. It can sometimes be very difficult if you try to pin it down too much in legislation. Often when we legislate with specific examples—I have heard this on other subjects in your Lordships’ House—we can do more damage and cause more uncertainty by what is left out than by what is there. It does not allow the flexibility to take full circumstances into account.

What has been raised is a perfectly legitimate point for this Committee to express views on. We as a Government should consider whether it is better to have these things set out in statute, subject to the misgivings that I have expressed about inflexibility—once it is there, it takes primary legislation to repeal it—or whether it is better to allow that position to be determined by guidance.

The next paragraph in the report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life states:

“That said, we acknowledge, of course, that in some cases it will be hard to determine whether the advertising and other propaganda undertaken by an individual or organisation other than a political party is or is not intended to affect an election outcome. Ultimately it will be up to the courts to decide in such cases, but one role we envisage for the Electoral Commission”—

which did not exist when this was written—

“is in giving authoritative but not legally binding advice on such matters”.

It would appear that those who set all this in motion some 15 years ago saw giving guidance as a proper role for the Electoral Commission. As I indicated in my opening remarks on the previous amendment, we engage with the Electoral Commission and believe that it would be helpful to have draft guidance available. I also accept—this is something that we want to reflect on—the views that have been expressed in the House that some of this would be better put in primary legislation. That said, as I indicated, there are drawbacks with that as well.

I hope that in that spirit I can invite the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hardie]

I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for participating in this full and interesting debate. It is quite clear that there is a certain consensus that it is essential we get the balance right in the Act, avoid unintended consequences and clear up grey areas. I note from the noble and learned Lord the Advocate-General that the Government will consider the extent to which the legislation should be amended. In light of that, I will reflect on everything that has been said today. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 159A withdrawn.

Amendments 159B to 159F not moved.

18:00

Amendment 159G

Moved by

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

159G: Clause 26, page 13, line 19, at end insert—
“(5A) Before subsection (5) insert—
“( ) Any limit applying to campaign expenditure under this Act where that expenditure is incurred by or on behalf of third parties in connection with the production or publication of election material which is made available to the public at large, or any section of the public in Wales, shall not include costs incurred by the translation of those materials from English into Welsh or from Welsh into English.””

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan. I shall not take up too much time as I hope that the Minister will give assurances that I, and those concerned with the Welsh language, have nothing to worry about. The Welsh language is a devolved matter under Schedule 20. It is a matter for the Welsh Government. However, we must always be vigilant when Westminster legislation may affect it and might injure the proper use of the language. The foreword of the Westminster Welsh Language Act 1993, regarding the setting up of a board to promote and facilitate the use of the language, states,

“in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality”.

I can claim that, as a young Member of Parliament as far back as 1962, I was the first in a document to the Government of the day to use the expression “equal validity”. It was subsequently adopted and is now enshrined in Westminster legislation. Nothing should be done that might undermine that principle, even unwittingly. I have received representations from the Welsh Language Commissioner seeking assurances on this point.

Part 2 of the Bill regulates more closely the spending during election campaigns by those who are not standing and are not registered as a political party. It also reduces the number of spending limits by non-political parties and registered third parties. Organisations must comply with “controlled expenditure” limits for that organisation. This is defined as the expenditure associated with the production of material made available to the public at large. The Welsh Language Commissioner is concerned that the cost of translating election material falls within this definition and I tend to agree with her. The Bill makes no provision to reduce or offset the cost of such translation in relation to the Welsh language and could therefore adversely affect the present situation. Reduced expenditure as proposed in the Bill would adversely affect the provision of bilingual election material in Wales. It is possible to envisage a situation where some non-political parties and third parties chose not to issue bilingual election material for fear of reaching or exceeding the threshold. Hence, I need an assurance that the proposed spending limits should take account of the additional costs that come with providing election material in Wales. My amendment is drafted to seek to ensure that the limit in the Bill on expenditure shall not include costs incurred by the translation of those materials to Welsh or to English as the case may be. I beg to move.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 165B, 161A and 165C in my name, which I put forward on behalf of the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement. First, I pass on the apologies of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who has a long-standing engagement and could not be here this evening. His name is added to the commission’s amendments. He has promised to be here on Report not only to speak but to vote for any commission amendments. Many noble Lords have been kind enough to recognise the quality of the report brought forward by the commission. I ought properly to pass on the thanks to those to whom it is properly due—the team of people from charities and campaigning organisations who have been working night and day in order to produce it.

Charities and campaigning organisations accept that a wider range of activities needs to be taken into account. It is part of their wider conviction that charities should be regulated and be transparent. There is absolutely no problem about that. As Amendment 165B points out, there are real difficulties about including staff time in expenditure that counts as a qualifying expense. There is the difficulty of separating staff time used on campaigns generally from that which is directed specifically towards elections, particularly if this is to take place during a whole year—the regulatory burden on charities would be quite disproportionate. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says in the report:

“Widening the activities that count towards controlled expenditure would require significant new reporting procedures, including time sheets to account for staff time connected with campaigns and systems for recording spending in regional offices. This would siphon money away from conservation work and amount to an unnecessarily onerous regulatory burden: more than the £0–800 per organisation for implementation estimated in the Impact Assessment”.

It is also important to note that the Electoral Commission, though its long-term view is that staff time should be included both for third-party organisations and political parties—for which at the moment it is not included—says quite clearly in its latest briefing that such are the difficulties of including this that it should not be included before the 2015 campaign. That is a very clear and strong recommendation.

Subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new section in Amendment 165B concerns translation. We firmly support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, has said. The cost of translation from Welsh to English and English to Welsh should not be included. Our amendment goes slightly wider than simply translation because it would also include things such as Braille. The Electoral Commission also supports this although it says that production costs should not be included. I do not think the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement would agree with that because the production costs are also extra as a result of the translations. It is not just the job of hiring a translator but also the costs of printing the extra pages in Welsh.

Proposed new subsection (1)(c) concerns safety and security. This is obviously one of the concerns that arose from Northern Ireland. At the moment our amendment refers to safety and security for meetings. The Electoral Commission has very valuably added that “rallies” should be included here and I think the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement would certainly support that. Proposed new subsection (1)(d) refers to documents making material available for people who are either physically or in any other way disabled. That, again, is an extra expense which should not be counted as part of the qualifying expenses. I hope that the Government will also bring forward an amendment to ensure that extra expenses by disabled groups—for instance, to get them to meetings, which can amount to quite a lot—would be included in subsection (1)(c) of the proposed new clause, which obviously concerns the safety of disabled people at meetings and rallies.

Proposed new subsection (1)(e) refers to communications with supporters. A clear distinction is made in the legislation between the general public, who are brought into the regulation, and supporters. However, “supporters” is defined rather narrowly in terms of donations. Of course, the modern understanding of “supporters” over all sorts of different media is much wider than that. The commission believes that it has a way of solving that by reference to the Data Protection Act, whereby those who have given consent to be contacted by the organisation, in accordance with the Data Protection Act, should count as “supporters”. We hope very much that the Government will look sympathetically at that as a way of making a sharp distinction between those who are supporters and the general public.

Amendment 161A refers to market research. The commission does not believe that general market research should count as a qualifying expense. It should only do so for the purpose of assessing people’s polling intentions; clearly, if it is designed to find out people’s polling intentions, it should be brought within the regulatory framework.

Amendment 165C would ensure that this entire clause could only be changed by primary legislation. The commission believe that this is such a fundamental issue of democratic rights that it should not simply be amended by a government Ministry. It should only be changed as a result of primary legislation.

Finally, I have added my name in a personal capacity to Amendment 163A in the name of my noble friend Lord Best, to which I am sure he will speak. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations did research independent to that of the commission but came up with virtually identical recommendations and one or two more. This is a recommendation that the NCVO was particularly keen to see implemented, which would exclude rallies and meetings from the list of activities which are to be counted as “controlled expenditure”.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment of my old friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, and also support a parallel point which was advanced by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, about Braille.

I accept the arguments forcefully put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, but one can take the matter slightly further. The issue is whether the translation of certain documents from Welsh into English or English into Welsh should be regarded as relevant expenditure under Clause 26. The next issue is whether the position of the Welsh language is so different from all the other cases of which one can conceive in this matter as to make it unique; that is also important.

To deal with that, I ask the Committee to indulge me for a few minutes in looking at the Act of Union of 1536; I appreciate that not many of us were around at that time. However, it has cast a long shadow over the land and nation of Wales over many centuries. The opening words of that Act were:

“ALBEIT the Dominion, Principality and Country of Wales justly and righteously is, and ever hath been incorporated, annexed, united and subject to and under the Imperial Crown of this Realm”.

It then goes on to say that there is therefore no Wales and never has been any Wales at all, as a land and nation.

18:15

Parallel with that general declaration, which must be one of the most drastic and impudent in legislation, was an attack upon the Welsh language. Nothing would count in so far as the validity of documents in court was concerned unless they were in the English tongue. There have been many amendments to that; one was the Welsh Courts Act 1942, which dealt with the minor matter of the right of witnesses and parties to speak the Welsh language in a Welsh court. The main Act, referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, was the Welsh Language Act 1967, which brought about the principle, which one cannot overstress, of equal validity. That meant that anything that was done in Welsh was of equal validity as if it had been done in English. That would be the case, for example, for a will, a conveyance, a lease, an instrument of transfer, a deed of settlement or anything of that nature. Where it dealt with an official form, there was a machinery set up to produce such forms with that automatic validity. If the amendment is not conceded, I submit that one would be undermining that principle of equal validity. It is a small, narrow and confined matter, but one of absolute principle.

I have dwelt on these historical background features also for this reason. I regard the noble and learned Lord as a person of considerable reason and good will. Even in this season of good will, however, it may well be that he will be mildly tempted to say, “Ah well, much as we appreciate the position of the Welsh language and admire its situation—one of the oldest living languages in Europe, spoken for at least 1,500 years and probably more—we do not think this necessary, nor that we should do it. We are afraid that a whole Babel of other languages will be brought into consideration at the same time, and there will be people from all parts of the world using different languages in our British community saying, ‘Let us have the same position as the Welsh language’”. If that argument were advanced—and it may be that I do the noble and learned Lord no justice whatever—it would be utterly spurious. The position of the Welsh language is defined in statute by the Acts I have mentioned, those of 1942, 1967 and the Welsh Language Act 1993. That last was brought about by the initiative of our late colleague Lord Roberts of Conwy, a splendid statesman of a man; we miss him very much. Those three Acts put the Welsh language in a wholly unique position.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I am grateful to pursue the theme that has been running for the past few minutes, and to give support to the amendment in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. As the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said, it is a poignant moment for the Welsh language, in that the late Lord Roberts of Conwy is no longer with us. He played a major part in the 1993 Act and many other aspects of the Welsh language gaining status. Of course, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, played roles as government Ministers when the 1967 Act was passed. That Act changed the status of the Welsh language fundamentally, bringing in the concept of equal validity. However, for equal validity to work, it presumed that the individual could have access to both languages. The corollary to this was the development of the availability of forms and information in Wales through the medium of Welsh as well as English in order to respond to that principle and put flesh around it.

Over the past 40 or 50 years, there has been tremendous acceptance of Wales as a bilingual community. Campaigning organisations in the voluntary as well as the governmental sector have come to recognise the need, in order to allow citizens to have their full rights with regard to the language, to pursue, as far as is practical, a bilingual policy. Official bilingualism is what makes personal and private equal validity a meaningful concept. Some organisations may feel the additional costs that inevitably go along with publishing things in two languages to be a burden. Some organisations may, frankly, be glad of an excuse not to do it. If that were the case, it would be a step backwards—a step that might start unwinding the consensus that has been achieved with considerable difficulty and after a lot of campaigning across the political sectors. I therefore urge the Minister to give serious consideration to the principles behind this amendment and to agree, if assurances regarding the fears that have been expressed cannot be given now, that at least some thought will be given between now and Report to how these can be accommodated.

The principle of access to information is equally valid for disabled people. I have campaigned very long and hard for many years to make sure that disabled people get the information that they need. Very often, that means providing an approach in individual circumstances, sometimes in group circumstances, as opposed to providing generality. One does not generally see Braille going to every household in case an individual might need it. One might argue that it should, but it is not generally the case. However, with the Welsh language, there is a general approach; both arguments are valid, but valid in slightly different ways and in slightly different circumstances. I hope that the Government will find a way to respond to these different circumstances as they consider these amendments.

[Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in my name and that of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, to which he has spoken so fully. I have one or two points to add. First, on staff costs, I respectfully suggest that one has to remember that as the regulated activities are going to be expanded, it is inevitable that the staff costs associated with them will grow. How those activities are to be expanded is another matter, but we all agree that there are matters that should now be included that have not been up to now. The growth in staff costs is a further reason for increasing the threshold of spending, not just from the level in the Bill, but from the existing PPERA level, in order to give a fair approach.

Secondly, on translation, I slightly hesitate to raise this matter, but it is sometimes necessary to communicate with communities that do not have English as their first language. Although there has been special pleading on behalf of Wales, which I totally accept and endorse, there may well be other communities for which that may be a legitimate expense in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to communicate, perhaps in Urdu, in relation to a particular campaign. I submit that, in order to enable a campaign to communicate, translation is something that the Minister ought to have uppermost in his mind. It is also right to say that safety and security, which the commission looked at, relates not just to Northern Ireland—although particularly so there—but also to those who steward meetings and so on. That is an expense that is very often essential and ought not to be included in regulated expenditure.

It also seems wrong to proceed with part of the recommendation of the Electoral Commission about staff costs and leave the other part behind. I have in mind the review of the Electoral Commission back in June, which suggested that rules should be widened to include staff costs for political parties. The Bill, of course, does not deal with the political parties, but it seems wrong to advance one and not the other. There should be parity between non-government organisations and political parties in respect of declared expenditure. The Electoral Commission accepted that, so far as political parties were concerned, the matter would be difficult, not straightforward, and would require more consideration because it was so complex. In making the same recommendation for non-party campaigning, it again said that it was complex, potentially controversial, which it certainly is, and needed further consideration.

It seems that there is no real urgency about the question of staff costs being included for the 2015 election. I may be wrong. A spectre was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and I have also heard it from Ministers: what about the as yet unidentified ogre who comes out of the woodwork carrying bags of money to throw into an election campaign, perhaps in a particular area, and to distort the democratic process? What about the US-style zillionaires, of which, I have to say, there is no sign in this country? This scenario seems unlikely because we have rather different rules for television advertising and so on. However, if such people really are lurking, ready to come in and try to buy the electoral process here, surely it is for the Government to produce an amendment to the Bill that deals with that situation, rather than simply taking a big stick and thrashing all around, hitting smaller charities and organisations as well. I ask the Minister to agree that, at this stage, it is not really important to include staff costs for the 2015 election, given that we are going to have a review which should take in political parties as well.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, it must be apparent to the Committee already that a number of amendments in this group have similar objectives. I am very sympathetic to those which have already been mentioned, but I want to concentrate, before my voice gives out, on Amendments 160J, 165A and 165D. These all result directly from discussions I have had with a wide range of organisations.

The group deals with Schedule 3 and how particular activities might be excluded from the list of those which come under controlled expenditure. There is a principle in current electoral law that communication with one’s own members is not “election material”, and therefore it is excluded from the sort of controls and transparency that is being looked at here. However, membership is becoming—sadly, many of us feel—an almost outmoded concept. Organisations do not need members in order to have clear, regular supporters. Many prefer to seek funding through periodic contributions rather than through the straitjacket of an annual membership subscription. The concept may well have been more appropriate, more formidable and more general at the time of the 2000 Act, but it is surely disappearing rather quickly now. It is in that context that I believe there should be some degree of flexibility in relation to Schedule 3.

It is particularly in the nature of a non-party campaign that you can be on board on one issue, but not on another. You simply lend your support as you see fit from time to time, but you are still a committed supporter of that organisation or campaign. This idea of a committed supporter is one which the Electoral Commission itself has recognised, so it seems sensible that the Bill should pick that up and define it more clearly. Our Amendment 160J does just that. It defines a committed supporter as someone who has made a donation, or who in the past 12 months has either communicated directly with the organisation or expressly consented to receive the organisation’s communications.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and his colleagues, have tried to deal with that problem in their Amendment 165B—so we are on the same track. My difficulty with their amendment is that it sets a very low bar for becoming a committed supporter. Anyone who uses e-mail knows how much correspondence we all get from people to whom we have given permission under the Data Protection Act for contact to be made. It is very easy—too easy—to give that consent. So I am afraid that the Data Protection Act is, in this context, insubstantial and insufficient. Our amendment sets the bar a little higher, so that a supporter is not just the passive recipient over decades of many quickly deleted e-mails, as might be the case with that so-called protection.

18:30

Campaigners nowadays usually e-mail asking that you click a link to sign a petition, or that you donate. That requires an active participation and active support rather than just a reactive response. These activities would count toward making someone a committed supporter of the organisation under our amendment. Simply receiving the e-mail and ignoring it would not make you a supporter, just as receiving a cold call from a salesperson and not buying their product does not make you a customer of the salesperson’s company. We think this is a fair level at which to draw the bar for who counts as a supporter, since otherwise communications to millions of quite passive non-supporters could be excluded from counting as election material. That would not be transparency, and we do not think it would be right. Our amendment provides a fairer, more effective and balanced approach.

Amendment 165A deals with the staff issue, which is a matter of considerable concern to organisations large and small. The Electoral Commission supports counting staff costs for political parties’ election expenses, as the noble Baroness said. That is something to which another Parliament will doubtless return—I hope very soon. Our amendment again seeks a balance on this issue. We do not think a blanket exemption on all staff costs is right, because staff costs can be very important. They already have to be recorded by non-party organisations for the production and distribution of election material, and rightly so, for the simple reason that they could otherwise directly employ people to run around constituencies delivering leaflets, and it would not count against the expenses limits. Likewise, we think it right to include staff costs for paid canvassers. If someone employs people to canvass on their behalf, in an attempt to promote or procure electoral success, that is surely significant and should be recorded—it should be transparent. However, we do not believe that it makes sense to include the internal staff costs associated with booking a venue for a press conference or rally, or travel time to attend it, for example—a few half hours in the day, or whatever it might be, which would not normally be recorded, particularly by smaller organisations. These are things of a kind that are very unlikely to matter in the end to the likely electoral outcome, but they add a level of bureaucracy that a lot of organisations would regret. Charities would not like to pay yet more administrative costs against the main purpose of their charitable enterprise. All of us involved in charities are well aware of their sensitivity in trying to avoid additional bureaucracy and administration.

It is unnecessary to ask organisations to try to account for a half hour here or there spent booking a room, by someone whose annual salary is perhaps £30,000 and who is paid all the rest of the year for doing something totally unrelated to elections. Our amendment seeks to exclude staff costs from the activities relating to press conferences, public meetings and transport. We believe that this would remove unnecessary burdens on organisations that would otherwise have to open up great loopholes for multimillionaires.

Finally, Amendment 165D echoes something that has already been suggested in dealing with future amendments to Schedule 3. I need hardly draw the Committee’s attention to the controversy that this legislation has caused. We need to be very careful about the potential to amend this crucial schedule without due process; at the very least, it should be with consensus between Parliament and the Electoral Commission.

[Lord Horam]

My Lords, I add my voice in paying tribute to the commission chaired by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, who very generously pointed out that it was a team effort. I am sure that it was, but it is remarkable that his report has been produced in only five weeks.

In the particular area that we are discussing on these amendments, it shows how, if the Government listen to the commission’s report and take account of it, there is a way forward whereby we can achieve what we are all looking for—to protect democracy but not see it overwhelmed by outside lobbying of a particular kind, although that lobbying may be worthy in its intention. I would slightly disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. I am new to this House and may be misinterpreting things, but I do not think that we should always take a package as a whole—either the Government’s or the commission’s package. I do not think that that is the spirit of this House. What we can do, in reference to her view that we should have a view about the role of civil society, is to take into account the spirit of what lies behind the views expressed in detail, point by point, in the commission’s report. The Government would be well advised to do that.

I refer, too, to remarks made by my noble friend Lord Greaves. With regard to what he said on an earlier amendment, we are in some danger in looking just at charities and non-political party campaigners and forgetting the main body of people—the PBI, or poor bloody infantry of an election, the candidates and parties who have to go through the whole wretched business of fighting elections. That is something that we should not forget in concentrating, as we obviously are today, on the problems for charities in the electoral process. Let us not forget what a general election is all about. I know it very well, having fought 10 elections myself, with varied success.

To come to the point of the amendments, there is sense in exempting directly employed staff for the 2015 general election. It is true that the Electoral Commission has said in principle that party staff who are directly employed and full time should be included in election expenses; that would be something that it would want to press. But one accepts that in the context that we are now talking about, in the short time before the next general election, sorting all this out would be very difficult and would pose huge problems for many charities, which may have very large staffs. Most associations that fight general elections have extremely small staffs—almost no full-time staff, in many cases—and exist entirely on volunteers. We tend to forget that. I am not speaking on the Electoral Commission’s behalf, as I keep stressing, but that is something that it has wisely said.

I disagree with my noble friend Lord Tyler, in that I do not think that it would help to try to differentiate between the activities undertaken by paid staff; you either exempt them as a block or you include them. In the case of the next general election, as it says in the briefing from the Electoral Commission, they should be excluded temporarily, while the whole business of whether full-time staff should be included in future could be looked at in the review that the Government have promised for after the next general election.

[Lord Greaves]

I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way, and for his kind words. However, would he not agree that there is a difference between somebody who works for a charity or political party taking part in an election campaign as part of their normal job and somebody who is taken on to deliver leaflets? Political parties cannot take on people to canvass, because it is illegal to pay people to canvass, but a third-party organisation could do so. So if you pay people who normally do not work for you to deliver leaflets, surely that should be included.

[Lord Horam]

There is clearly a difference there, and I think that it probably should be reflected in the Bill. The fact is that the two situations are quite different.

The other issue is translation. Our noble friends from Wales put it very eloquently. It is almost an abuse to call this a translation, as though Welsh were a foreign language. This applies to other languages too. Then there is the question of making documents available to those with physical or learning disabilities and, as I mentioned in my remarks on Northern Ireland, exempting costs relating to safety or security measures. This is something which the Government have already implicitly begun to accept.

Therefore, I think this is an area where, prima facie, there can be some discussion and resolution which will be helpful to the charities, and I hope that the Government will consider this.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendments 160H and 164A, in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lady Finlay, both of which are probing amendments on the subject of controlled expenditure and qualifying expenses. There may be a sense of déjà vu around some of my concerns, in the light of the debate on the previous group of amendments, so I shall try to be brief. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for meeting me and colleagues from the BMA to discuss these issues and I declare an interest, as past president of the British Medical Association and the current chair of the BMA’s Board of Science.

In paragraph 1 of the new schedule “Controlled expenditure: qualifying expenses”, under the heading “List of matters” sub-paragraph (1) refers to:

“The production or publication of material which is made available to the public at large or any section of the public (in whatever form and by whatever means)”.

This description is so wide that it could cover anything and everything. I would welcome clarity on whether this would include, for example, evidence-based policy reports aimed at policymakers. Many organisations have expressed worries and are unclear as to how they will be able to engage in reasonable debate on matters of public policy in the run-up to a general election. I know that some of this has already been discussed, but I have some particular points which I want to explore.

Many organisations publish reports collating evidence to highlight areas of public policy that need further development or action. The BMA’s Board of Science, which I chair, promotes the medical and allied sciences, contributes to the development of effective public health policies and supports medical research. Through the publication of policy reports, web resources, guidance documents and briefings, the BMA plays a role in contributing to wider debate and public opinion on public health issues for the benefit of doctors and patients. Aside from the public health and scientific publications from the board, the BMA also regularly publishes factual, evidence-based reports, covering a full range of issues, from health service reform to ethical issues. Examples of policy reports across these areas include publications on: child health and well-being; drugs and dependence; transport and health; a vision for general practice; and medical ethics.

While the Bill as drafted states that only publicly available,

“material which can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success”,

of a political party or candidates are regulated, there is still some uncertainty as to what this means in practice. Such publications from the BMA as I have described are factual and are geared towards policymakers rather than towards the electorate, but these reports often make recommendations in areas that may be politically contentious. For example, recent reports from the BMA’s Board of Science have made recommendations for standard packaging for tobacco and for a minimum unit price for alcohol, both of which are subjects of much current public debate. I am keen to have the Government’s reassurance that publications such as policy reports would fall outside the Bill’s regulation, should they appear ahead of an election. I welcome thoughts on what would happen if the recommendations in such publications were reported in the media in a politically biased way. Would third sector organisations be at fault, even if they had been careful to present their reports neutrally?

One aspect I want to explore further through Amendment 164A is the explicit exemption of annual conferences of third sector organisations. In the “List of matters” to be counted as controlled expenditure, Schedule 3 includes:

“Public rallies or other public meetings or events”,

After earlier debate, the Government have helpfully clarified this further:

“it is public rallies and events that are being regulated; meetings or events just for an organisation’s members or supporters will not be captured by the bill. We will also provide an exemption for annual events – such as an organisation’s annual conference”.

This is reassuring, but there is still an ambiguity as to what meetings will be included.

There are two particular areas on which I should like further detail. The first is to establish whether a membership organisation which has more than one conference annually would also be exempt. There are some organisations which hold more than one annual conference and this is still part of their normal, democratic, decision-making process. It is unclear, for example, whether the BMA, which holds multiple conferences annually for its members, would fall within the annual conferences exemption. Quite apart from our annual general meeting, there are also annual conferences for all the different specialty sections, such as general practitioners, consultants, junior doctors, public health doctors, and so on. Could the Minister clarify whether expenditure associated with such conferences would count towards the relevant electoral spending cap?

Although it is reasonable to expect that this could be addressed in guidance to follow from the Electoral Commission, an assurance from the Government about their intention on the scope of the exemption would be welcome. It would be helpful to know what would occur if such an annual conference attracted a great deal of public interest. Would it then become a public meeting that should be captured under the Bill? A members-only conference with a public element could happen in a number of ways, for example by inviting comment on health issues, the attendance of observers, or providing access to the conference via a webcast or through the media. I raised this question at Second Reading and I would welcome clarification from the Minister as to the position of members-only annual conferences in this regard, too.

18:45

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 165B, 161A and 165C, to which I have added my name. I find it rather distressing that, here again, we have another issue where there is no evidence from the Government that the current arrangements result in undue influence of non-party campaigning in elections. Where is the justification for starting down this route?

On Amendment 165B, I declare two interests, first, as chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Speech and Language Difficulties and, secondly, as chairman of the Criminal Justice and Acquired Brain Injury Interest Group. I was concerned to read that paragraph 1(1) of the proposed new schedule to be inserted by Schedule 3 states that “Controlled expenditure: qualifying expenses” includes:

“The production or publication of material which is made available to the public at large or any section of the public (in whatever form and by whatever means)”.

Both at Second Reading and in my consideration Motion, I mentioned the problems experienced by organisations working in this area in the criminal justice system. We shall come back to them when we discuss coalitions.

One of the areas that we have been considering in Bill after Bill has been the problem of those with learning difficulties and learning disabilities who require special arrangements to enable them to understand the legal process in which they may become involved. This requires both written material and the provision of people who can explain things to them, because the police and others may not necessarily be able to do so. I am therefore asking the Minister if what we have here is a cross-counting nonsense because, in Bill after Bill, we have been trying to impose or introduce something to enable people to engage with the criminal justice system in this way. Yet, if you take what is written in this Bill, it would seem that this is now to be impossible.

I fully support Amendment 165B which has the list of those things which ought to be included in the Bill and excluded from the expenses. I am not going to discuss the staff expenses at this stage because I agree with my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth and with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu.

I turn briefly to Amendment 161A. I am concerned that the word “research” might be removed. At the moment, we are conducting research into the number of prisoners with acquired brain injuries as we want to find out whether special arrangements need to be made for them. An experiment carried out in Leeds prison has discovered a large number of such prisoners and the people involved say that supporters are needed to help these people back into the community. However, such an initiative would be subject to the election provisions in the Bill. Why? It has nothing to do with elections, so why threaten such a sanction and why make the people concerned in this very important public service unnecessarily alarmed if that is not going to happen?

As regards Amendment 165C, I find it very distressing that the Bill states:

“The Secretary of State may by order make such amendments of Part 1 of this Schedule as he considers appropriate”.

Surely, such a measure ought not to be included in the Bill. It should not be up to the Secretary of State to make such amendments as he considers appropriate when so much work has gone into the Bill.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I add my support to Amendment 160J, to which my name is attached. As I was heavily involved in the Care Bill and the Children and Families Bill, I was unable to speak at Second Reading of this Bill, for which I apologise to the House. I should also mention my interests as president of the National Children’s Bureau, vice-president of the charity Relate, and chair of the Making Every Adult Matter coalition of charities. I will speak about charity coalitions on later amendments.

Amendment 160J is intended to clarify exactly what is meant by “committed supporters”. The fear here, which has already been expressed, is that contacting people, charities and other campaigning organisations that bodies consider to be supportive will be classed as regulated activity and therefore come under “controlled expenditure”. I wish to make two main points. First, as my noble friend Lord Tyler said, these days, membership of charities and other campaigning organisations is generally not defined by an annual subscription. It might have much more to do with following the organisation on social media, actively agreeing to receive e-mails or some other way of actively engaging with the organisation concerned. Certainly, my experience of the organisations for which I have worked, and which I continue to support, perhaps in connection with children and families or campaigning for older people, is that you might feel very strongly indeed about a particular issue, perhaps to do with health, a specific disability or housing, and therefore lend your support to it. Indeed, you might be very actively engaged with it from time to time but do not necessarily support every activity and issue that the organisation concerned is involved in. However, you should still count as a very committed supporter of the relevant organisation.

Although there are other amendments in this group, and Amendment 165B clearly also tries to get the right definition of “committed supporters”, I support Amendment 160J as it sets the bar in the right place in terms of having to have some sort of active engagement with an organisation rather than simply being a passive recipient of e-mails, for reasons we have already heard. Amendment 160J would improve the Bill, if it were accepted.

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth, especially Amendment 165B. I also welcome the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, which seeks to make specific provision in the Bill for the Welsh language. I want to make only one point. Even the heroic efforts of the civil society commission, which so many of your Lordships have spoken about, and which I fully endorse, could not resolve all the issues raised by the Bill. The commission has made it clear that some of its recommendations are the best that it could come up with in the time available and should apply until the next election, but then should be reviewed in detail. Therefore, my question is really one of process because it seems to me that our views on the Bill could be very different if we are looking at something that will do up until the next election. For example, I believe that in the longer term staff costs will need to be incorporated in some way because they could make a real difference in terms of promoting or procuring electoral success. However, at the same time, I would not want to see an unacceptable burden imposed on the “small platoons” who would find it very difficult to account for those costs.

If we are talking about a process whereby we come up with something that people can live with until the next election, and the Government will then review it and look at how these things work in practice and examine what the real issues are that we are trying to guard against, I would be much more comfortable about the debate we have had this afternoon, and not need to dot all the “i”s and cross all the “t”s, as my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham indicated.

[Lord Morgan (Lab)]

My Lords, I did not intend to speak in this debate but I wish to comment briefly in support of the amendment moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon, which was supported by the noble Lords, Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Wigley. It seems to me that if that amendment is not accepted, the consequence would be both unfair and illogical. It would be unfair because the Welsh language would be regarded as a burden and an additional incubus on an organisation rather than as something that ought to happen naturally, and which was sanctioned by the law in 1967 and 1993. It would also be illogical because it would run counter to what has happened over many decades in civil society in Wales and elsewhere such as local government, the social services and, in my own experience, in higher education. When I was vice-chancellor of the University of Wales, which is now almost defunct, significant procedures were in place for translating papers into Welsh and back into English and facilities for simultaneous translation. These were a natural part of our working processes in the university and, importantly, did not impose an extra charge. They did not take money away, as it were, from education, teaching or research.

This brief debate has shown that constitutional law and legal proceedings have often lagged behind what is happening in civil society or, frankly, have lagged behind common sense. I was struck by that when I listened to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. He referred to the Act of Union of 1536, which was an almost totalitarian measure intended to extinguish the Welsh language for public purposes. However, it was nullified by other developments in Wales at that time, not in the legal or political spheres but particularly by developments in religion. The most important phenomenon of that century was the translation of the Bible into Welsh by Bishop Morgan, although I am afraid that I cannot claim him as an ancestor. That seems to be a way in which civil society has civilised and nullified the effect of constitutional law, and I hope that it will do so again.

18:59

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I declare my interests at this point. They are quite wide-ranging in relation to charities and non-charitable organisations, and they are listed in the legislative scrutiny report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

I want to declare my support for the amendments tabled on behalf of the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement. While I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Horam, that it is not unusual for this House to take a number of amendments together, I point out that the Electoral Commission emphasised that we have to consider the cumulative impact of a number of different parts of this legislation. This was also a point emphasised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, so it is not inappropriate for us to consider the way these amendments hang together. I think they do hang together.

I simply want to highlight very briefly a few of the points covered by them. The first is the question of access to information for disabled people, which has already been talked about very powerfully. This is a question of equity. It costs more to provide that information and it is only equitable that that is taken into account.

The second point, which we have not talked about as much, is the question of public meetings. The NCVO in its latest briefing picked this up, referring to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and our concern about the possible impact of this part of the legislation on the human right to freedom of association. That is very important. The NCVO refers to a number of organisations having flagged this up, particularly with regard to disability, welfare and social security reform issues. The concern is about the high cost associated with organising a rally of some form and the subsequent impact this would have on campaigning activity through the rest of a regulated period. I hope the Government might consider looking again at public meetings being covered by the legislation.

The final point is on the question of the definition of “supporters”. I was struck that the commission’s report pointed out that this matter was simply not considered by the House of Commons during its debates. I went to the launch of the commission’s second report, where one of its members spoke very convincingly about the importance of taking account of how membership of organisations has changed and said that the legislation has not caught up with this. The commission’s report states:

“We heard evidence about the need for a definition of supporters which reflects the contemporary way in which members of the public lend their support to organisations and campaigns including by email and social media—not just financial supporters”.

I am not sure which of the competing amendments is right, but it seems to me essential that one of these amendments should be accepted, and that we have a more up-to-date understanding of what it means to support voluntary organisations.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 163A, another in this rather large group. I declare my interest as a member of the advisory board of the National Council of Voluntary Organisations, the NCVO, which is a key organisation in seeking amendments to the Bill and supplementing the brilliant work of the civil society commission chaired by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. I am grateful to him for his support for this amendment, and to the NCVO for its briefing on this amendment.

This amendment joins so many others in seeking to preserve the freedoms of not-for-profit organisations seeking to influence government and decision-makers. In the case of this amendment the issue is the new list of activities, the costs of which count as qualifying expenses and lead to regulation. The list now includes public rallies or other public meetings where expenses include costs in connection with the attendance of persons at the event, the hire of premises and provision of goods, services and facilities. So this is about all costs associated with freedom of association at rallies and other public meetings. A potential problem here is acknowledged by the Government’s human rights memorandum, which noted that,

“more things (such as for example, costs associated with the organisation of rallies and events) will count towards spending limits and require control. This engages Article 10 and 11”.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has expressed concern about the possible impact of the broadened list of activities on the freedom of association. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has just referred to this. A number of organisations, notably those interested in disability and welfare reform issues, have flagged the concern that the high costs associated with organising a rally of some form would have a major impact on campaigning activity throughout the rest of a regulated period.

Perhaps I could share three examples of organisations and their activities that would be covered by the new rules and lead to disproportionately onerous bureaucracy and burdens, which could effectively prevent those organisations campaigning in ways that they have done in the past.

The first is the case of the Countryside Alliance’s opposition to the hunting ban in 2001 and 2005—an example that is known to a number of your Lordships. In the run-up to the 2001 and 2005 general elections, the alliance mobilised its supporters and the general public against the hunting ban—activities which in total required a pretty high level of expenditure, including demonstrations and rallies against the hunting ban, press conferences to promote the event, transport costs for those attending the events, and producing and distributing leaflets to promote the events. The Countryside Alliance is not linked to any one political party. However, because the issue of hunting can be seen as highly partisan, with the hunting ban more associated with the Labour Party, all the costs incurred in these events would have counted towards the alliance’s expenditure. Had the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 been amended as the Bill proposes at the time the hunting Bill made its way through Parliament, the ability of organisations such as the alliance to oppose the proposed ban and organise marches and rallies would have been severely curtailed.

Secondly, in the run up to the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009 and the UK general election in 2010, the organisations in the Stop Climate Chaos coalition worked on a range of events, including outdoor rallies; the Wave, a march through London attended by 50,000 supporters; and schools’ conferences held with schools from across England to talk about climate change, with MPs invited to a panel debate. Under the new rules proposed by the Bill, even if lower spending limits are not pursued, it is likely that the various activities carried out by the coalition would have exceeded the maximum amount allowed, forcing the coalition to stop its campaigning.

Thirdly and finally, the Women’s Institute’s Great Food Debate involved a programme of work on food security and was launched at an event in York in December 2012 with a report on food security. The event was free, open to the public and included a panel at which the Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson MP, gave a keynote speech. Members of the WI and members of the public attended the launch and debate, with another in Cardiff the following month. The Great Food Debate is designed to explore the concept of pressure on the food system and provide an opportunity to engage with the public. The National Federation of Women’s Institutes encourages WIs all over the country to replicate its national work by hosting their own local and regional Great Food Debates. All this generated significant media coverage, including local and regional coverage. The Great Food Debate is certainly not supportive of any particular party but the media reporting of the events placed the debates and work programme in a political context, as exemplified by headlines such as the following in the Daily Mail:

“Put cooking back on the national curriculum to tackle obesity timebomb and stop pupils wasting food, urges WI”.

The Daily Telegraph read:

“TV cooks should give us recipes for leftovers to cut waste, says Minister”,

and:

“Teach all children to cook in schools, says Women’s Institute”.

In addition, the Environment Secretary used the platform as an opportunity to call for further consideration by the public of GM and agritechnology. If the Bill is passed and these events were held in the 12 months before one of the elections covered by it, the related costs would take the National Federation of Women’s Institutes over the registration threshold, with all the consequences that that would imply. All local WIs and federations would have to register as third-party campaigners with the Electoral Commission because the NFWI would have spent more than the registration threshold in creating the materials to help members hold their own debates. Federations and WIs in this scenario would then have to take on all the regulatory burdens associated with that.

It is good to hear that the Government will be bringing forward changes that will increase substantially the cash thresholds for registration. Amendment 163A helps that process by taking out one element that could disproportionately affect the total spending by voluntary bodies in this grey area of non-partisan campaigning. It diminishes the unintended chilling effect of the Bill, which otherwise seems likely directly to deter voluntary bodies from organising the free association of people at rallies and public events, and indirectly to reduce engagement of the sector in important campaigning activity.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for a giving such a thorough explanation of why the Government need to take away Schedule 3 and think again. The many increases in activities that count towards qualifying expenses in this part of the Bill account for a great deal of its unworkability, and for the concerns and fears that have been raised in civil society. My noble friend Lady Lister rightly spoke of the cumulative effect of the various measures in the Bill, but I suggest that this schedule has a profound effect on people’s views of it.

The Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, said that volunteers would not be covered in the Bill, but that is not enough. It is clear that the main problem with Schedule 3 is the inclusion of staff costs as a qualifying expense. Political parties are not subject to this requirement and it is therefore unclear why the Government believe that charities and NGOs should be. It is worth looking at the original document from the Electoral Commission that the Government claim as the inspiration for some of the Bill. It said, as regards counting the staff time of political parties:

“Bringing directly employed staff costs within the scope of the spending controls would have significant implications, which would need to be considered before the change could be implemented. It would impose new administrative burdens on parties, and the detail of what spending is covered would need to be carefully considered and defined”.

The report continued:

“It could take up a significant part of the larger parties’ campaign spending under the current spending limits and the spending limits would therefore need to be re-visited”.

If this is the case for political parties, the same would apply to charities and NGOs. Indeed, they have presented a great deal of evidence about the burden that would be placed on them. Amnesty International has pointed out that during an election period it produces manifestos on human rights, organises hustings, undertakes pledge-card activity and co-ordinates media activities. These activities could mean that the new spending thresholds would be met, and therefore staff time would have to meet new reporting requirements that would seriously draw on resources—a reminder that with this Bill it is often the new provisions taken together that would work to stifle democratic expression. That is what the larger organisations fear. The smaller ones, however, would struggle to an even greater extent to meet the onerous reporting requirements.

The NCVO has presented a case study that amply demonstrates this. If, for instance, a small disability charity campaigning on welfare reform employs an additional member of staff to run local campaigns in the run-up to the election, the charity must account for the person’s time and monitor which activities undertaken by local groups could amount to controlled expenditure. Even if a simple approach were taken by looking at a yearly salary, this could immediately bring the organisation over the threshold—for example, one public affairs officer on £30,000 per year. Surely the Government, who talk so often and so loudly about reducing red tape, are not prepared to place such a regulatory burden on charities. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, cited the example of the RSPB, which contends that the impact assessment prepared for Part 2 understates the extent to which it will mean that charities and NGOs will have to spend money on administration rather than on their core work. The RSPB states:

“This would siphon money away from conservation work and amount to an unnecessarily onerous regulatory burden: more than the £0–800 per organisation for implementation estimated in the Impact Assessment”.

19:15

Unfortunately, staff costs are not the only additional requirement. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, also raised the important point that charities understandably are mindful of staffing costs. Fortunately, noble Lords have in many of the amendments in this group presented the Government with options that they can use to remove the increased burden that the Bill presents. We heard many compelling instances and speeches, not least the preceding one made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, citing the case made by the excellent NCVO. The case of the Countryside Alliance and the hunting ban is instructive, and I hope that the Minister will answer that specific point. The noble Lord, Lord Best, was also right to point out that it is the media that put a political perspective into many of the campaigns. I am not entirely sure how one can provide for that in the Bill.

The amendment in the names of my noble and learned friend Lord Morris and the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, takes the critical step of excluding from campaign expenditure translation into Welsh or English. As my noble and learned friend said, English and Welsh should have equal validity, which should not be jeopardised by the Bill. Noble Lords have spoken of Lord Roberts of Conwy, who did so much for the Welsh language. I have to say that were he here this evening, I have no doubt that he would support the amendment. As my noble and learned friend pointed out, the Bill as drafted could mean that an organisation might choose not to publish its campaign material in Welsh in order not to breach the spending limits. Not only would this be bad, but it could turn out to be illegal in relation to the 1993 Act.

Amendments 161A and 165B, in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, carry the weight of authority that stems from a genuine consultation. Like other amendments, they have the effect of removing staff costs and the costs of translation services from the list of qualifying expenses. They also make a number of other proposals for expenses that should not be included. The cost of security, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Horam, is important in the context of Northern Ireland. Given the sympathy that the Minister earlier expressed with regard to the specific circumstances in relation to Northern Ireland, I imagine that the Government will wish to take up this suggestion, as they will with the cost of making documents accessible to the visually impaired, or those who are disabled or who have learning difficulties—or, indeed, the transport costs of people with disabilities.

I am sure that the Minister will accept these sensible suggestions, otherwise there is effectively a higher marginal regulatory burden for charities and NGOs that want to campaign around issues surrounding disabilities. That would not be fair. Access to information for disabled people should be a right that should not be curtailed. I was interested in the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, about the needs of people with learning or other disabilities who are grappling with the justice system. I sympathise with his question: why should people be put into fear simply because of sloppy or inappropriate drafting? I cannot imagine that that is what the Government would have wished to include in the Bill.

I note Amendment 160J in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and other amendments in the group and will return to them at a later stage. I certainly support Amendment 165C, which removes the power of the Secretary of State in Schedule 3 to amend Part 1 by order. I have a deal of sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, in respect of research papers and look forward to the Minister’s reply, as well as his reply in relation to the issue of conferences that might unintentionally be judged to be political in the run-up to an election. I hope that when the Minister responds, he will be able to allay the fears of those who have spoken, and will promise that when the Government return on Report, they will have made significant changes to the kinds of spending that count as qualified expenses.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, I thank your Lordships for an extremely wide-ranging debate on qualified expenses in controlled expenditure. I will endeavour to go through all the points that were made. If there are any that I have not picked up on immediately, I will reflect on all of them—as will my noble and learned friend—because clearly there are a number of issues in this group that the Government will certainly want to bring back at Report.

Schedule 3 inserts a new Schedule 8A into the PPERA Act 2000. That new schedule expands the activities on which expenditure by a recognised third party will be controlled expenditure. Under existing legislation, only expenditure on election material made available to the public is controlled expenditure. This is retained as an activity that counts towards controlled expenditure within this Bill. However, the new schedule extends the range of activities that are qualifying expenses for the purposes of controlled expenditure. These include: market research involving the public or canvassing; public rallies and other public events, excluding annual conferences; press conferences or other organised media events; and transport.

Again—I emphasise this—the essential qualification is that these would count as controlled expenditure only if the expenditure could reasonably be regarded as being intended to promote or procure the electoral success of a party or candidate. Where the activities were unconnected—for some other charitable, campaigning or commercial purpose of an organisation, for example—they would not be included.

The list of activities in the new schedule closely aligns the activities of third parties that incur controlled expenditure with those of political parties. This was recommended by the Electoral Commission in its June 2013 report, A regulatory review of the UK’s party and election finance laws: Recommendations for change.

I now turn to Amendment 159G in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. This would amend Clause 26 so that costs incurred by third parties translating materials from English to Welsh or Welsh to English would be excluded. I am very conscious of the Welsh Language Act 1993, and, as I was reflecting on the debate today, I considered precisely what my late friend Lord Roberts of Conwy would have thought about these matters. He was such a well respected figure in this House on all sides, and I am pretty confident as to what he would be telling me now.

It is the case, interestingly, that under that Act—which places an obligation on public bodies—political parties, candidates and third parties do not fall under the definition of a public body. Therefore, there is no legal obligation to translate election materials from English to Welsh or Welsh to English. However, having said that, the Government believe that the Welsh Language Act 1993 includes an obligation to treat Welsh and English on an equal basis and that there is a strong and compelling case for translation costs to be excluded. The noble Lords, Lord Elystan-Morgan, Lord Wigley and Lord Morgan, made that very clear as well, with references to 1,500 years of language and the Act of Union, so the Government will consider how this exclusion would operate and will want to return to this important issue on Report. I hope that that will be helpful to the noble and learned Lord.

I also want to raise the issue of committed supporters. Amendment 160J, in the name of my noble friend Lord Tyler, amends Schedule 3 so that costs associated with sending material to committed supporters would be excluded from the calculation of cost-controlled expenditure. The costs of sending material to members or certain supporters are already excluded, as PPERA and the Bill make clear. The material or activity must be available or open to the public, which for these purposes would not include those members or supporters. As the existing Electoral Commission guidance makes clear, the exact nature of a committed supporter will vary between organisations, but could include regular donors by direct debit, people with an annual subscription or people who are actively involved in a third party.

However, this amendment goes very much further than that: it defines committed supporters as those who have made a donation to the recognised third party, those who have made a direct communication to the recognised third party, or those who have consented to receiving communications from it in the past 12 months. In the Government’s view, this would greatly, and unacceptably, widen the exclusion. At present, the Electoral Commission does not consider people to be committed supporters if they have simply signed up to a social networking site or tools, or to appear on mailing lists that may have been compiled for general commercial, campaigning or other purposes.

The Government believe that the Electoral Commission guidance is the correct approach to outlining a committed supporter. This was also the view the other place took when, in reverting to the existing definition of controlled expenditure, it removed the specific definition of committed supporter from the Bill as introduced. Of course, the Government also acknowledge that in discussion with third parties, from community groups to charities, the need for clear guidance is of vital importance. The Electoral Commission is aware of the important role its guidance plays and is committed to providing such guidance in good time for campaigners.

I now turn to Amendment 160H, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. She said it was a probing amendment, but it would remove election materials from the list of activities for which third parties would incur controlled expenditure. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, the PPERA Act 2000 stems from a report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Both that report and Parliament, through the passing of the 2000 Act, made clear that it was reasonable and sensible for third parties who sought to, or could reasonably be regarded as intending to, promote or procure the electoral success of a party or candidate should be subject to regulation. Under the Act, recognised third parties incur controlled expenditure only on election material that is made available to the public and that seeks to promote or procure electoral success. Election material covers items such as leaflets, unsolicited mail to electors, and manifestos. It does not include factual policy documents aimed at policymakers.

As I have three godchildren studying medicine, I am very conscious that the BMA plays a very important part not only in public life but in furnishing the debate on what we all seek to do, which is improve the nation’s health. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, will know very much better than I that the BMA publishes factual, evidence-based reports on a full range of issues covering ethical, scientific and public health matters and health service reform. Examples of such documents include publications on child health and well-being, drugs of dependence, transport and health, and a vision for general practice. These publications are factual and, as the noble Baroness said, geared towards policymakers. They are not aimed at the electorate with a view to procure or promote the electoral success of a party or a candidate and do not fall under the regulatory regime set out in the Bill or indeed current legislation.

19:30

Noble Lords will be aware that for items such as leaflets, unsolicited mail and manifestoes to be brought into the regime they must be promoting electoral success. I emphasise that where this is not the case, a third party, be it a charity or a voluntary organisation, will not have to account for this spend as controlled expenditure.

The Government are keenly aware that campaigners will want to understand how to comply with the provisions of the regulatory regime as amended by the Bill. Indeed, this has been a recurring theme of the meetings that my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire and colleagues have had with charities, voluntary organisations, campaigners and the commission of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. The Electoral Commission is already planning comprehensive guidance for campaigners and charities. The Government stand ready to support that work.

The exclusion of electoral material dealt with in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, would strike at the heart of the regime. PPERA’s controls would be worthless. Therefore, the amendment would not be supported by the Electoral Commission.

On issues relating to market research and polling intentions, Amendment 161 in the name of my noble friend Lord Greaves would amend Schedule 3 so that market research would not be an activity that would count as controlled expenditure. Instead, only canvassing undertaken by a third party, with members of the public, would count as controlled expenditure.

Amendment 161A would amend Schedule 3 so that controlled expenditure on market research and canvassing would be incurred only where this was for the purpose of ascertaining intentions. The Government, in close consultation with the Electoral Commission, have been specific as to the activities that will count towards controlled expenditure. Market research was included alongside canvassing to capture activities that could be seen as promoting or procuring the electoral success of a party or candidate. Because of the different nature of the activities of third parties, it goes wider than just canvassing for polling intentions and covers more specifically party activity.

I turn to an example of this, which is push polling. It is a marketing technique in which an individual or organisation attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. Many push polls are negative attacks on candidates. They may ask questions such as, “If you knew that candidate X was being investigated for corruption, would you be more likely to vote for him, or less likely?” The question does not state that any investigation has taken place, so it is not a lie, but it puts in the respondent’s mind the idea that candidate X may be corrupt. Push polling is an effective way of maligning an opponent. I sense that this may be a new concept.

[Lord Rooker]

In Australia.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

To answer the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, this is a technique used widely in America. Although it is not prevalent here, if we leave an unregulated space for it we run the risk that we will see it here. I do not think that any of your Lordships would want something like this to take hold as it has in America. By removing market research from the list of activities which incur controlled expenditure, we believe that we open up a potential gap. Therefore, we have these concerns.

Amendment 162, which deals with media events, would amend Schedule 3 so that only press conferences organised by a recognised third party would count as controlled expenditure. Organised media events are included alongside press conferences to capture activities with the media which could be seen as promoting or procuring the electoral success of a party or candidate, but which is wider than just press conferences. We recognise that the normal meaning of “press conferences” is likely to catch most organised media events, but we do not want to leave reasons for doubt as to what may or may not be covered by that specific term. That would create unnecessary ambiguity.

The Government have therefore worked closely with the Electoral Commission and interested parties to ensure that the correct balance is struck in terms of the media activities we are seeking to bring into the regime. We do not want, nor does the Bill provide for, ad hoc dealings with the media to be regarded as controlled expenditure. However, where a third party organises a press conference or other media event which could reasonably be regarded as promoting or procuring the electoral success of a candidate or party, that is activity that should be regarded as controlled expenditure and accounted for by means of transparency accordingly. By removing other media events from the list of activities that count as controlled expenditure, we open up a potential ambiguity and a potential gap in the regulatory regime.

Turning to the amendments dealing with transport, Amendment 163 would amend Schedule 3 so that controlled expenditure would not be incurred in respect of transporting people to a place or places with a view to obtaining publicity. The Government acknowledge the particular issues that this may raise for campaigners or for those working with people with disabilities, and that costs associated with the transport of people with a disability may need to be excluded from controlled expenditure. The Government wish to consider this issue carefully and will revisit this subject on Report.

A number of amendments deal with public rallies and conferences. They would extend the exclusion of conferences to all conferences, not just those held annually, and confirm that costs associated with persons attending a public rally or other public event would not be included as controlled expenditure. The amendments would remove public rallies from the list of activities.

This is so important so I repeat that only public rallies or public events that promote or procure the electoral success of a party or candidates would count as controlled expenditure. The Government listened to the concerns of charities and trade unions and brought forward an amendment in the other place to exclude annual conferences. That is the same exclusion applicable to political parties.

I wanted to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, that I am assured that all annual conferences of the BMA would be excluded, as would those of any other organisation that had more than one annual conference. Additionally, if a recognised third party were to hire a conference centre and invite only its members or committed supporters, that would not count as controlled expenditure.

However, if a third party were to hold a rally or meeting in a public park or hold a protest in Whitehall seeking to promote or procure the electoral success of a party or candidates, the Government believe that this activity should count as controlled expenditure. I emphasise that the Bill does not prevent such activities taking place, just that such activity is properly accounted for.

I want to refer to the Countryside Alliance, as I spent 15 years of my existence supporting that excellent organisation. I was on the barricades many times with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and I think that we had right on our side. But we were punctilious about not promoting or procuring the electoral advantage of a party or candidate. I am conscious that the noble Baroness sits on the opposite Bench from me; in fact the person who chairs the organisation sits in the other place as a Labour Member of Parliament. We were punctilious about these matters.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, spoke about Great Food Debate events. I simply cannot see how they would promote the electoral success of parties or candidates. In other words, I do not see that a reasonable person would suggest that a Great Food Debate was about promoting parties or candidates. They are about engaging in the political process; certainly not about promoting electoral success.

The Government are keen to strike the correct balance because we want to ensure that where there is promotion and procurement of electoral success, there is transparency, it is understood and is open to the public. However, we are very conscious that we need to preserve the freedom to speak out on issues that we expect and want civil society in this country to enjoy. It is part of the essence of our democracy that civil society should not feel that this is a Bill which presents them with these difficulties.

The Government acknowledge, for instance, that there is a case for excluding the costs associated with security and safety around a public rally. A number of noble Lords have mentioned Northern Ireland in this respect, and it comes very much as part of the recommendations made by the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, raised Northern Ireland in particular, so the Government will consider this issue carefully and return to the matter on Report.

Further amendments have been tabled on staff, translation, accessibility, and security and safety costs. My noble friend Lord Tyler, speaking to his Amendment 165A, talked about whether the costs associated with staff directly employed by the third party would be excluded from the calculation of costs for controlled expenditure on transport, press conferences, organised media events, and public rallies and events. Staff costs would be included for electoral materials, canvassing and market research.

A further amendment from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, concerns the costs associated with staffing for the provision of materials in translation or in an accessible form for those with physical or learning disabilities, safety and security measures, and communications with third parties, with committed supporters being excluded. The PPERA Act 2000 has always required third parties to account for staff costs, a point made specifically by my noble friend Lord Tyler. The Bill, while extending the range of activities that may incur controlled expenditure, retains the need for staff costs to be excluded. I know that concern has been expressed by third parties regarding staff costs and by your Lordships today: first, that third parties have to account for these costs while political parties do not; and, secondly, to the difficulties for third parties in calculating staff time. On the issue of third parties having to account for these costs while political parties do not, noble Lords will be aware that when Parliament passed the PPERA Act, it was felt to be transparent and proportionate for a third party to account for staff time. This was on the basis that a third party undertakes activities rather than political campaigning where the third party enters into political campaigning to procure the success of a candidate or party. There was a feeling then that spending on these purposes should be transparent.

All of that said, the Government acknowledge that there are genuine concerns regarding the issue of the calculation of staff costs. It is important that a balance is struck between transparency and proportionate reporting requirements. In terms of excluding the costs associated with translating materials, making materials more accessible to those with physical or learning difficulties—the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, specifically raised this issue, and rightly so—the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement covered these points in an extremely valid way. The Government support ensuring that materials are accessible to all electors and they have received representations related to translating materials. We have heard from campaigners, and some very important points have been made about Northern Ireland, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. I want to confirm again that the Government will be considering these issues carefully in the light of today’s debate and we will return to them on Report.

The Government also acknowledge that in discussion with third parties from community groups to charities, there is a need for clear guidance; that is of vital importance. The Electoral Commission is aware of the important role its guidance plays and it is committed to providing such guidance in good time for campaigners.

I turn now to the order-making powers and a number of amendments which have been tabled in this regard. The Electoral Commission’s regulatory review, published in June 2013, made it clear that the PPERA Act does not provide the flexibility to update the rules on non-party campaigning through secondary legislation. This is in contrast with the list of items defined as controlled expenditure for political parties, which can be amended through secondary legislation. The Government support the recommendation of the Electoral Commission, and provision has been provided in the Bill. The order-making power, as with other similar powers in PPERA, will apply either after consultation with the Electoral Commission or to give effect to a recommendation of the commission. Parliament will be able to scrutinise and debate any order that is put forward in the usual way. The order-making power is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Such a power allows the regulatory framework to respond to changes in campaign activities and methods of campaigning. This flexibility would be greatly reduced and the regulatory regime could be undermined if such changes could be made only through primary legislation.

19:46

[Lord Rooker]

I would like to ask the Minister a question. When this was raised by a colleague—I do not know who it was—it related to Schedule 3 which, on page 58 in paragraph 3 of new Schedule 8A, sets out the power to amend Part 1. Is there a connection between sub-paragraphs (1) and (2)? Sub-paragraph (1) reads as:

“The Secretary of State may by order make such amendments of Part 1 of this Schedule as he considers appropriate”.

That stands on its own, but sub-paragraph (2) states that he,

“may make such an order”,

after he has received a recommendation from the commission. Surely it should read that he may make an order “only” after he has a recommendation from the commission. Is sub-paragraph (1) dependent on sub-paragraph (2)? The Minister may not answer me now, but I hope that he will do so at some point because it looks like a real Henry VIII power and it is not explained properly. There is no connection between sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), but I think there should be.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I suspect that I may want to avail myself of the noble Lord’s very kind suggestion. In order to get the intricacies of this right, I probably need to look at it. It is important that we get this right throughout the process.

Perhaps I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that I think that my noble and learned friend has made it clear that the Government fully intend there to be a review as part of the amendments that will come through on Report. There will be a review after the general election in 2015.

This group of amendments reflects the fact that the Government want to get this absolutely right. Points have been made on all sides of the Committee which the Government will return to on Report. Given the hour, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me that if there are any outstanding points I find in Hansard, I will respond to them.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, perhaps I may ask for a point of clarification. In responding to the questions about the Countryside Alliance and the hunting Bill, I think the noble Lord talked about being very careful not to promote the electoral prospects of a party. However, Clause 26 talks about “prejudicing” the electoral prospects of other parties or candidates. That relates to the Countryside Alliance and the ban on hunting, but I would also cite the example of the demonstrations held against the Iraq war. They could have been seen to be prejudicial to the electoral prospects of a certain party, in that case my own. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could clarify that either this evening or on a future occasion, because it is a terribly important point.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I will want to reflect precisely on that but will just reaffirm that the Countryside Alliance was punctilious because it was an apolitical organisation. The person who chairs it is the Member of Parliament for Vauxhall, and I very much doubt that there was any suggestion at all that she was in any way going to be subject, shall we say, to an attack for an anti-Labour stance. I will reflect on the two points that the noble Baroness has made.

In conclusion, I will respond to any outstanding points, but at this juncture, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord might consider—

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

Before the Minister sits down I express my appreciation of the fact that he has obviously given very detailed attention to a lot of very specific points and has indicated he will be responsive to them. I would just urge him on one thing. A particular concern for charities and campaigners, which he perhaps did not emphasise much, was this overall question of staff costs. They believe that it either is unworkable or would impose a huge regulatory burden. Will he take seriously the recommendation of the Electoral Commission that, for the 2015 election at any rate, they are excluded altogether?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I will want to reflect on that particular point. I am not in a position to say how the staff costs issue will be dealt with but I reassure the noble and right reverend Lord that it is part of the considerations. Perhaps I might ask the noble and learned Lord again whether he might feel in a position to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s very careful reply and thank him for it. I will withdraw my amendment, but take the opportunity, since Wyn Roberts was mentioned, to say that he was a great and distinguished Member of this House and a friend to many noble Lords, in my case long before he became a Member of Parliament. His long tenure in the Welsh Office is reflected in part—and only in part—by the 1993 Act, to which I have referred and which will always be his memorial in Wales. However, my case of course goes further back than that, to the 1967 Act on the Welsh language, introduced by Cledwyn Hughes. Furthermore, even the 1942 Act, referred to by my noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan, dealt specifically with the issue of costs in the courts.

The Minister has told us that there is a strong and compelling case for costs to be considered and that the Government will want to return to that point. I listened to that and am grateful for it. I am surprised that the Welsh language issue was not taken into account in the preparation for this Bill. That perhaps shows that the Bill, as we go on to debate various amendments in Committee, may become more and more unworkable. However, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment and thank the Minister for his careful consideration.

Amendment 159G withdrawn.

House resumed. Committee not to begin again before 8.54 pm.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Monday 16th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Commons Reason

19:54

Motion A

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 41, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 41A.

41: Insert the following new Clause—
“PART 4
CONDUCT OF PERSONS WORKING IN FINANCIAL SERVICES SECTOR
Amendments of FSMA 2000
Professional standards After section 65 of FSMA 2000 insert—
“65A Professional standards
(1) The regulator will raise standards of professionalism in financial services by mandating a licensing regime based on training and competence.
(2) This licensing regime must—
(a) apply to all approved persons exercising controlled functions, regardless of financial sector;
(b) specify minimum thresholds of competence including integrity, professional qualifications, continuous professional development and adherence to a recognised code of conduct and revised Banking Standards Rules;
(c) make provisions in connection with—
(i) the granting of a licence;
(ii) the refusal of a licence;
(iii) the withdrawal of a licence; and
(iv) the revalidation of a licensed person of a prescribed description whenever the appropriate regulator sees fit, either as a condition of the person continuing to hold a licence or of the person’s licence being restored;
(d) be evidenced by individuals holding an annual validation of competence;
(e) include specific provision for a Senior Persons Regime in relation to activities involving the exercise of a significant influence over a controlled function under section 59 of the Act.
(3) In section 59, for “authorised” substitute “licensed” throughout the section.””
Commons Disagreement and Reason
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 41 for the following reason—
41A Because Lords Amendments Nos. 42 to 57 make more appropriate provision about the standards of those working in the financial services sector, and Lords Amendment No. 41 is incompatible with the provision made by those Lords Amendments.

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton) (Con)]

My Lords, I am recommending that your Lordships do not insist on this amendment and I of course support the reason the other place has put forward. I hope that I will be able to convince your Lordships, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that the amendments the Government put forward in this House address the concerns of the noble Lord and the Official Opposition.

In essence, the Opposition are seeking to bring in a regime of annual licensing for bankers operated by the regulators, which would be supported by requirements about professional qualifications and minimum levels of competence. They also seek a code of conduct for bankers. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his constructive and thoughtful contribution to the debate on these professional training standards. First, I will set out how the amendments tabled by the Government, following the PCBS recommendations, already deliver the improved professionalism and higher standards of conduct that Amendment 41 seeks. Then I will explain the ways in which Amendment 41 is incompatible with the PCBS proposals, which had at their heart the need for banks to take responsibility for standards in their organisations, which is essential if the culture of banking is to improve.

First, on the code of conduct, Lords Amendment 54, tabled in Committee, already provides for the regulators to make rules of conduct for all bank staff. The regulators will be able to create a set of banking standards rules for people working in banks, just as the PCBS recommended. These banking standards rules will be able to do everything that a code of conduct would do.

Secondly, on ensuring a minimum standard of professionalism and qualifications, Lords Amendment 45 provides for banks and PRA-regulated investment firms to check that candidates for regulatory pre-approval to perform a specified function are fit and proper before they submit an application to the regulator for that approval. As part of this process, they will have to have regard to whether the candidate has obtained a qualification, has been trained or is undergoing training, or possesses a level of competence set out in the regulator’s rules. The regulator will of course have to confirm that those candidates are fit and proper, including by virtue of having the appropriate qualifications, before approving candidates to specified functions.

Thirdly, Lords Amendment 53, which provides for the new certification regime recommended by the parliamentary commission, requires banks and PRA-regulated investment firms to certify that candidates for significant-harm functions are fit and proper, including by having regard to whether the employee has obtained the qualifications, training or competence set out in a regulator’s rules. This certification will have to happen each year, so there will be an ongoing requirement to consider the training and competence of their staff.

In sum, the government amendments provide for a code of conduct, emphasis on ensuring that candidates for working in functions that could significantly harm the bank have minimum qualifications and annual certification. Those are the three central elements of Lords Amendment 41.

I will explain briefly why Amendment 41 is incompatible with, not complementary to, the PCBS proposals. Lords Amendment 41 would impose the requirement for annual validation and checking on the regulator, not the banks. The whole thrust of the PCBS recommendations was that primary responsibility for maintaining standards should reside with the banks themselves. The PCBS said:

“Banks should not be able to offload their duties and responsibilities for monitoring and enforcing individual behaviour on to the regulator or on to professional bodies. The tools at their disposal have the potential to be much more usable, effective and proportionate for the majority of cases than external enforcement”.

20:00

The heart of the new regime is that the banks cannot hide behind the regulator in enforcing standards, but that is what Lords Amendment 41 would go back to. In Commons consideration of Lords amendments, the chair of the PCBS, the honourable Member for Chichester, Andrew Tyrie said:

“The purpose of licensing, or certification, is to ensure that banks themselves have identified those employees—whether traders, senior salespersons, financial managers or whatever—who can do serious harm to the bank or to markets … It should be the responsibility of banks, using methods that best fit their organisation, to maintain a certification system, and it should be the responsibility of regulators—using periodic checks—to ensure that they do. Just to be clear, it should certainly not be the job of the regulators to try to identify all these staff themselves. That would guarantee the return of the very bureaucratic box-ticking that we want to leave behind with the abolition of the APR.”—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/13; col. 266.]

As Mr Tyrie alludes to, the independent regulator will be central to this new regime but will, instead of doing the banks’ job for them, be more properly focused on setting the standards of conduct, determining the significant-harm functions, deciding the necessary qualifications and, crucially, holding banks to account for their compliance with the regime. For example, a bank’s failure to properly abide by the certification regime would be a breach of the requirement under the Act, which could lead to enforcement action by the regulator.

Therefore, I put it to the House that the amendments put forward by the Government to implement the recommendations of the parliamentary commission will deliver the results that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the Official Opposition seek. In addition, they will ensure that the banks cannot hide behind the regulator in enforcing standards. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, will agree that this House should not insist on Lords Amendment 41. I beg to move.

Motion A1

Moved by

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

As an amendment to Motion A, leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 41”.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Eatwell. We are in but, we hope, moving towards the end of the worst financial crisis in most of our lifetimes. We will not agree on the reasons for this crisis, as we have proved when we have touched on it over the past several months. However, I think all noble Lords agree that some part of it related to the regulation and structure of the banking sector. We have had several White Papers on this subject and the Vickers report. We have had two financial Bills, of which this is the second. Half way through this process, there was a discontinuity when the LIBOR scandal changed the mood and grounds of the debate. We all hoped it was a one-off, just as we hoped RBS and Northern Rock were one-offs, but from that scandal onwards unease about the sector has continued to grow. Other banks—HSBC and the Co-op—were involved in mis-selling, but what really hit me was the latest report on the Lloyds Bank issue, which brought out how deep mis-selling has gone in these organisations. The FCA press release states:

“For a Lloyds TSB adviser on a mid-level salary, not hitting 90% of their target over a period of 9 months could see their base annual salary drop from £33,706 to £25,927; and if they were demoted by two levels their base pay would drop to £18,189—almost a 50% salary cut. In the worst example that the FCA saw, an adviser sold protection products to himself, his wife and a colleague in order to hit his target and prevent himself from being demoted”.

This final debate is about the whole issue of standards and culture. As a result of the LIBOR scandal, Parliament decided to set up the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. As Mr Tyrie said in the other place today, its role was to,

“consider and report on professional standards and culture of the UK banking sector”.

We hope to tease out this issue by insisting on this amendment.

We are not happy—nobody can be happy—with the way this Bill has progressed. It started in your Lordships’ House 35 pages long and it was more than 200 pages long when it left. In the other place, it had a two-hour debate. The Minister had barely got to Amendment 41 in his winding-up before the debate was terminated by the guillotine. This is unsatisfactory. Other elements of the Bill have, in many ways, been a model of good practice which I hope will be taken up in future. My parliamentary experience is not long enough to be sure, but I think the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards is an innovation. It has been a good one, roundly approved by all sides of the House and I thank its members, two of whom are in their place tonight.

I also commend the Government for the graceful way they have bowed to the wisdom of the commission and the size of our voting power. The combination of the two has been, in most places, most satisfactory. What is now left between the Official Opposition and the Government? One thing that is not left is the duty of care. We wish we had carried that amendment, which could have made a big impact on standards and culture in the future. Unfortunately, we were unable to persuade the House. We are left with professional standards and it is on these that we want to emphasise our differences. I wish the process had not ended up with 150-plus pages of the Bill being discussed in two hours in the other place. More extensive and thoughtful work on this area might have achieved the level of consensus that the Minister hopes for.

I wish to make four points about the amendment which are subtly, but importantly, different. The first relates to the term “licensing”: the amendment calls for a licensing regime. For 10 years, I carried in my pocket—actually it was a little too bulky for that, so I carried it in my briefcase—a licence to fly an aircraft and carry passengers. At one point in my career I was privileged to carry up to 400 passengers, so society imposed on me the requirement to have a licence. We were very serious about that licence, the validity of which cost three days a year to maintain. You had a simple, clear concept of what a licence was. It is therefore important that the word “licence” should be used. In the rest of industry, such as the railway industry, from which I come, the concept of licensing is growing in strength. It is a good idea and we should call this a licensing regime.

Secondly, the amendment requires that we,

“specify minimum thresholds of competence including integrity, professional qualifications, continuous professional development”.

The Government’s amendment does not set out that these areas must be specified in the regime. This is a modest, but important, difference.

Thirdly, our amendment sets out that there should be a set of “Banking Standards Rules”. These were referred to by the commission, in paragraph 107 of its summary of conclusions and recommendations, paragraph 634 of the total document. Paragraph 2.18 of the Government’s response states:

“The Government will also take forward the Commission’s recommendation to replace the existing statements of principle (and codes of practice) for Approved Persons with banking standards rules”.

We believe it is important that banking standards rules should be set out, with the implication that this is a universal document for all parts of the industry to know of and take account of.

Finally, our amendment calls for,

“an annual validation of competence”.

I am happy to be corrected on this, but the tone of the government amendment suggests that in the previous 12 months the individual has not been found out—been found to be incompetent—because it talks about issues, errors or problems being recorded and being passed on to other employers. We want this to be a positive thing. Just as it was in my day, when I had to prove my right to hold a licence, we want bankers to go through a similar process, which looks positively over the previous 12 months at the continuing professional development and professionalism of the individual, and validates that annually. For those reasons, I beg to move.

[Lord Turnbull (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps I might go back over the history a little. The banking commission found that the approved persons regime had proved pretty toothless and that virtually no senior figures had suffered any serious sanction, and recommended a two-tier system: the most senior tier would require prior registration, and the second tier would require the banks to attest that the people working for them were fit and proper.

Both the Opposition and the PCBS found that the original government proposals were unsatisfactory, and each put down their own amendments. The one put forward by the Government, which was supported by the PCBS, was passed—but so, too, was the Opposition’s Amendment 41. They are different in some significant ways, but they do not differ in their attempt to define the standards that this generality of employees in trading or serving the public should be asked to reach.

The Opposition’s amendment refers to,

“minimum thresholds of competence including integrity, professional qualifications, continuous professional development and adherence to a recognised code of conduct”.

The Government’s Amendment 53 contains something that is more or less identical. It refers to a “fit and proper” person who has,

“obtained a qualification … undergone, or is undergoing, training … possesses a level of competence, or … has the personal characteristics”.

On that there really is no difference at all between us. The difference is the mechanism by which this is achieved.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, prefers the word “licensing”. I cannot really tell the difference between that and “certification”. On the question of defining minimum standards, I have just explained that those are true of both these proposals. On the question of annual approval, in the Government’s case all these characteristics are,

“required by general rules made by the appropriate regulator in relation to employees performing functions of that kind”,

and the certificate issued is valid for 12 months—so, again, we do not really have any difference between us; or at least the differences are tiny.

As has been pointed out by the Minister, the one important difference is that in one case the enforcement goes directly from the regulator to the regulated person, and in the government amendment, which follows the PCBS’s approach, it is the bank—paradoxically called an approved person—that has to identify those people who are capable of causing harm to the bank, its customers or its regulation, and to ensure that they meet the right standards. You have to make a choice about which you think is the better system.

The Opposition’s amendment would involve the direct regulation of tens of thousands of people, and in the alternative system it would be the bank that is, in a sense, the first line of regulation, but according to standards that the regulator has set. I think that that is a superior approach, and therefore I will certainly support the retention of Amendment 53 rather than voting to allow Amendment 41 to prevail.

20:16

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, following on from what the noble Lord has just said, I would have thought that recent history suggested that regulators were not particularly good at being the bodies finding out the bad eggs in banking institutions. Most of the staff of the PRA have come from the FSA. They were the regulators for the period during which the banking system in this country took on board the awful problem of a lack of integrity.

There is agreement across the House and the country that the question is: how do we get integrity back into our banking system? I do not see that rules are going to do it. We should have focused more on the role of the shareholders of banks in making sure that their boards and executives are proper people, and on the role of the auditors in this area, but I do not see any sound basis for being of the opinion that the regulators are going to be much good at it.

I broadly support the concept of licensing, although I agree with the point: what is in a word? It seems to me that you can license people in regard to their academic qualifications and job experience but not for integrity. People have either got integrity or they have not. We want to get to a situation where the managers of our banks have got integrity and give key effort to making sure that their banks are run with integrity.

That leads me to the next big area. My view over 40 years in the City has been that the main cause of this trouble has been that an oligopoly was allowed to develop. If one looks at economic history, wherever there have been cartels and oligopolies, there has always been bad practice. One reason that the oligopoly got worse is that there was a mistaken view back in the 1980s after the failure of Johnson Matthey that led to the doctrine that the lender of last resort only stood behind banks that were too big to fail. That led to a shrinkage of the number of banks. Many, because they were not deemed to be covered by the lender-of-last-resort doctrine, were closed down.

I remember having extensive discussions and correspondence with the late Sir Eddie George on just that issue back in the early 1990s. What was allowed to happen was a moral hazard. The oligopoly was there with its ticket that it had lender-of-last-resort support and it took the view, “Make money in any way you like and pay the fines”—they were a natural cost of business if you were in breach. That led to a complete deterioration of the standards of integrity in the banking system. That is the truth of what I observed.

I repeat, I personally do not see the regulator as being a huge force in turning round integrity. Punishing those that basically act immorally is quite an important ingredient, but above all we need to get sound management into banks. Maybe the regulator has some role in helping that process, but bank managers must run their banks on the basis of integrity. How far down does the regulator go if he is responsible for ensuring that staff have integrity? It seems to me that this would not work.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

I commend the noble Lord, Lord Flight, on his ongoing campaign for small banks and more diversity—not that I dissent from it, but it is consistent. What I have more trouble with is the concept of competence and integrity in the banking system, and the idea that somehow we should more readily trust the banks than the regulator. The banks have not got much of a record over the past three or four years in terms of either competence or, frankly, integrity. There is virtually no major bank that has not shown some errors in terms of integrity or shown some failure in competence or ripped off customers through mis-selling. The poor FSA might not have done brilliantly, but it did investigate these areas and produce perfectly sensible reports. As far as one can see, the FCA has got off to a good start. It is producing good and competent reports. I want to express my belief that the regulator is doing, and will continue to do, a good job.

The amendment is quite rightly interpreted as saying, “The regulator shall do”. If our amendment were to succeed, I could readily see some drawing back from that. My own experience in the airline industry is that the regulator creates the framework and checks the checkers—in other words, checks the senior management—but that the spreading of annual testing and so on goes into the companies in a trusting framework. There are ways of doing it without having thousands of inspectors around. Our general thrust is in the right direction. However, I get a sense from what is happening in the House tonight that the chances of me persuading people on this point are slim, so I will not press this to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion A1 withdrawn.

Motion A agreed.

20:23

Sitting suspended.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Monday 16th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Committee (3rd Day) (Continued)

20:54

Clause 26: Meaning of “controlled expenditure”

Amendment 160

Moved by

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

160: Clause 26, page 13, line 19, at end insert—
“( ) In subsection (8)(a) after “body” insert “(except a body which is a charity)”.”

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 160 is very short and innocuous, but it is of significance in terms of its impact on the Bill in that it would remove charities from the scope of the Bill and the 2000 Act. Like everybody else, I must declare interests, which are largely to be found in the register, but I should add that I have been for 40 years a charity lawyer—if that does not sound a contradiction in terms—and have great sympathy with all those trying to get their head around the relationship here between charity law and electoral law because it is far from simple.

Thanks to the work of the Library staff, I got an insight into the debates when the 2000 Act was legislated. It is fair to say that charities got short shrift. In fact, during the passage of the 2000 Act, the awareness in the Chamber was pretty extraordinary and at no point did a clear statement on the impact on charities find its way into print. I am sure your Lordships will also have noticed that the vast majority of charities are as amazed as anyone that they have ever been part of the 2000 Act. Most of them went through the previous election in complete ignorance of that fact.

I fear that the misunderstandings that attend this Bill are not inconsiderable. I am afraid that that misunderstanding finds its way even into the Harries report, if I can so call it. I, like everybody else, greatly admire the energy and astuteness that has been put into this report and I agree with the vast bulk of it. I happen not to agree with recommendation 11, which is that charities should not be exempt from regulation. To make my point and because it is germane: recommendation 11 is preceded by three statements. The first—in favour of my amendment, so to speak—is that the commission heard evidence from charities of the “disproportionate regulatory burden” on them registering as third parties. That burden is at the heart of my wish to see charities removed from this Bill and the 2000 Act.

There are two reasons given for the recommendation about not exempting charities. Incidentally, it is fair to say that the commission itself was made up of representatives of the charities sector and the non-charity NGO sector. The first reason is that,

“the regulatory system should not be structured such that the status of being registered as a charity could be a mechanism for avoidance”.

That is a little gnomic, perhaps, but were we to agree to take charities out of the Act and this Bill, the authors of the Harries commission report decided that this would represent a mechanism for avoidance. I beg to differ. Charity law and electoral law are in all essentials the same. Being bound by charity law rather than electoral law is not a soft touch. Indeed, some charities have made the point that they are afraid of not being part of the Bill—and therefore under the aegis of the Electoral Commission—because they fear that if left to the devices of the Charity Commission alone things might get rather more brutal than they already are.

The second reason given for that recommendation is that,

“campaigning with non-charities is so central to many charities’ activities”.

That is as if to say that if charities were not part of the Bill, they would not be able as they currently are to campaign with non-charities. Again, that is completely misconceived. The position of charities vis-à-vis joint campaigning—coalition campaigning, if you want to call it that—will not be affected significantly; in fact, I could not put my finger on any single difference between being outside and inside the Bill. I repeat: charity law on its own is very severe and, as I shall explain, very similar to electoral law on this point.

21:00

Finally—and I had a word with the noble Lord, Lord Best, so he knows that I am going to mention this—a wonderful example of the misunderstanding generated by the Bill is the comments made by the noble Lord just before supper on the food campaign of the National Federation of Women’s Institutes. The NFWI is a charity; I acted for it for 20 years. The gist of the noble Lord’s remarks was that under the Bill, the NFWI would be in real trouble in running a campaign such as it has. Again, that is a complete misunderstanding. If charities remain in the Bill, the NFWI will be able to do in future exactly as in the past. The fact that we have a great deal of confusion around this aspect of the Bill is perhaps no surprise: the law is difficult and obscure. Indeed, one reason why I want charities right out of the Bill is to avoid the double confusion and complexity that will ensue if they remain within it, because they will then be subject to two completely separate branches of law: electoral law and charity law. Although, as I have said, they are very similar in essentials, you can none the less be quite certain, especially given the brouhaha surrounding the Bill, that all charities of any size will be extremely cautious.

They will be cautious because the boards of charities are volunteer boards, and if they step outside the confines of charity law, the consequences can be disastrous. It does not make any difference if it is a charity in corporate form; the trustees are personally liable for any mis-spending of charity funds. It is very rare that the Charity Commission requires charity trustees to put their hands in their pockets, but that is the position. That is why this chilling effect, to which not much reference has been made tonight but which is generally accepted, is now running around the charity sector: the chill of concern that charities will be caught by the Bill in a highly complex, bureaucratic web which will curtail their activities come an election—indeed, come one year before an election.

There is no point in pretending that this does not have a severe and real effect. We have had it from a hundred lips tonight and outside this place. The Harries commission has had it. I have had it from the many charities and charitable organisations to which I have talked. The Government have had it. The charity sector is very worried. You can be absolutely certain that those charities which have paid staff—which is of course only about 5% of them, about a third of a million in this country—will be required to check with their lawyers and to make sure that every step of an election campaign is consonant with the provisions of this complex legislation. The waste of fees and time, the bureaucracy, the demoralisation, the diversion of philanthropic effort into playing safe in what is—I am sorry to keep repeating the word—a ludicrously complicated piece of legislation; most legislation is these days, and this is no different—adds up to a very worrying situation. In so far as there is reference in the commission report to disproportionate regulatory burden, that is a burden on the charities themselves.

My claim is that the inclusion of charities is wholly unnecessary because, first, charity law is strong and clear; it is a 500 year-old branch of law—only the Anglophone countries have a separate branch of charity law. Secondly, as I have said, the Charity Commission holds the sector to account as a very competent, long-standing regulator with good, solid legal skills. The commission produces guidance, as many noble Lords will know, on politics and campaigning and produces a supplement about campaigning during election time. That came out a couple of years ago, it will be updated in time for the next election and that guidance alone came to roughly 40 pages. The Charity Commission expects the sector to pay close attention to it and, by golly, it does. As a lawyer in the field—there are not many of us—I can tell you that we are constantly being asked by charities, “Is this all right?”, “Is that all right?” and “What does clause 27 of the CC9 guidance mean?”

The courts are extremely protective of charity law. There is no branch of English law that has the attention of the courts in quite the way that charity law does. Again, it is common knowledge that charities cannot have political purposes. It is as simple as that: no political purposes. Secondly, although they can engage in campaigning and politics, under CC9, they cannot engage in partisan campaigning and politicking—that is verboten, out. Many references have been made to the hazy line between what is in and what is out, between what is okay and what is not okay. I totally sympathise with that—it happens to have kept me in a reasonable living for 40 years, so I must not complain too much—but, seriously, there is no way of avoiding it. With the sort of issues that the wording of any legal rule will involve, one cannot avoid, I am afraid, the complexity of interpretation of whatever line one draws and wherever one draws it in terms of what is permissible and what is not.

We have a situation here where we have regulation, we have regulators and there have been no complaints that I have been able to lay hands on, so to speak, concerning charities at the last election. It seems to me to be bizarre that here we are, unless we watch it, about to shackle the most highly regulated sector in our society, which is the only sector that exists within the constraints as to purposes that the Charity Commission lays down. Do not forget that charities have to behave and be exclusively for the public benefit. No charity can do anything that is not exclusively for the public benefit as defined by charity law. It seems not just unnecessary but almost perverse to shackle this sector, of all sectors, with two regulators when those in the NGO world that are not charities have only one regulator. The NGO world that is not charitable can have any purpose it likes, as long as it is not in breach of the law of the land, and can adopt any means it likes to pursue those purposes, as long as it does not involve criminality, and yet that branch of the NGO jungle, if we want to call it that, has a single regulator while the regulated and highly specific charity sector is to have two regulators, with all that that will mean in terms of demoralisation, expense, confusion, muddle and the rest. I hope that, before the day is done, we will accept all that and not proceed along the present path.

I will add just one point. I understand the dilemma of some organisations such as NCVO, which represents non-charitable as well as charitable NGOs. Indeed, the commission looked at the whole of the NGO sector, not just the charity sector. For the reasons that I have hurriedly advanced, I hope that, on Report at least, the House will take charities right out of the Bill.

[Lord Hardie (CB)]

My Lords, I seek clarification from the noble Lord, who is recognised as an expert in the field of charitable law. One concern that has been expressed to me is that, if charities are exempt from these provisions, there may be a means for others to use charities to avoid the measures. Could the noble Lord address that concern, which others may have? If people could be reassured on that matter, we would be with the noble Lord.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, for raising that issue. It is one of two issues used by the Harries commission to justify its recommendation to keep charities in the net. But it simply does not stack up in any way. Would the noble and learned Lord give an example of where he thinks the problem that he has enunciated would be found?

[Lord Hardie]

Simply, a concern has been expressed. As the noble Lord has observed, it is referred to in the report. The noble Lord may wish to have time to reflect on the matter and come back. To my mind, if that concern could be answered, I would be reassured.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I think that the concern may relate to a misnomer, which is that a non-charitable NGO that wants to escape the limitations of the Bill could simply form a charity which, if charities are taken out of the Bill, would be able to do all sorts of things that it could not do as a non-charity within the Bill. There is a very simple answer to that. A charity may be the brainchild of, and have come into existence through the efforts of, a non-charitable NGO—and there are a number of non-charitable NGOs, such as Amnesty International, which have brought into being a charitable arm that does things that can properly be done by a charity and which is therefore more tax efficient to have done through a charity, because of the tax provisions attaching to charities. A number of non-charitable NGOs have a related charity—perhaps even the Countryside Commission has. Many of them do it. But the misunderstanding comes in this element. Some people think that because Amnesty and the Countryside Commission took the initiative in creating a charity, they can control it and tell the trustees to do their bidding, what to do and when to do it. But they cannot. It is a fierce rule of charity trusteeship that the trustees of any charity do not and cannot take their orders from any outside body, even one that is in that sort of relationship.

To take another example, where I, as an individual, set up a charity with funds that I provide, unless there is some express power which I retain to require the trustees to make charitable gifts as I indicate, I cannot tell them what to do. The trustees must act independently. It is a fierce and fundamental provision of charity law, precisely to protect it from prostitution by the means that I think was behind the noble and learned Lord’s question.

21:14

[Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)]

My Lords, I take issue with one or two of the matters that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has just raised. The commission came to the view that there should be no exemption for charities and that was based squarely on the evidence that we heard. As everyone else is doing so, perhaps I should make a full declaration of my involvement with various campaigning organisations. I am president of the Countryside Alliance and president of the Horse Trust; one is a charity and one is not. I am a member of the National Trust, the RSPCA and the Humane Slaughter Association and I am a supporter—whatever that may mean at the end of this Bill’s progress—of the Stop HS2 campaign. There may be others, but I cannot, at the moment, remember them.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am so sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness so early in her speech, but it is directly germane to her first point. I think she said that the Charity Commission came to the conclusion that charities should not be exempt.

[Baroness Mallalieu]

I was not referring to the Charity Commission; I was referring to commission of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. I am afraid this had led to some confusion. I noticed someone else fell into the same error. If I did, I apologise. Except for those who have put their names to the amendment on the Marshalled List—and no doubt there will be others who will speak—I am not aware of anyone among those to whom we have already spoken, who shares the view of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. Not one of the charities which came and gave evidence before us asked for there to be an exemption. Nor, as far as I am aware, does the Electoral Commission suggest that it is a good idea. I am not certain about the view of the Charity Commission, but my understanding is that it does not seek it either. As I understand it, this is because it is generally felt that transparency in the way people campaign during elections should run right across the board, for charitable and non-charitable campaigners. The spending limits, which are a key difference, should be the same across the board. No charity asked to be exempt, but we did hear evidence from some which felt that, if they were exempted, some charities would bring others into disrepute, and that it was a possible route for avoidance.

The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is predicated, I think, on a belief that the guidance given by the Charity Commission at present works well—and he knows a great deal more about charity law than I do. That was not entirely my understanding of the evidence that we heard, and there has been concern that it has not always been rigorously enforced in this area. It is, perhaps, not surprising, given the number of registered charities. I think there are something like 130,000; he will know the figure better than I do. Indeed, there have been a number of public complaints about charities and how they have campaigned recently. It was for that reason particularly that I drew attention to my involvement with the Countryside Alliance.

It seems to me that there must be equality across the board, not only with obvious transparency, but with the way in which people are permitted to campaign. If the situation were—as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, would wish it—that non-charities continued to be regulated under the Bill as amended and charities were removed, there could be two organisations campaigning on precisely the same issue, but bound in different ways by different forms of regulation. There could be an argument during an election period, for example on hunting, which has already raised its head a number of times in this debate. This would have the Countryside Alliance as a non-charity, restricted in a variety of ways, required probably to register as a result of whatever the new limits might be, to observe strict spending limits, and with no regulatory burden. Whereas the League Against Cruel Sports, which is a charity, would have no spending limits and would not have to put in the sort of rather onerous reports that are required otherwise. This is a cross-party issue which is seen by some as being politicised. There may well be complaints about it.

My noble friend Lord Gardiner—I call him my noble friend even though he sits opposite because he is from the “barricades” days—has tried to reassure us that the Countryside Alliance would not be caught by this measure. However, I am not so sure. We wait for that matter to be tested or, I hope, clarified as the Bill progresses. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, says that it is wrong for one body to be doubly regulated, but he is overlooking the fact that charities are in a privileged position in many ways. They have a great many advantages and it is right that they should be regulated not just during election periods but all the time so that they do not infringe the rules. As I say, whether that is enforced is a matter of considerable controversy. Surely the Bill is about the transparency of those engaged in campaigning at election times. It is not a Bill about charities—that is something quite separate. There should be a level playing field and the public should be entitled to know what is being spent and by whom, whether the body in question is a charity or not. Therefore, although I have enormous sympathy with what the noble Lord says, and I share his concern that charities are very worried about the Bill, so are NGOs, and for precisely the same reasons.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

The noble Baroness refers to a level playing field between charities and non-charity NGOs. However, there is no level playing field because non-charity NGOs can politick any way they like until the cows come home, whereas charities cannot.

[Baroness Mallalieu]

The noble Lord is correct on the face of it but, in reality, when one looks at some of the forms of campaigning that have taken place in recent years, it is very difficult to discern a difference between the two. The two organisations to which I referred earlier are a case in point. If the charity guidance—CC9—and the appendix to which the noble Lord referred were enforced rigorously, and the Charity Commission had the means to do that, perhaps I would take a different view. However, given that the Charity Commission cannot possibly have a handle on 130,000 charities during an election period, it seems to me important that there should be one rule that applies to all.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)]

My Lords, my name is also added to this amendment. I should like to say a few words not as a lawyer but as a politician. In my rather long political life, I have fought at least 11 general elections and two by-elections, and have lost some and won some. It is worth commenting as a politician in this very good debate, which has been rather dominated by lawyers, if noble Lords will forgive my saying so.

I think that a very simple message is coming out of this discussion. I thank the Government for permitting a consultation period. I quite agree that it is not as long as it should be, but it is worth recognising that this is a very useful innovation in this House, and one that I think will be helpful to us as we work our way through increasingly complex legislation, given that that is the nature of so much legislation nowadays.

Unfortunately, the Bill is largely concerned with amending the 2000 Act, which means that it is incredibly complicated. It keeps referring back to earlier legislation when it might have been better to make a clean break and have a completely new Bill. That is by the way and we have what we have, but I think it is one of the reasons why two issues have emerged very clearly in this debate—I speak as I see. First, virtually every amendment—amendment after amendment—has sought to exempt various bodies from the controls on the amount of expenditure that is incurred. Virtually every one of the many amendments that we have discussed has sought to eliminate or take out something or other. They have all been negative amendments and have attempted to detract from the Bill’s impact on charities. That is not a desirable way of looking at a Bill. What it adds up to is that this is a Bill which has overwhelmingly caused such concern, worry and anxiety that it cannot stand as it is without huge amendment, or possibly a complete rewriting of Part 2. I favour the second.

The other thing that emerges very clearly from this is that the Ministers—I greatly respect their patience and their attempts to deal with the issues—have turned effectively into a sort of CAB. Everybody who gets up says, “Does this apply to me, or to this, or to the other thing?”. That is not a very happy way of demonstrating how clear and transparent the Bill is. It is a very happy way of demonstrating that it is neither clear nor transparent. This again means that there has to be a major look at how to reconstruct this part of the Bill.

I add one other thing. I say this in some criticism of the commission, which has been so widely praised, quite rightly, in this House. The commission has not taken sufficient cognisance of—I refer back to the brief speech made by my noble friend Lord Greaves—the impact of certain kinds of expenditure on campaigning, not least major expenditure on campaigning, on the whole issue of the cleanliness and transparency of politics itself.

We have blissfully walked past substantial evidence to show that, without some form of serious regulation of charities, but also of NGOs, there is a tendency for politics to become increasingly corrupted by the flow of money. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for whose intelligence I have the greatest respect, unwisely referred to the likelihood of some monster coming out of the jungle who would be a billionaire. There are many monsters who are billionaires coming out of the jungle. I know that because I taught the subject of elective politics for 10 years at Harvard.

The United States has effectively been taken over at the federal level by more and more major expenditure. For example, expenditure on congressional elections in real terms has gone up two and a half times since 1998. In the latest election cycle, in 2012, no less than $3.5 billion was spent on electing Congressmen and Senators to their elective seats. To take another example; it costs today, on the latest explanation we have, $1.5 million to elect a Congressman. Congressional districts are of course larger than parliamentary constituencies—let us say three or four times larger. However, when you compare the £12,000, which is still the British limit that can be spent within a constituency once an election has been declared, with $1.5 million, even if you take real values and all the rest of it into account, you are looking at a vast increase in the expenditure on how you can get legislation through Congress. A great deal of it is quite directly and precisely related to politics in its most raw sense, including the money that comes out of the so-called 501(c)4 regulations of the Internal Revenue Service—the tax system—which now allows specifically non-profit third parties to put money into election support and political payments. Let us not forget that the legislation picks out non-profit, picks out non-party and picks out bodies with claims that they are pushing a charitable end, or in some cases a public service end. The outcome is quite simply that this particular element in public expenditure in the United States has risen from $9 million two years ago in 2010 to $457 million in 2012. That is an increase of the order of something like 45 times. Why? The regulations that applied to restriction on public expenditure of this kind by non-profit organisations were effectively allowed to lapse with the result of the so-called Citizens United Supreme Court decision of 2010, whereby corporations and unions were both allowed to come into that structure and give whatever they liked with no limit for political campaigns.

What I see in the United States at the federal level is effectively the breakdown of democracy. It is not surprising that more than half of Senators are millionaires or richer because, effectively, the ordinary man and woman have been driven out of politics at a federal level and it is too expensive for them to stand because the money that they have to raise to stand any chance of getting elected is now so extreme. I will not go on but the figures are terrifying. The estimated spending for the next presidential election in 2016 is around $6 billion at the federal level only. What one is seeing is a great democracy gradually turning into a plutocracy, and that is extremely dangerous.

21:30

Why do I raise this? It is because in this debate nothing like sufficient consideration has been given to what one might call the other side of the Bill. I have made it clear—I share completely the views of my noble friends—that Part 2 has to be reconstructed from the ground up. However, the Committee should give more attention to one of the reasons for the Bill, flawed though it is at present, which is, in Parts 1 and 3, to attempt to control the flow of money into politics. Heaven help us if we do not take that seriously, and there has been far too little debate about that in this Committee in the past day or so.

I want to address the commission rather sharply, and I hope that I will be forgiven. It is a brilliant commission; everyone has said so and I certainly share that view. However, it has two huge holes. One has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury. There is a real question regarding the need for separate regimes for charities and NGOs—I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, on this point—because they are different creatures, working in different ways with different regulations. There is no reason why they should be treated in exactly the same way. I cannot see the argument for that and there is always a danger if you are not restricted by the Charity Commission rules that you will push over the envelope. One can to some extent argue that the envelope in one or two cases has been pushed beyond where it should have gone. I am thinking not only of the famous Taunton case but of the position of people who, for example, stand entirely on the basis of a campaign to keep a hospital open—things of that kind, which go far outwith the normal structures of politics.

The final question that I want to ask before I sit down is addressed to my dear friend, if not my formal friend, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, who is the chairman of the commission. I simply cannot understand the suggestion that we abandon constituency limits; the argument in the report is extraordinarily weak. We know that they are not strong but they have been strong enough in a number of cases in recent years to disqualify candidates who have overspent on the limits before them. Fragile though the limits are, they represent probably the single strongest pillar we have to prevent corruption and money running politics in this country. I say to the commission—I beg it, actually—to look more seriously at that issue. If you remove constituency limits, you remove one of the most effective, although not very strong, measures we have to keep politics clean. I urge the commission to go look again and come up with a much more serious proposal in order to balance the rest of what it has said, which is undoubtedly excellent.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has given us a sobering picture of the future of US political funding. Before that, we heard from my noble friend Lord Phillips, who, as ever, is a passionate advocate and has a lifetime of experience in charity law. He and I have had many debates on this issue. One therefore has to listen with care to his explanation and how he places his case, particularly when it is supported by some experienced and heavyweight voices from the Liberal Democrat Benches.

However, I hope that he will forgive me if I say that I am not convinced—at least, not yet convinced—that charities should be exempted from the Bill. I accept the seductive simplicity of his argument, but I think that it is based on an ideal world that I fear no longer exists, if it ever did. In part, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, put her finger on it when she said that charities have a special status in the eyes of the public. They get it not just because of tax but because the charity number is seen to be something that carries with it a stamp of quality, and therefore charities have something that is not granted to people who do not go through the Charity Commission hoop.

I see two major challenges to what the noble Lord proposed. One is the role of the Charity Commission itself, first of all at an operational level. We have said that there are 160,000 registered charities and there are probably another 160,000 unregistered charities: that is a third of a million charities. The noble Lord made reference to this in his opening remarks. The commission therefore faces a huge operational challenge just to deal with basic charity law, and to hold charities to account in the most basic way. When he says that the Charity Commission has very rarely asked trustees to put their hands in their pockets, I accept that. Is that because nothing is going wrong or because the commission does not know what is going wrong? That is one of the issues we have to address; so there is an operational problem.

Then there is a strategic challenge to the commission. The commission is an organisation that is under a huge strain. Some noble Lords will have seen the National Audit Office’s report, which had some disobliging things to say about the way the Charity Commission operated. It faces considerable problems in respect of the public benefit test, the aftermath of the independent schools test and the Plymouth Brethren case, which is now before it. It has had problems with links to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Cup Trust and other tax-avoidance measures. It has also had a 40% cut in its budget. I ask my noble friend whether it is a practical proposition to ask the commission to take on another huge area and start to drill down on 335,000 charities to find out whether they are complying in a way that is, as the noble Baroness said, fair across the piece.

The noble Lord might say to me, “Of course it should have additional resources”. If it were an ideal world, that might be possible, but it is hard to argue that the Government should devote additional resources to providing the Charity Commission with the ability to enforce electoral law when the Electoral Commission already specialises in it and is up to date with all the arrangements of the way that matters are proceeding—as opposed to the Charity Commission, for which it would be one of about 10 major tasks it would have to carry out. That is my concern about the way the structure would work in real life.

My second concern is really the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie: the nitty-gritty point of the loophole. I fear that it will attract those who wish to push the envelope. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said that she thought the envelope was being pushed—and I am sure it is. In my review of charities, Members of the other place said to me, “Some charities are really getting into what we are doing as Members of Parliament”. There is a sort of concern that charities are doing things that get very close to the role of a Member of Parliament in representing his or her constituents. This amendment will open the way to the more adventurous and to the outliers who choose to become charities, because it will be seen as a way to minimise the regulatory burden and to evade some of the issues that we have just been discussing as part of this Bill.

It is the outliers who will most likely damage the sector’s reputation. The sector has historically had a very high reputation with the public, but this reputation is not immutable. We think now of the Cup Trust, as I mentioned. That has undoubtedly made members of the public consider charities and their role. We subsequently had a very public row about the payment of chief executives and senior staff of charities, and how that is commensurate with charitable status. I am not making any comment upon it; I am saying that the charitable sector has considerable challenges to answer if it is not to see some leeching away of the enormously strong public reputation it has historically enjoyed.

If we were to accept the noble Lord’s amendment—seductively simple and attractive though it is—we would run the risk of putting a burden on the Charity Commission that it will not be able to fulfil, and giving it tasks that it will find very difficult. The result could be that we will have difficulties, problems and issues with the public that, after the next general elections and elections thereafter, will be seen to rebound on the charity sector. We need to make sure that does not happen, because, as the noble Lord said, it is such a precious jewel in our crown. It provides a way for so many of our fellow citizens to put something back, to create something and to connect with their fellow members of society. It would be a tragedy to lose that. That is why I fear I cannot support the noble Lord’s amendment tonight.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

The commission did not support taking charities out, for the reasons put so fluently and eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. I will not add to what she said, but I want to respond briefly to points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.

We are debating constituency limits in a separate set of amendments, so I will respond to that issue then. The noble Baroness has unrivalled experience and knowledge of the American system and the British system, and I do not doubt for a moment what is happening in America. But we have not yet been presented with any real evidence that it is happening in England. The precautionary principle is quite right: we have to beware what might happen. But we also have to make sure that our reaction is not disproportionate.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

There is already some evidence that American Crossroads, which is Karl Rove’s non-profit organisation—non-profit and non-political—has among other things financed young Britons to come to Republican gatherings where they are given instruction in the kinds of things that the Republicans and the Tea Party believe, at those organisations’ expense.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I absolutely agree that it is right to take precautionary steps, but I am sure that the noble Baroness would also agree that we must ensure that they are not disproportionate. The main complaint at the moment by charities and other campaigning groups is that this legislation is grossly disproportionate in the way that it bears upon them—I see the noble Baroness nodding her head.

I also have the utmost respect for the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who is the leading charity lawyer in the country. But I have to agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. Perhaps I can approach the argument from another way. I carefully read CC9, which is the Charity Commission guidance. I also read the additional guidance that it provides for election campaigns. It makes it quite clear that charities are allowed to politically campaign. That is absolutely crystal clear. But as the noble Lord made abundantly clear, it is not always easy to draw a distinction between political campaigning in general and political campaigning that might be interpreted as supporting a particular party.

The noble Lord drew his hand across and said that there was a kind of hazy line. Does that not lead to the conclusion that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made: namely, that if charities were taken out, they would have to have their own separate regime, employ extra staff, and keep in day-by-day contact with the Electoral Commission to make sure that their guidance agreed with the guidance of the commission? Would that not be a waste of resources? If charities are in fact in the same position as other groups, would it not be better for them all to be under the same regime?

I absolutely agree that there is a major difference and that charities cannot have political campaigning as their prime purpose. That is absolutely right. If the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, about the definition of political expenses were accepted, of course charities could come out—but as long as they are allowed to politically campaign, that campaigning could be interpreted as supporting a political party or candidate.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Does the noble and right reverend Lord not agree that it is one thing politically to campaign—which is what charities can do—but another to do that in a partisan way? They cannot do that. That is a huge and fundamental difference between them and non-charitable NGOs.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I could not agree more, but as the noble Lord made clear, the difference between the two is sometimes a bit hazy and judgments have to be made as to when a particular charity has gone over the line.

21:44

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, I speak as a non-lawyer. Indeed, my background was originally in the charitable sector; I was the director of the Child Poverty Action Group and worked there for eight years, and now I am its honorary president. I also have links with non-charitable NGOs.

The noble Baroness talked about the political and legal aspects of this. While I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has tabled this amendment from the very best of motives, there is a danger of it being seen as the politics of divide and rule. The two things that strike me are, first, that charities themselves are not asking to be exempted. Surely that must count for something. The noble Lord said that charities are worried. Yes, they are worried, but they do not want to be exempt.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness and I am sorry to interrupt so often, but I am being challenged. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said that the charities she has talked to do not want to be exempted. All I can say is that the overwhelming majority of those I have been speaking to, and indeed know of because perforce I know a vast number of charities, want exemption. Perhaps I can take as examples the Charities Aid Foundation which only has charities as members or the Directory of Social Change which only has charities as members as compared with, say, the NCVO, which has both. The organisations I have mentioned are keen for charities to be exempt for all the reasons I have tried to explain. The impression must not be left tonight that charities somehow want to be kept in this Bill. My experience is quite the reverse.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I do not have that evidence and no charity has written to me asking to be exempt, but there may be other noble Lords who can act as the referee in this dispute.

A point which has not been made yet is that the Electoral Commission has said explicitly that it does not support this amendment, and surely that must count for something. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, talked about what have been very seductive arguments, but I say to the Minister that I hope he will not listen to the siren voices of his noble friends.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am a fan of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I have every reason to be grateful to him from when I was running a charity myself, but I cannot support his amendment. I, too, have had words with a great many charities and have been surprised by how many of them are opposed to this amendment and have not taken any comfort from his faith in the Charity Commission doing the excellent job that he appears to think it would do in this regard.

Some of the charities I have spoken to have been opposed to the idea of exemption for personal reasons. For example, the Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign would not have wanted to go through the process of registering as a charity to gain exemption. Those involved were too busy with their campaign. I have spoken to other charities which point out that coalitions are often formed across sectors so that they make up coalitions not only of charities but of social enterprises and, indeed, of commercial organisations. I certainly have had experience of that in my campaigning background. What we have to remember is that the NGO sector, whatever it is, is increasingly diverse. We are constantly coming across different forms of NGO-type organisations. There is a great potential for confusion among the public and supporters. We should focus on the activity being undertaken, not on the type of organisation undertaking it. I understand that some legal opinions have suggested that going for exemption may be a legally unviable option and much too open to challenge. There is also a widely held view that it is unfair to make non-charitable organisations subject to tighter regulation, thus making it more difficult for them to highlight the problems which this legislation is increasingly going to bring about.

We come back to the point that this legislation is being introduced without proper evidence and without proper consultation. As I said at Second Reading, it is very much a sledgehammer Bill to crack what was, at best, a small nut of misbehaviour by some non-charitable lobbying organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, himself said that it is complex, there is a great deal of bureaucracy and there will be a diversion of philanthropic effort. It puts a disproportionate burden on organisations and is wholly unnecessary. This does not seem to be an argument for exempting charities but for amending the Bill in the way your Lordships are trying to do.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I did not speak at Second Reading for the same sort of reasons as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, but I will just make three points in support of the amendment. In passing, I have to say that I have the impression that the charity sector does not speak with one voice on this and does not have a monolithic view. Some charities want an exemption while some do not. In those circumstances, I take the view that it is incumbent on one to support what seems the most rational course, which is what I propose to do. I declare up front my interest as a vice-president of the RNIB. I will make my three points quite briefly.

First, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has made clear, charities are already regulated up to the hilt as regards political campaigning and not engaging in it. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has suggested that, because of their special status, which gives them a peculiar responsibility to be beyond reproach, charities should be subject to the regulation which this legislation proposes. However, it seems to me that the validation kitemark, as you might call it, which charity regulation provides is precisely the reason not to load charities with additional regulatory burdens. What would be the point of conferring this special status on charities and then saying that it does not actually count for anything?

Secondly, along with everyone else, I pay my tribute to my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries and to his Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement, which, as everybody has said, has done such sterling work on the Bill, which will be of great assistance to the House. However, I was not entirely convinced by its argument for not exempting charities. The argument seemed to be that charities should not have an exemption because other people should have one as well—but in that case, it would not be an exemption. The case for charities having an exemption is that they are in a class of their own. As I say, if everybody is to have the exemption, it ceases to be an exemption; if others feel they should have the benefit of charitable exemption, the answer is surely for them to seek to register as a charity. Concerns have apparently also been expressed that an exemption for charities could increase the prospects of a successful challenge to the PPERA rules on freedom of expression grounds, since it will make it more difficult to argue that the restrictions imposed on others by the rules are necessary and proportionate. If that is the case, so be it, and a good thing too. In saying that I am in favour of the charities having exemption, I am in no sense against the others.

The commission chaired by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, is concerned about the impact of the Bill on the reputation of and trust in charities and the extra regulatory costs they will face in order to campaign for their charitable objectives, but it does not recommend an exemption. I am afraid that I draw the opposite conclusion. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, raised the point that non-charitable campaigners might seek to set up charitable vehicles as a means of avoidance. However, that is surely not a genuine concern because if they set up a charity they would immediately become subject to the controls imposed by charity law. They would not be able to smuggle through, under cover of a charity, things they would not be permitted to do under charity law. There would be no point in setting up a charitable vehicle to get round the Act. Given the strictness of charity law and regulation, it would be completely self-defeating.

Thirdly, the best way I can contribute to this debate is from my experience when I was more active within RNIB than I am now. I was chairman for nine years and in various senior trustee capacities before that, so I have a good deal of experience with a leading campaigning charity. This experience tells me that the desire to impose stricter controls on charities to restrict the scope of party political campaigning is completely misconceived. At election time, we are concerned to promote our views to the parties, not to promote the views of the parties to anyone else. As often as not, we are simply asking the parties about their views, not promoting those views. If I have understood him correctly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, said in an earlier debate that this kind of activity would not be caught by the legislation. However, proving that their activities were exempt would tie the charities up in bureaucracy. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has shown us this with his graph showing the correlation between bureaucracy and transparency. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, also made this clear when he described the increased regulatory burden to which charities would become subject as a result of the Bill.

The simplest thing would be to exempt the charities from the legislation.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I am very glad that I held back and listened to another contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, who said many of the things that I would like to have been able to say but could not have done with the same level of experience. There are two points which I would like to add or underline.

First, there seems to be a view in the House this evening, expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, that it would, somehow or other, be unfair to exempt the charities because the other organisations would then be more carefully controlled than the charities. That is the whole point: the charities are already very, very carefully controlled in what they can and cannot do in the public space before, during and at election time. As the noble Lord, Lord Low, has said, it may be that CC9 and the further additional requirements of the Charity Commission are not totally adequate but they are certainly very much more so than they were previously. They are certainly more adequate than the guidance that was given to the charities at the time of the passage of PPERA. I am very sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has left his place, because he was the main author, I think he would probably claim, of that Act. Therefore, its inadequacies, which have been drawn to our attention throughout today—and, I have to say, have been drawn to my attention in the large number of meetings I have held—relate very much to the inadequacy of the treatment of charities, which are already so firmly circumscribed in what they can and cannot do.

22:00

A number of Members of the House have said that they have not received any representations from charities that they should be exempt. We have now had a very eloquent submission from the noble Lord, Lord Low, on that precise point, and I have received such submissions, too. I do not know that they would all want me to mention their names, but the Royal British Legion, for example, is very sympathetic to the point of trying to simplify the regulations that it has to live under, so that there is no longer, as it were, double jeopardy of two quite different sets of regulation. Other, smaller charities have made the same point to us. What I think they are saying, large and small, is that they really would accept exemption as the simplest solution to the perceived weaknesses of PPERA and to the inevitable complex strengthening of its provisions in the current Bill.

There is a genuine issue here and I hope that my noble and learned friend the Minister is now fully aware that it is not a one-way street. Not all charities are by any means determined to come under the auspices of the Electoral Commission in this way.

I was about to refer to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, but if he would like to go first, that is fine.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I just wanted to ask him how he thinks matters will develop if, at a future general election, the Electoral Commission determines, on a complaint to it from a non-charity, that a charity has done something that is outside the electoral law but may be inside the charity law. Which will be pre-eminent? How will be that determined? Does the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, think that, whatever happens, charity law will come out on top, and therefore are we going to allow that there will be an unlevel playing field because the Electoral Commission’s views will be seen to be subordinate to those of the Charity Commission?

[Lord Tyler]

I admit that hypothetical examples of that nature at this time of night rather baffle me. I am not a lawyer either. But I think that the subsequent amendments that the noble Lord is suggesting, which should in any case mean that there is a coming together of the guidance from the two commissions, should be adequate to this task.

I just want to pick up a point the noble Lord made earlier. He has huge knowledge of the charitable world. He has given a lot of time, energy and specialist attention to the charities, but he seemed to suggest earlier that somehow or other the Charity Commission was not up to the job: it was not in a position, not able, not capable and it did not have the resources to police CC9 and the subsequent advice. That is a very serious charge. If it is his view that the Charity Commission simply is not capable of doing this job, then I admit that the case put by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury may be rather weaker than I anticipated. I do not think the noble Lord was saying that, but perhaps he would like to clarify that point. If he was saying that, I understand that there is a real doubt about whether the commission is up to the task it has set itself. In my experience of charities and of the previous advice that was given to charities, I thought it was well up to the task and there have been comparatively few cases where the rules have been infringed.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

Again, I am very grateful to my noble friend. I simply invite him to go to the Printed Paper Office and get a copy of the National Audit Office’s report on the Charity Commission, published two weeks ago. That is its view after six or eight months’ investigation. He can see it all laid out, warts and all—some good, some bad—but the NAO has some pretty disobliging things to say about the position of the Charity Commission.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, it is late at night to have to introduce a new element into the debate, but the natural conclusion is that the Charity Commission should withdraw completely from this role of policing what should and should not happen in terms of public policy and elections. But CC9 is there and the Charity Commission is now developing more advice on this point. Either we trust the commission to do the job or we do not. I fear that what my noble friend Lord Hodgson has just said does not increase my trust.

In those circumstances, we are still faced with a genuine dilemma. As the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, said, as things stand at the moment many charities, large and small, feel that they are going to be subjected to two quite separate sets of regulations in this regard and they feel that is unfair. That seems to be a very critical issue, and I hope that in due course this House will be able to address it.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Low. It was not that he was slow on his feet; I was just a bit too fast on mine.

I return to the work of Beatrice Webb as she battled against the causes and impact of poverty. She was not running a charity, so she would have been caught by the myriad new requirements that this Bill sets out. She could then have set up a charity. I have set up a large number myself. It is not very difficult. Then she could have campaigned in the same way with no restrictions on the amount of money spent, on the market research done, on meetings, on press work or on the number of staff employed. She could even have concentrated her arguments in a number of key constituencies so long as she did not talk about voting this way or that way.

We have to think about whether we want the Stop the War coalition, pro-HS2, anti-HS2, pro-fracking, anti-fracking, pro-runways, anti-runways, pro-free schools, anti-free schools and other hard-working, well motivated groups to feel the need to register as charities so that they can campaign freely—free not just from double-regulation but from any regulation, because they would be caught only by existing electoral and charity law and not by the new restrictions imposed by this Bill.

I can see the advantages of that. Alcohol Concern, which I established 30 years ago, is a charity which campaigns against the current Government’s policies—not against the governing party—because the Government will not bring in minimum unit pricing or reduce drink-drive levels. This is completely within our charitable objectives. We could even campaign as a charity and put all our money in certain constituencies. As long as we do not say that this means voting this way or that way, it would be completely in line with our charitable objectives.

The Federation of Licensed Victuallers Associations, which is not a charity, would be very worried about the effect of lower drink-drive limits on its trade, but it would not be able to campaign against changing the drink-drive limit without being caught by the necessities of the Bill. That is similar to the discussion we heard earlier about hunting and the Countryside Alliance and the League Against Cruel Sports. While both are campaigning on a policy issue, one would be subject to all the regulations and the other would not because it is a charity—as long as it keeps to charity law.

The Electoral Commission has pointed out that exempting charities from the PPERA would mean there would be no restrictions on what they could spend in the run-up to the election, provided that they act within their charitable objectives, but that all organisations would be subject to the new Bill and the tighter restrictions on campaigning. The Electoral Commission thinks this could undermine confidence in PPERA while creating an incentive for campaigners to campaign via charitable channels.

In answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, I can think of a number of organisations that I have been involved with which use the most appropriate vehicle, shall we say, at different times. That is the reason, as we know, that the Electoral Commission does not support exempting charities. Interestingly, we have not heard from the Charity Commission.

The supporters of the amendment say that charities should not need dual regulation. I have received only two letters from charities even vaguely in favour of this amendment—one has already been referred to: the Directory of Social Change—not because they want special treatment but because they are against duplicated regulation. They were not against being covered by the Bill but felt that they should not be regulated by a separate organisation. In other words, regulation could be by the Charity Commission; the argument is not for special treatment but against duplicate registration.

That is one of the arguments put forward in favour of the amendment, but there would be still other organisations covered by it. We heard earlier from a noble Baroness, who is not in her place, who is very involved with the BMA. It is regulated as a trade union, so it would be dual-regulated because it would continue to be regulated by the certification officer and also by the Electoral Commission. If it is simply about having dual regulation, surely we must deal with the plethora of people who would be doubly regulated.

The Directory of Social Change, despite not wanting to have two regulators, supports this amendment and also shares the concerns about the negative effects on broader civic engagement and the right to campaign. If I have read its letter correctly, I think its call would be for other parts of the Bill to be amended. The only other charity that has written specifically on this is the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which would support Amendment 160, but only as a fallback, because it is seriously concerned about the implications for wider civil society beyond charities. It supports the NCVO and others who want the Bill amended, as we do.

Charities are not calling for this, although they are undoubtedly calling for change. We will clearly be interested in what the Minister says on this. In the mean time, I shall ask Peers on the Liberal Democrat Benches whose amendment this is why they appear so little concerned with the other groups. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said that there is no evidence that charities did anything wrong in the previous election, and there is no evidence of these other groups being a problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who is not in her place at the moment, made it very clear that she does not like a whole chunk, if not most, of Part 2. If other noble Lords on those Benches really dislike like this Bill and all its bureaucracy so much, would it not be better for them to use their considerable muscle and voting strength in this House to amend the Bill for all civil society groups, rather than leaving just some of them exposed to the nasty bits of red tape, bureaucracy, demoralisation and complications that were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips? Their voting strength in this House would be able to get rid of them for all groups. If this part of the Bill is bad for charities, it is bad for similar groups that do not happen to be charities, and we should see them all as one.

22:15

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury for introducing this debate, which has been very interesting. Different views have been expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Low, said that charities do not speak with one voice on this matter, and that confirms my experience from having engaged with charities, admittedly not as extensively as my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I have heard different views expressed about whether there should be an exemption for charities. Therefore, it is important that the arguments that have been put forward on both sides are given proper examination. My noble friend’s amendment would amend Clause 26 so that charities were excluded from the regulatory regime governing controlled expenditure for third parties. At present, under charity law, charities are organisations which must be established for charitable purposes only and which are for the public benefit. An organisation will not be charitable if—as my noble friend pointed out—it engages in partisan political activity.

Campaigning and political activity can be legitimate and valuable activities for charities to undertake. However, they must be undertaken by a charity only in the context of supporting the delivery of its charitable purposes. As we have heard, the Charity Commission produces comprehensive guidance—CC9—for charities on campaigning and political activity. However, the Charity Commission also acknowledges that there may be circumstances in which charities may legitimately operate within the regulatory regime established by PPERA 2000, even if their campaigns remain within the rules on party political activities by charities.

When the Bill was in the other place, the Electoral Commission highlighted a situation in its briefing. If a charity distributes material to the public that highlights the views of candidates from different parties on issues related to the charity’s objectives, this may in some circumstances reasonably be regarded as intended to promote the election of those candidates and, as such, would require compliance with the rules in PPERA. That echoes our earlier debate about when what would not be registrable becomes registrable. In such cases, Parliament decided through the passing of the 2000 Act that such activity should be regulated as it could potentially influence electors during an election. Indeed, Parliament chose then—as indeed we replicate in this Bill after amendment in the other place—to go down the road of an objective test. It may well be that it is not a subjective thing by the charity but seen objectively it could fall within the provisions set out in the Bill.

I find some of the arguments against difficult. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley—who is now in the Chair, so am I allowed to say this?—in a point picked up by my noble friend Lord Tyler, seemed to suggest that the limits on charities would be much more flexible. They would not be as tight as they would be on non-charity third party participants. Indeed, I think that was reflected in the opening comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, when she seemed to suggest all the things that Beatrice Webb could have done if she had registered herself as a charity and that none of these things would have been available had she not been a charity.

As my noble friend Lord Phillips said, charities are not allowed to engage in partisan politics and charity law is pretty strict. Trustees of charities are only too well aware of the limitations. Sometimes I got the impression during the debate that we were comparing a free for all—if you registered as a charity—with the registration and regulation of controlled expenditure that would apply to third parties that are not charities under the provisions of this Bill. I do not think that is a proper comparison. That is why I think there is a genuine dilemma, as my noble friend said.

The Electoral Commission is clear that charities should not be exempt from the PPERA regime. That point was made clear by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. The position has been endorsed by the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement which states in its report that,

“it is the Commission’s view that it is right that charities are not excluded from within this legislation, and we believe the Government’s approach to distinguish by activity rather than by type of organisations is correct”.

The Government have taken the view that the nature of the PPERA test and the constraints of charity law will inevitably mean that the circumstances in which charities are caught by the PPERA rules will be rare.

There have been some important points made that I want to reflect on as I do not think it is as quite clear cut. There are clear views on why Parliament did what it did in 2000, and why that has been endorsed by the Electoral Commission and by the commission chaired by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. The Government should be cautious about taking as significant a step as exempting charities from the regulatory regime. We would want to see more evidence and would pray for reassurance that this would not create a loophole. There are issues about—and this is an unfortunate expression that has been used in some discussions I have had—a “sliver” of activity, which could take charities which are abiding by charity law into an area which would nevertheless be regulated under the PPERA regime. I would want to be satisfied that it would not lead to avoidance, although I certainly hear the strong arguments asking whether there is any point in setting up a charitable arm which is going to be restricted by charity law. However, it is clearly an issue. It was raised by the Electoral Commission, the Commission on Civil Society and others, and was queried by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie.

The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, raised a point that was mentioned when I talked to people involved in the charitable sector in Scotland at the end of last week. Although charities could have their activities restricted because of charity law if they engaged in any activities which could otherwise have taken them into PPERA regulation, what we do not have is transparency. Transparency is an important issue, which I would ask my noble friend to reflect upon. I am more than happy to have these discussions.

The points made by my noble friend Lord Hodgson on important operational issues are why I would not rush forward to say that we will accept an exemption. However, there are concerns about double-regulation which have been expressed to me, and many will sympathise with those who have the potential to be regulated by both the Electoral Commission and the Charity Commission.

I thank my noble friend for raising this issue. The position which has been taken up until now, as endorsed by the Electoral Commission, has commended itself to the Government. However, some important challenges to that position have been raised and I would therefore not wish to shut the door on further consideration of it. I would be happy to engage not only with my noble friend in picking up some of these points, but also with others who clearly take a strong view that charities should be in the same position as non-charitable organisations in respect of the application of this part of the Bill.

Finally—I know that my noble friend will make the point in his wind-up if I do not respond to it in advance—he said, and I know from previous conversations, that the Charity Commission should perhaps be given more money and resources. This is not the debate, nor am I the Minister with any responsibility, to commit more funds to do that. I hope that I am not misrepresenting my noble friend Lord Hodgson, who I think was making the point that if more resources were going, there were perhaps greater priorities than undertaking a task on electoral regulation which is already done by the Electoral Commission. That is a point, and one I am sure that my noble friend Lord Phillips will articulate when he comes to wind up. In the mean time, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate. It has swayed to and fro in the best traditions and everybody has made useful points. I have not the time to cover all the offerings, and your Lordships would not want me to at 10.23 pm. However, one or two things I must just say.

The first is to take up the point my noble friend made at the end of his speech, concerning the role of the Charity Commission. My noble friend Lord Hodgson spoke very forcibly about the disparity between the theory of charity law and the actuality of oversight. I accept that, and there is no shadow of doubt in my mind but that if my amendment is accepted on Report, it must and can only be on the basis that the Charity Commission will do a more thorough job than it currently does. I fully accept that, but I am hopeful that that is something which would be very much in the Government’s mind, because if we take a third of a million charities out of the regulatory oversight of the Electoral Commission, we can make major savings, part of which can be deployed in beefing up the Charity Commission’s efforts.

Having said that—forgive me if I bang home the point that I have lived in this sector, so to speak, for 40 years—in my experience there is astonishingly little abuse of charity law. There is an astonishingly high level of public trust as well, and there is a deep revulsion in the sector of trying to play games with it, let alone corrupting it. I emphasise, however, that that does not take away from the point I started by making: there needs to be better enforcement.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, gave an example whereby, I think she said, you could have a biased charity that concentrated its efforts in certain constituencies in order to achieve a certain outcome. That would not be allowed under charity law. It is not that daft. It looks at the whole picture and the substance of what a charity does and if a charity pretended not to be engaged in partisan pursuits but actually was—by, for example, putting its effort only into constituencies where the candidate that it wanted to win was holding a view that it was pushing—that would be wrong and illegal. I am not saying that it would always be picked up by the Charity Commission, but people are on the qui vive these days. I think noble Lords will agree that complaints to the Charity Commission are made regularly and without inhibition.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

The point is not to support the candidate in order to get that candidate elected but to put pressure, usually, on a Minister to have those views heard, be it about drink-driving or something else. That is why, believe me, we do not do this stuff without the Charity Commission okaying it, because it is not to influence how people vote but to use the fact that the Minister is in that particular constituency to go there. It is not to get people to vote, so it is acceptable.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am sorry if I misunderstood. Perhaps we can talk about this outside the Chamber, because this is not the place or the time to go into it in any more detail. All I am saying, and I will assert it without equivocation, is that the law is clear. I say that it is clear, but the law is there and it is well used and old and practical. The Charity Commission needs more resources but the amount of abuse is minuscule in relation to the size of the sector and I remain utterly opposed to lumbering this sector, of all sectors, with double regulation.

The non-charitable NGO sector includes some wonderful organisations but also some very shady ones. There are, I am afraid, a number of non-charitable NGOs that are used for violent political purposes. Money is poured into them, either for commercial or extreme political purposes, and there is nothing to stop them, as things stand. We have quite different categories to deal with and that is why it is entirely right, sensible and practical to have separate categories in terms of regulation. To lumber the charity sector with double regulation should be the last of our intentions. That is my fundamental point and on that note I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 160 withdrawn.

Amendments 160A to 160F not moved.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 10.30 pm.