House of Commons
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
1. What his policy is on the deduction of trade union subscriptions from payroll in the civil service.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
The deduction of trade union subscriptions from payroll through check-off is a matter delegated to Departments in the civil service.
Ian Murray
The civil service has used check-off for the last 30 years. Indeed, large companies such as BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce use it as a very efficient way to deduct trade union subscriptions from salary. Is this not just another ideological attack? Removing check-off from the civil service payroll will cost many times more than running the current system for hundreds of years.
Mr Maude
As I say, it is a matter for Departments to decide for themselves. A number of trade unions take the view that it is much better to have a direct relationship with their members than to have it intermediated through the employer—it is a rather more modern way to run things.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend think that it is fair on hard-working British taxpayers that their money is used to subsidise the administration of trade unions rather than going to front-line services?
Mr Maude
My hon. Friend has been a doughty campaigner for the use of facility time to be much better regulated. We inherited from Labour a position in which very large amounts of public money were being spent on subsidising 250 full-time officials in the civil service alone, let alone in the wider public sector. I am happy to tell her that we have got that under control.
Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The Minister says that this is a matter for individual Departments, but the private secretary in his Department has written to every Department in Whitehall asking them to review check-off. We know that the Government, for political reasons, want to scrap check-off, and I have seen a copy of an official letter from the Department for Work and Pensions, which was subsequently withheld by Ministers, that states:
“The department has concluded that the figure for the financial implications of ending check-off should be disclosed…The information held states: ‘We estimate that implementation costs could exceed one million pounds’.”
In the light of that revelation, will he agree, in the interests of transparency, to publish the full financial implications of this misguided policy?
Mr Maude
Well, with respect, I have seen more recent correspondence than the hon. Gentleman has seen. The truth is that Ministers—as he will recall from his time in government—are sometimes given figures for the cost of making a change that turn out not to be true. This is such a case.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
2. What progress he has made on his programme of quango and public body reform.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
The Government have reduced the number of public bodies by more than 250. By 2015, there will be a third fewer public bodies than in 2010, ensuring increased accountability and efficiency, with continuing efficiency savings of £900 million a year.
Nadine Dorries
Many quangos are unaccountable, unelected and have great power over people’s everyday lives. They are incredibly expensive to run, with questionable outcomes. Will the Minister please consider another round of the bonfire of the quangos to continue our march towards a leaner and more efficient Government?
Mr Maude
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s encouragement. Our quest for a leaner and more efficient Government has already yielded savings of more than £10 billion in the last financial year. Labour did nothing on that whatever, which is part of the reason why we inherited the biggest budget deficit in the developed world. We have more to do, and for the first time we have instituted a round of triennial reviews so that every three years we look at the status of every public body to decide whether it still needs to exist or whether it can be trimmed back. We find that there is scope for much more progress yet.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that the abolition of the UK Film Council and its amalgamation with the British Film Institute will ensure that we continue to make the most of British talent, in that wonderful creative industry?
Mr Maude
I am confident that that will be the case. My colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport examined this question very carefully before making the decisions they did. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of the film industry in this country: it is a very bright star indeed, and we should certainly ensure that we do nothing that jeopardises that.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
13. Sadly, one of Tony Blair’s lasting legacies was the creation of a huge number of unelected, unaccountable, highly paid quangos, which has ruined this place and taken power from it. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me by telling me what efforts he is making to return power and accountability to the House of Commons?
Mr Maude
A major part of the programme of public bodies reform has been bringing policy functions back to the Government in a way that provides direct accountability to Parliament through Ministers. That is a big part of increasing accountability, but the secondary purpose of the reform of public bodies has been to save money, and I am glad to say that it looks as though the savings will, if anything, exceed our expectations.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Minister has told us about the reduction in the number of quangos. Will he now tell us what progress is being made in increasing the cost-effectiveness of those that remain?
Mr Maude
That is a continuing process. There is much more to be done to increase efficiency. As I have said, we saved more than £10 billion across central Government last year, and we expect the saving to exceed £13 billion in the current financial year, which will end this month. There is much more to be done on quango reform, but as I have said, we expect to save £900 million a year, and have already saved about £1.6 billion.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
In the course of his ongoing work on public body and quango reform, will the Minister consider adjusting the responsibilities of the Major Projects Authority? Among its options, the authority has the responsibility to
“require publication of project information consistent with the Coalition’s transparency agenda”.
That is not happening. The Government have suppressed the MPA’s detailed report on HS2, hiding behind a summary. Is it not about time that we were given an accurate description of public bodies, or that the Government published the report?
Mr Maude
As my right hon. Friend knows, we are publishing much more detail about the Government’s major projects than has ever been published before. The role of the Major Projects Authority has ensured that, for the first time, consistent oversight and assurance are being applied to the Government’s major projects portfolio, and as a result, having inherited a position in which only about a third of major Government projects were delivered on time and on budget, we now find that the proportion is more like 70%. We are making a great deal of progress, but I hear what my right hon. Friend says.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Speaking about public body reform in 2012, the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee said that
“the Cabinet Office must get to grips with the programme’s overall costs, benefits and key risks”.
However, a recent National Audit Office report showed that those failings were still in place. When will the Minister get a grip?
Mr Maude
It is a bit surprising that the hon. Gentleman should raise that point, given that the last Government did absolutely nothing on this front. We inherited a position in which the Government did not even know how many public bodies there were, but by the time of the next election, we will have reduced the number by a third and cut the costs significantly: we will have cut the cost of quangos by £2.6 billion. I hope that, at some stage, the hon. Gentleman will reflect on the poor record of his own Government. We would be willing, at that stage, to accept his congratulations on what we have done.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
3. What the level of charitable giving was in the last year for which figures are available.
The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Nick Hurd)
Three quarters of British people give money to charity, and on that measure, we are the most generous of all the G8 countries. Collectively, in 2010-11 we gave £16.5 billion to charity through direct and indirect donations, and with active Government support. I am delighted to say that the amount of giving appears to have remained constant since 2010, despite difficult times. I am sure that that is something that the whole House will welcome.
Steve Brine
Indeed it is. The Minister will be aware of the good things that we can achieve through “round the pound” schemes, and I know that he, like me, is a fan of the organisation Pennies. Will he therefore back my “Winchester penny” idea? The aim is to support the third sector in my constituency by encouraging local businesses, including those that are part of national chains, to join Winchester’s efforts to ensure that we keep it local and support those who are most in need.
Mr Hurd
I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend’s initiative. I know that he is a great champion of the voluntary sector in Winchester. We are great fans of Pennies, which is one of the organisations that we have supported through our innovation in giving fund, and which is modernising the way in which we can make micro-donations. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has launched his initiative in Winchester. I congratulate him on his leadership, and congratulate all the businesses that he has so far succeeded in signing up to what seems an excellent initiative.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
More and more younger donors are choosing to make their charitable donations by text, yet this group of people are being woefully failed in terms of Gift Aid. Will the Minister look into this, so that Gift Aid support is available for donors who give by text?
Mr Hurd
I wholly understand the hon. Lady’s point. People are giving in new ways, harnessing the power of new technology. One of the challenges we face is how we can help to make giving easy and compelling in the modern age. She will be aware that we work very hard with our colleagues at the Treasury to try to modernise Gift Aid, such as by making it easier to claim Gift Aid on small donations, and she will be aware that there is an active consultation on how we modernise Gift Aid in the digital world, including how we can harness it to support text-giving.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
4. What his policy is on the inclusion of people with different political points of view on public bodies.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
Ministerial appointments to public bodies are made on merit.
Mr Brown
The Minister will recall that when in the 1980s the then Conservative Government abolished the metropolitan county authorities, the Government were scrupulous in making arrangements for the successor joint boards to recognise the rights of minority groups on the local authorities as well as the majority groups. Such arrangements do not pertain to the new combined authorities that I see from today’s Order Paper we are bringing in. Why is that?
Mr Maude
I will look at the point that the right hon. Gentleman raises. The truth is that in the last year for which the commissioner for public appointments has published figures on public appointments, actually slightly more appointees declared a Labour party affiliation than a Conservative party affiliation, but for appointments generally we seek people with some commercial experience of running large organisations who can bring to bear the same desire for efficiency and eradicating waste as we are showing in central Government.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that the rather artificial and silly row about Conservatives being appointed to public bodies has now thankfully come to an end? Also, I inform him and the House that the Public Administration Select Committee is going to have a look at the relationship between public bodies and their sponsoring Departments, to see how they perform in bad times as well as good, how they deal with crises and how accountability should be improved.
Mr Maude
I of course welcome that inquiry. This is an important issue that should be kept under considerable review. Where the Executive and Parliament forgo the ability for a public activity to be directly accountable to Parliament, we need to understand very clearly how that responsibility is being executed.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
I am not sure that the row has come to an end, because in recent weeks we have learned that a Tory donor has been made chair of Natural England, that a former Tory Member of this House has been made chair of the Care Quality Commission, and indeed in the Cabinet Office an impartial civil service post, heading up the appointments unit, has gone to a former member of Conservative central office. So can the Minister, who is of course a former Tory party chairman, explain why an exemption was agreed to give Laura Wyld that Cabinet Office post?
Mr Maude
One has to admire the gall of the hon. Gentleman, given that the Government of whom he was a supporter relentlessly stuffed public bodies full of Labour donors and Labour lickspittles. It was the most appalling abuse of power. We are running things in a substantially better way, as the statistic I have just disclosed illustrates. Further, I can inform the hon. Gentleman that the number of women appointed to public appointments is now up to 45% for the last period, which is significantly better than anything his Government ever even began to achieve.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
5. What assessment he has made of the level of savings resulting from procurement and commercial reform across central Government since May 2010; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Nick Hurd)
Through a range of very overdue commercial and procurement reforms across central Government, the efficiency and reform group set up by the Minister for the Cabinet Office has delivered savings of £3.75 billion in 2010-11, a further £5.5 billion in 2011-12 and an additional £10 billion in 2012-13.
Michael Fabricant
What a shame the Labour party did not do that, and did not mend the roof while the sun was shining. Nevertheless, there are still things that we need to do. My hon. Friend will know that there have been problems at the Ministry of Justice with G4S and Serco. What lessons has he learned from that, to prevent such problems from happening again?
Mr Hurd
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is worth reminding the House that the Labour Front Bencher who had the opportunity to realise those savings but failed to deliver them now leads the party. In answer to my hon. Friend’s question, the review that we launched after the Ministry of Justice found irregularities with contracts let under the previous Labour Government underscored the need to strengthen the commercial capability of the civil service, which was long overdue.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
In Rotherham, small and medium-sized charities are struggling to keep afloat because of moves towards larger-scale procurement. Does the Minister agree that, while such procurement can make savings, it can also cause suffering?
Mr Hurd
This Government are extremely committed to trying to open up the public service so that more, and more diverse, organisations can help us to deliver better value for the taxpayer. That explicitly includes charities, social enterprises and public service mutuals. Yesterday, we announced a publication that updates the House on our progress. We are making progress. We are not yet where I want to be, as this involves a quite profound cultural change, but we are committed to seeing this through.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
6. What progress he has made on replacing individual Government websites with gov.uk.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
9. What progress he has made on replacing individual Government websites with gov.uk.
The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Nick Hurd)
So far, we have closed an astonishing 1,789 Government websites. We are in the process of moving the remaining 200 on to gov.uk by July 2014. In that process, we are not just saving £42 million but providing, at long last, a single source of consistent, clear information on Government policies.
David Rutley
I welcome the action that my hon. Friend is taking. Will he update the House on the progress that is being made on digitising the apprenticeships application process, and tell us when it will be available on gov.uk?
Mr Hurd
That is a very important service, for reasons that the House understands, and it is a priority for us. We have built a prototype, which will be tested with users over the coming months, and our hope is that a version of this important service will be available from October this year.
Henry Smith
Will my hon. Friend tell us what best practice local authorities can take from this central Government initiative?
Mr Hurd
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. There is a huge opportunity to harness best practice across local government, and that is why we have partnered with the Local Government Association and other sector partners to establish a local digital alliance. We are collaborating with and supporting local government to design and deliver local public services online. That will allow them to offer value for money and to maximise the opportunities presented by digital tools.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
7. What recent progress the Government have made on implementing the big society.
The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Nick Hurd)
I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in celebrating the fact that volunteering has risen since 2010 after years of decline, and that almost 2,000 young people in Bristol and the immediate surrounding area will have the opportunity to take part in the National Citizen Service this year.
Kerry McCarthy
I am sure that the Government are embarrassed by the fact that food banks have now become by far the most visible sign of the big society in action and have now, de facto, become part of the welfare system. Jobcentres are being told to signpost them, rather than refer people to them, in order to mask their connection with benefit sanctions and delays. Is this a sign of the success of the big society: food banks feeding the starving because of the failures of the welfare system’s safety net?
Mr Hurd
Food banks are an impressive civil society response to a need that, as the hon. Lady knows, emerged before the last general election. We have supported a number of them through our social action fund. I hope that she agrees that they are not a long-term solution to the complex issue of food poverty. There are no simple answers, despite what Opposition Members claim, but a large part of the solution is a recovering economy and the long-overdue reform of the welfare system, and that is what we are delivering.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the best example of the big society is people power, and that the best example of people power is an in/out referendum on the EU, which those on the Opposition Benches oppose?
Mr Hurd
I wholly support my hon. Friend. He is a great champion of the big society and is entirely right that a large pillar of that is giving more power to the people. As we have learned today, there is only one party that will give people the power to make that important choice.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
The Archbishop of Westminster, Civil Exchange and the Centre for Social Justice have all delivered damning verdicts on the Government’s big society recently. They have shown that people are being thrown on to charity, because the state has failed; that there are three times as many charities in affluent neighbourhoods as in deprived ones; and that while volunteering is thriving, it is not in the places where it is needed most. Was it the intention of the big society that some would swim while others would sink?
Mr Hurd
In fact, the excellent Centre for Social Justice report actually highlighted how much progress this Government have made in doing what we said we would do, which is transferring power to people, opening up public services so that more and more organisations can come in to help us to deliver better services, and encouraging social action. As I said, giving in this country has remained constant since 2010 and volunteering has risen, which I hope the hon. Lady would welcome.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
My responsibilities are for the public sector Efficiency and Reform Group, civil service issues, industrial relations strategy in the public sector, government transparency, civil contingencies, civil society and cyber-security.
Mr Davis
The Wilson doctrine is a convention whereby Government agencies do not intercept communications with Members of Parliament without explicit approval from the Prime Minister. In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) in 2012, the Minister told him that the Wilson doctrine did not apply to metadata, thereby exposing whistleblowers to risks from which parliamentary privilege should protect them. Will he review this policy, discuss it with the Prime Minister and report to the House?
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
T4. The Minister has a bit of a reputation as a pyromaniac, trying to have bonfires of regulations, quangos and much else. If that is the case, why is he allowing the Financial Conduct Authority to introduce a new code that will inhibit crowdfunding and local people in their communities in raising money through social media? Why do we have this new regulation?
Mr Maude
I accept the compliment that the hon. Gentleman pays me—gracefully, I hope—but the issue he raises is not one with which I am familiar. I am sure that my right hon. Friends in the Treasury will want to look at it. It is a great pleasure to have representation from the Opposition about excessive regulation. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Far too many excessively noisy private conversations are taking place. Let us have a bit of order for Mr Mel Stride.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
T2. My right hon. Friend will know that the Public and Commercial Services Union, which stood up with such militancy against his pension reforms, has discovered that it has a £65 million black hole in its own pension scheme. Does he agree that the union should spend more time looking after its members and less time politicising Government reforms?
Mr Maude
All organisations that run a pension scheme have to live in the real world. I am sure that the leadership of the PCS will take pleasure in the fact that its members in the civil service continue to enjoy a pension scheme that is significantly better than the one that the PCS offers to its own staff.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
T6. There is huge concern about the Government’s proposals to sell or part-privatise the Land Registry, putting 400 civil service jobs in Durham at risk. It works and even turns a profit for the Treasury. Why fix what is not broken? Has the Minister discussed this with his Department for Business, Innovation and Skills colleagues, and if not, why not?
Mr Maude
I have indeed discussed this with my colleagues in BIS. I do not take the gloomy view that the hon. Lady takes, that any involvement of the private sector means that the Land Registry will be less effective or have less opportunity to grow. A lot of what the Land Registry does is excellent, and there is a real opportunity for it to grow. If that involves bringing in a private sector partner, or private sector capital of one form or another, I hope that she would support that.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
T3. May I welcome the Minister’s plans to improve accountability for senior civil service appointments? To ensure transparency and the scrutiny of appointments, may I also urge him to consider making the shortlists for appointments for the heads of quangos, Whitehall Departments and international courts the subject of prior scrutiny by Select Committees?
Mr Maude
My hon. Friend’s latter point is constantly reviewed, and it will come as no surprise to him that his urging is supported by many Select Committees. On his first point, for the first time all permanent secretary appointments are for a fixed tenure of five years. We publish the objectives of permanent secretaries, and all this is beginning to be more accountable than it has ever been before.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
T7. This week concerns were expressed in the media about the move to a shared network for emergency services. Why are the Government refusing to share the risk assessment, saying that it will prejudice the procurement process?
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
T5. What would be the administrative consequences for government if patients languishing on long waiting lists in Wales were given access to the far higher quality services delivered by the coalition NHS in England?
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
T8. Last weekend I was searching for a V14 form to return a tax disc, I did a search on Google, and a copycat website came up offering services that cost money. What efforts are being made by the Government to work with the advertising agencies to try to deal with copycat websites that are ripping people off?
Mr Maude
My colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and I had a meeting with Google and others last week to address exactly this issue. We are taking urgent steps, with Google and with the Advertising Standards Authority, to address it. It is a real concern, the hon. Gentleman is right to raise it and we are on the case.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 March.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
I have been asked to reply on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is visiting Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Sapper Adam Moralee from 32 Engineer Regiment, who tragically died in Camp Bastion on 5 March. He will be greatly missed by his family and friends, and our deepest sympathies are with them at this time.
On a happier note, I am sure the whole House would also like to join me in paying tribute to our first Team GB winter Paralympic gold medal winner, Kelly Gallagher, and her team mate, Jade Etherington, who has won silver and bronze medals at the Sochi games. I, of course, wish to send the best of luck to the other Team GB competitors.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Naomi Long
May I, too, send my sympathies, thoughts and prayers to the family of Sapper Moralee and my congratulations to Kelly Gallagher, from Northern Ireland of course, who competed and won the first gold medal?
Given rising racism and xenophobia, including recent racist attacks in my constituency, what more can the Government do to ensure that the public debate on issues such as European Union membership and immigration is more balanced and celebrates the huge positive contribution made to the social, cultural and economic life of the UK, particularly in the run-up to the European elections?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Of course I agree with the hon. Lady that we need to strike the right balance, explaining to the public that we are running a tough but firm immigration system where it needs to be tough and firm, but one that is open to those who want to come here, make a contribution, pay their taxes and contribute to our way of life. I was deeply saddened and shocked to hear about the incidents and what had happened to members of the Polish and Chinese community in her constituency, and even more so to hear about what has happened to her colleague Anna Lo, Member of the Legislative Assembly. I understand that she is the first Member of Chinese descent in any legislature in Europe, but she, too, has been subject to terrible abuse by bullies and racists. I rang her a few weeks ago to express my support for what she is doing to stand up against that terrible treatment.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Q2. Since a £700 tax cut, free school meals and the pupil premium will improve the opportunities and lives of many of my constituents, even though these ideas were not entirely welcome to some among our coalition partners, will my right hon. Friend welcome the fact that coalition government and the compromises that go with it can deliver sound policies?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Yes, I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend, especially on those policies. One of them, as he will know, is in the papers this morning, because of the slightly inexplicable views of an entirely unknown if highly opinionated ex-party adviser to the Conservative party about free school meals. Free school meals, when they are delivered for those in infant school in September, will save families money, improve the health of children and improve educational outcomes. Instead of denigrating that policy, we should be celebrating it.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I join the Deputy Prime Minister in paying tribute to Sapper Adam Moralee from 32 Engineer Regiment. We honour his bravery and service, but above all send our deepest condolences to his family and friends who mourn him.
I join the Deputy Prime Minister, too, in congratulating our Paralympic medal winners, and wish all Team GB the best of luck in the rest of the games.
At the last general election, the Deputy Prime Minister said that local people should have more control over their health services. Will he explain to the House and the public why last night he voted against that?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Actually, we voted for measures that will ensure that there is local consultation. [Interruption.] I am intrigued by the right hon. and learned Lady’s line of inquiry, given the Labour party’s record on the NHS. We do not need to go any further than what is happening in Wales, where the NHS has not met its target since 2009. It was the Labour party in government that entered into a succession of sweetheart deals, with the covert privatisation of large parts of our NHS. I really do not think that, after the Francis report and all the other revelations of what happened in the NHS under Labour, it has much to stand on.
Ms Harman
The right hon. Gentleman is even prepared to justify what he voted on last night. The truth is that the Health Secretary broke the law that gave local people a say, so decided to change the law. The Lib Dems could have stepped in and stopped it, but oh no, here is what they did instead. First, they said that they were against the change, then they put down an amendment, then they sold out to the Tories—and the Tories got their way again. Is there any logic to how the Lib Dems vote other than self-interest?
The Deputy Prime Minister
This from a party that spent £250 million on sweetheart deals for the private sector, which led to operations and procedures that did not help a single patient; a party that now rants and rails against competition in the NHS, but actually introduced it; a party that suffers from collective amnesia about the terrible suffering of the patients in Mid Staffordshire and other parts of the NHS mismanaged by it.
Ms Harman
Hospitals are under threat and they want a say. People will remember what the Deputy Prime Minister has said in the House today.
At their spring conference last week, Lib Dem Ministers were falling over themselves to denounce Government policies, and even their own departmental colleagues, describing them variously as “unfair”, “absurd” and “hated”, yet they keep supporting them. Take the bedroom tax. The right hon. Gentleman’s own party president says that the bedroom tax is wrong, unnecessary and causing misery, but they voted for it. Now they say they want to abolish it. Are they for the bedroom tax or against it? Which is it?
The Deputy Prime Minister
There are 1.7 million people on the housing waiting lists in our country and there are 1.5 million spare bedrooms. That is a problem that we inherited, like so many problems, from the Labour party. We are trying to sort out the mess that it created. If it is incapable of taking any responsibility or expressing any apology for the mess that it has created, why should we take any of the right hon. and learned Lady’s questions seriously at all?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Guess what the top rate of tax was under Labour. Anybody? Was it 50p or 45p? Anybody? It was 40p for 13 years, and now the right hon. and learned Lady is complaining that it is 5p higher. Honestly, if she is going to try to make consistency a virtue, how about this? This week, the Labour party has been talking about the need to give young people job opportunities. Last week, it tabled an amendment to the Deregulation Bill which would tell half a million young people on level 2 apprenticeships that they are no longer apprentices. Worse than that, it issued a report a few months ago that said that hundreds of thousands of youngsters on level 2 apprenticeships are—get this—dead weight. What a kick in the teeth for the young people we should be helping on to apprenticeships.
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. and learned Lady. When both principals have been at the Dispatch Box, there has been far too much noise. People ought to be able to hear the questions and answers. Whether or not Members respect each other, they ought to respect the public.
Ms Harman
Long-term youth unemployment has doubled under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government. With so many people struggling to make ends meet and many even driven to relying on food banks, it is an absolute disgrace that the Lib Dems voted through a tax cut for the richest.
On Sunday, the Deputy Prime Minister shared with us everything that he loves about Britain. He loves his cup of tea, he loves the shipping forecast and he loves flip-flops—not so much footwear for the Deputy Prime Minister, but certainly a way of life. With his broken promises and posturing, does he not realise that he might love Britain, but Britain does not love him back?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The punchline was a long time in the delivery and it was not really worth waiting for. I know that the right hon. and learned Lady does not want the facts to get in the way of a pre-prepared joke, but how about this? Youth unemployment is lower now than when we came into office. In her last year in office, 1 million more people were in relative poverty than there are now; half a million more children were in relative poverty than there are now; 150,000 more people were unemployed than there are now; and 25,000 more young people were unemployed. What we know is that Labour is the party of a 40p top tax rate, of sweetheart deals for the private sector in the NHS and of Fred Goodwin—and now they are the party against apprenticeships.
Ms Harman
What the Deputy Prime Minister has shown is that he is siding with the Tories and is totally out of touch. Whatever was said last weekend, no one is going to be fooled by the Lib Dems’ phoney rows with the Tories when week in, week out they are justifying policies at the Dispatch Box and trotting through the Lobby with the Tories. They used to talk about two parties coming together in the national interest; now they are two parties bound together by a mutual terror of the electorate.
The Deputy Prime Minister
However the right hon. and learned Lady wishes to characterise things, she has a record that she needs to defend: of boom and bust, of sucking up to the City and of presiding—[Interruption.]
The Deputy Prime Minister
She has a record of an increase in relative poverty, an increase in unemployment and an increase in youth unemployment, and of bequeathing to a generation the country’s worst peacetime deficit ever. Is that really a record that the right hon. and learned Lady is proud of? As ever, we are clearing up the mess that she left behind.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Q3. The Government’s response to the recent storm damage, to help fishermen and to restore the link at Dawlish is very much appreciated, but the severe damage to Penzance-Scilly and the vital lifeline transport links to the Isles of Scilly has largely gone unnoticed, and it is not something that local authorities can resolve entirely on their own. Will the Deputy Prime Minister ensure that a delegation from my constituency can meet the appropriate Ministers and officials, so that we can seek the support necessary to find a long-term and resilient solution to the problem?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I visited my hon. Friend’s constituency to see the damage done to many communities by the terrible floods and extreme weather of recent times. I know how long he has been campaigning on the issue. I will ensure that that meeting takes place with the relevant Minister in Government.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
This week, it is surely right to extend condolences to the family and friends of Bob Crow.
The Secretary of State for Defence has issued a ministerial correction in which he corrects the falsehood that there was no measurable change in the radiation discharge at HMS Vulcan near Dounreay. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the Ministry of Defence should be fully answerable to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I also express my condolences to the family and friends of Bob Crow. Whether one agreed with him or not, he was someone with forthright views, and he always worked tirelessly for what he believed in and for the people he represented.
On the issue of Dounreay, the Ministry of Defence sought to be as open as possible. It is important that all of us work together to ensure that the nuclear deterrent is managed and maintained safely, and that is exactly what everyone seeks to do.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Q4. We now know that the Leader of the Opposition is opposed to an EU referendum and will not deliver one. The Deputy Prime Minister is opposed to an EU referendum and will not deliver one. The leader of the UK Independence party wants an EU referendum but cannot deliver one. The Prime Minister wants an EU referendum and will deliver it by 2017. Will the stand-in Prime Minister tell the House which of the party leaders trusts the British people and is a real democrat?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As ever, it is a pleasure! I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman has fans on the Labour Benches. As he mentions my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, let me quote what he said at this Dispatch Box just a couple of years ago when we voted together on this very issue. He said:
“My clear view is that it is when this Parliament proposes to give up powers that there should be a referendum. That is the guarantee that we have written into the law of the land…It is important that we try to establish clear rules for the use of referendums in a parliamentary democracy, and I absolutely believe that rule 1, line 1 is: ‘If you’re giving up powers that belong to the British people, you should ask them first.’”—[Official Report, 24 October 2011; Vol. 534, c. 33-39.]
I entirely agree. That was the Government’s position then, that was what we legislated on and that remains my view.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
A recent survey of the TUC reckoned that 67% of hard-working people in private industry will not be getting a rise this year. How does that square with the fat cats in the City and the bankers getting their big bonuses?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The richest in society are paying more in every year of this Parliament than they did in any year under Labour. It was the hon. Gentleman’s party that let the bankers run amok. It was his party, the party of Fred Goodwin, that went on a prawn cocktail charm offensive to suck up to the bankers in the first place. It wiped off so much of the value of the British economy—it amounts to £3,000 lost to every household in the United Kingdom. Is that a record that he is proud of?
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Q5. Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that the measures that have been announced so far have had no impact on President Putin and the Russian Government, who are refusing to negotiate with the Ukrainian Government and continue to strengthen their hold on Crimea? Will the Government now press for targeted economic sanctions against senior members of the Russian Government and their supporters in order to reinforce the message that the annexation of Crimea is unacceptable and wholly in breach of international law?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks for everyone in all parts of the House when he says that we should seek to do everything to deter the Russians from making the situation any worse and to de-escalate. That is why it is terribly important that we work together with our American allies and with countries across the European Union and use the collective economic and political clout of the European Union to set out, as we have done, a ratchet of sanctions, which can and will be deployed if de-escalation does not happen. I hope that that will start very soon with Russian agreements to enter into a contact group so that direct talks can start between Kiev and Moscow.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
On his party’s recent defeat by the Bus Pass Elvis candidate, could not the electorate’s message to the Deputy Prime Minister be summarised by paraphrasing the words of a song by the original Elvis—“You ain’t nothing but a lapdog”?
The Deputy Prime Minister
At least we are not the lapdog of the bankers, which is what Labour was in office. At least we did not crash the British economy. At least we did not cost every household £3,000. At least we did not preside over an increase in relative poverty. At least we did not preside over an increase in youth unemployment. We are creating the stronger economy and fairer society that the Labour party failed to create.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Q6. The Deputy Prime Minister will have been encouraged to hear that the economy is growing faster than expected, showing the value of this Government’s long-term economic plan. Does he share my satisfaction that that is being achieved through a resurgence in manufacturing? In my constituency, Automotive Insulations, suppliers to the motor industry, has more than doubled in size over the past three years and is investing in a new 65,000 square feet factory in Rugby.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I strongly agree. By sticking to the plan, despite all the overtures from Opposition Members to abandon it, we have provided the stability and growth to the British economy that otherwise would not have taken place. We have seen spectacular success in the automotive sector. A vehicle rolls off a British production line every 20 seconds. We are producing more cars than ever before. Of course, the Labour party presided over a decline in manufacturing three times greater than that which happened in the 1980s.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Q7. Last week my constituents in Clifton North elected a new Labour councillor. Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that it was his party’s support for the bedroom tax, the trebling of tuition fees, unfair cuts to the poorest families or the betrayal of the NHS that led my constituents to put the Buss Pass Elvis candidate ahead of the Liberal Democrats?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Putting Buss Pass Elvis aside for a moment—I admit that it was a novel experience for us, as it no doubt was for the people of Clifton—did the Labour candidate admit that Labour cost every household in Clifton £3,000? Did it admit that Labour allowed the bankers to run amok in 2008? Did it admit that Labour was the party that crashed the British economy? Did anyone on the doorstep apologise to the people of Clifton for what the Labour party did to this country?
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Q8. The Cotswolds is a very special place because of stewardship and planning, yet in the past year that has been threatened by thousands of applications for new houses. Localism seems to have gone out the window and the area of outstanding natural beauty is simply not being protected. What can my right hon. Friend do to help resolve that?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I know that my hon. Friend feels very strongly about this. There are strong planning protections in place for areas of outstanding natural beauty, which are some of this country’s most important treasures, as he rightly said. The national planning policy framework is clear that great weight should be given to conserving areas of outstanding natural beauty, which have the highest level of protection. He might be interested to know that we announced only last week that areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks will be excluded from new legislation allowing agricultural buildings to be converted into housing without the need for planning applications.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that if the independent review body on health service staff pay recommends an increase the Government will accept that advice; or will they freeze the pay of some of the lowest earners in the NHS for yet another year?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We will make the announcement on our views of the pay review body’s recommendations shortly, but what we want to do is protect what is now the highest number of nurses employed in the NHS since it was founded. We need to ensure that the NHS continues to employ more clinical staff, rather than fewer, as happened under Labour, to ensure that patients get the best possible treatment under the NHS.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Q9. On Monday, South Korean newspapers said that North Korea was due to execute 33 people for having had contact with a Christian missionary. Given that a quarter of a million people are in North Korean prison camps, will the Deputy Prime Minister urge the BBC World Service to use its existing transmitters to broadcast into North Korea, especially as more and more North Koreans now have access to radios?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue. As he knows, our embassy in Pyongyang continues to engage critically with the North Korean regime and tries to ensure that there are as many opportunities for dialogue as possible, including information coming into the country. The BBC World Service is of course operationally, editorially and managerially independent. I understand that at the end of last year it decided, following a review, that it could not continue to offer an effective and affordable Korean language service. That is of course a matter for the BBC World Service itself.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Victoria Liggatt of Staveley died after GPs missed several chances to spot her cancer. She is the most serious victim of the failure of the Holywell Medical Group in Chesterfield. Yet she and the 20,000 other patients there who are desperately trying to get an appointment are also victims, are they not, of the Deputy Prime Minister’s shameless, spineless capitulation to the Tories on the NHS?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman might not know this, but as I pointed out earlier, it was his party that wasted a quarter of a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money on sweetheart deals with the private sector to undermine the NHS on tariffs that the NHS could not meet for operations that were not delivered. While he is asking a question, why cannot he tell the House why, only last week, he tabled an amendment to tell 500,000 youngsters that they can no longer be called apprentices? We stand up for fairness, we stand up for a strong NHS, and he does not.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Q10. Has the Deputy Prime Minister read the testimony of Mariana Robinson—a victim of the Labour-run NHS in Wales—in yesterday’s Western Mail? Does he have sympathy with all those suffering on longer waiting lists and with less access to drugs? Does he agree that it is time to give them the opportunity to access the far better services that are being delivered by this coalition Government for NHS patients in England?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I was appalled, and I am sure everybody would be appalled, by the experiences of one of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. In Wales, where the NHS is run by Labour, 33%—a third—of patients wait more than eight weeks to access diagnostic services. In England, only just over 1% of patients wait longer than six weeks for the same services. I think the comparison speaks for itself.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
Q11. This week marks three years since the bloodshed began in Syria. More than 2.5 million people have fled the country, and the dead can no longer even be counted. We must all bear responsibility for our shameful failure to intervene, but the Government are supposed to be the ones running the country. So what renewed effort will the Deputy Prime Minister’s Government make to end the slaughter before all hope fails?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman knows my own views. I felt that there was a case for intervention at the time when we voted on this. Of course, his party voted against it, but if he now wants to speak to his own party leadership on that matter, he is more than welcome to do so. I agree with him. The humanitarian catastrophe there is on an unimaginable scale, and we must do everything we can to help. That is why—I think I am right in saying—our humanitarian effort there is now the largest that this country has ever delivered. It is also why the Home Secretary and others in Government are now administering, in conjunction with the United Nations, a new programme whereby we allow the most destitute and desperate refugees some refuge in this country.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
During the recent floods, the Prime Minister rightly announced grants of £5,000 for people in the homes flooded to put in flood defence measures. The Deputy Prime Minister can therefore imagine the disappointment of people from the 1,000 homes in Calder Valley who were flooded only 18 months previously but got no such support. Will he agree to look at this policy with the Prime Minister to see whether the same grants can be made available to those people in Calder Valley who were flooded as well?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Of course I will. As someone who witnessed the terrible flooding in my own constituency some years ago, I know that flooding can hit different parts of the country in different ways. As we adapt to this new, very difficult reality, we must make sure that we build up resilience in all parts of the country and provide assistance as fully and consistently as we can across the country.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Q12. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) agrees with me that the hated bedroom tax is causing misery for those affected. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the president of his party or with his friend the Prime Minister?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I think, and everybody thinks, that we need to deal with the mismatch between large numbers of people on the housing waiting list—something the hon. Lady’s party never did anything to address in 13 years—and with the fact that there are large number of spare bedrooms that are not being used. Her Government presided over the change—which we are now delivering in the social rented sector—in the private rented sector. She needs to explain why they want to support the change in one part of the housing system and not in the other.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
Q13. Portsmouth football club made history by becoming the UK’s largest, 100% community buy-out. Today, many much-loved clubs face an uncertain future owing to lack of financial transparency, opaque football authority rules and a structure that promotes irresponsibility in business and, if the team in question happens to be a women’s team, that does not promote sporting excellence. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that we need to learn the lessons from Portsmouth, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s report and the work of Supporters Direct, and act to protect the interests of clubs, their fans and, ultimately, the national game?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend—as, I am sure, will football fans across the country—that this is a really important issue. We cannot have big money hollow out the game that everybody loves. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is looking at the issue on an ongoing basis, and I strongly urge my hon. Friend to take it up with her. It is certainly something that we need to keep a close eye on so that sports clubs large and small can thrive in our country.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
There are reports that the Department for Work and Pensions is proposing to stop paying benefits into the Post Office card account. Does the Deputy Prime Minister support that policy?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I do not think that is true. I will certainly confirm that for the hon. Gentleman, but it is not something that I am aware of.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Last Thursday, 16-year-old Sam Mangoro from Romsey collapsed in a school PE lesson. One of the reasons he is still alive is that the excellent Mountbatten school already had a defibrillator. It has ordered two more. What steps is my right hon. Friend prepared to take to encourage more schools to make sure that they have defibrillators, and will he commend the work of the excellent Oliver King Foundation, which has been leading the way on this issue?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I and, I am sure, many other hon. Members have also come across this issue in schools, sporting clubs and other recreational facilities in our constituencies. There are some great organisations—my hon. Friend mentioned one of them—that are promoting the need to make defibrillators more available, and I certainly think we should all work with those campaign groups to raise the profile of this important issue.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
A report out last week showed that the average nursery cost is now higher than the cost of the average mortgage and that child-care costs have risen five times faster than wages since the election. Given that the Deputy Prime Minister’s long-awaited tax-free child-care scheme will be announced soon, what discussions has he had about the scheme’s relationship with universal credit and the cliff edges it creates, and what assessment has he made of the scheme and its impact on price inflation?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Lady raises a very important issue. As it happens, child-care costs are finally starting to come down in England, but they continue to go up, of course, in Labour-run Wales. We must do all we can to help parents and families with these costs. That is why we are delivering 15 hours of free child care and pre-school support to all three and four-year-olds and, for the first time ever, to two-year-olds from this country’s the most deprived families. The hon. Lady is right: of course we need to do more. That is why we will announce shortly the details of the tax-free child-care offer, which will benefit many families across the country who face very high costs.
Private Rented Sector
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent the charging by letting agents of above-cost fees; to provide that the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007 and Estate Agents Act 1979 apply to letting agencies; to facilitate the establishment by councils of landlord and property accreditation schemes; to establish a housing ombudsman service for tenants in the private rented sector; to require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the legislation applying to the private rented sector; and for connected purposes.
Two of my constituents recently came to see me at my surgery. They had rented a property in Cambridge. They cleaned up very carefully when they left, but they forgot to fill in three small holes where there had been picture hooks. They were told that some of the deposit would be withheld to cover the damage—fair enough—but the sum charged for three bits of Polyfilla and a lick of paint was £600. They, quite reasonably, refused to pay so much, but were almost immediately offered a deal of half as much. They have now taken the matter to arbitration, but during that time they will not get back the £600.
The letting agency will also not get that money until the deal is settled—such days have gone—but given that many people use the deposit from one place to pay for the deposit on the next, many simply cannot afford to wait to go to arbitration and have to accept whatever deal they are offered. That creates an incentive for letting agents simply to pitch for as much as they can get away with, knowing that some people will just pay it or take whatever they are offered, but that very few will challenge it all the way, regardless of the merits of the case. That is a particular problem in areas of high demand, such as mine, where all the power lies with letting agents rather than with tenants.
There is a similar issue with fees. Letting agents can and do charge exorbitant amounts for credit checks, to put prospective tenants on a register, to extend contracts and to make many other small changes. Shelter, which has run an excellent campaign on this issue, has found that one in seven renters who use letting agents paid more than £500 in fees. That is outrageous, because agents are already paid by the landlord.
Fees bear no relation to the costs. Last night, I looked at one Cambridge site that charges £50 for a credit check and £16 to send any e-mail or letter, which is somewhat above the cost. It also charges £250 to change a name on a tenancy. That is a big problem for houses in multiple occupation, of which we have many, where the people change regularly.
The Bill I seek to introduce would help those in the private rented sector by tackling those problems. It would prevent exorbitant fees being charged, extend to letting agents the controls that apply to estate agents, strengthen local government’s powers to highlight good landlords, extend the existing housing ombudsman to cover the private rented sector as well as the social housing sector, and ensure a thorough Government review of all legislation applying to the private rented sector, as recommended by the Communities and Local Government Committee. The Government are already doing some consultation work.
Of course, many landlords and letting agencies are decent and honest, and do not try to make a living by ripping off their tenants. I was always fortunate to have such an experience. Those good people should have nothing to fear from the controls. Indeed, they will probably benefit as the rogues sharpen up their act or go out of business.
Demand in the private rented sector has continued to rise through changing living patterns and people struggling to pull together the money for a deposit. Shelter’s latest estimate is that about 9 million people in England rent their home, about a third of whom are families. There have been substantial changes in how this business is run, with more and more power in the hands of letting agents.
High fees, especially when they are hidden and people do not know that they are coming, have a huge effect on people’s lives. Many people rent because they cannot yet afford to buy, so they do not have much spare cash. Research has revealed that 27% of those who have used a letting agency in the past three years had to borrow or use a loan to pay fees, and that 17% had to cut spending on heating or food to cover costs. That cannot be right, and it must end.
The Bill strives to give more security and better conditions to those in the private rented sector. There is a housing ombudsman for people in the social sector, as well as for private sector landlords who choose to be covered by it, but why should it cover only the good landlords, who are probably less likely to have problems in the first place? Why should other tenants not have such protection?
We should not choke the sector in red tape, which would of course reduce investment, restrict choice and ultimately drive up costs for tenants, but we can and should do much more. The Government have already done some work in this area. I particularly welcome the £6.7 million given to local authorities to help to tackle rogue landlord activity by the very worst of the worst slum landlords. However, there is more to do to empower tenants by ensuring that they know their rights, know what they are getting and know how to complain if things go wrong.
That is why I propose that councils should be encouraged to run accreditation schemes, as has been done so well in my constituency. Lib Dem-run Cambridge city council’s landlord and property accreditation scheme has been effective. It has helped landlords and tenants, and has driven up safety and sustainability standards. There are far fewer complaints about accredited properties. In fact, there has been only one complaint about an accredited property so far, compared with roughly 250 a year about non-accredited properties. Universities up and down the country know that. They give students the information that they need to know about landlords in the area, such as who is good and who is less good.
Accreditation allows us to tackle issues of safety and sustainability. Safety is a key issue. Privately rented homes are the most likely to contain the worst hazards—category 1 hazards—according to the English housing survey. There is a mismatch in the regime. There is a mandatory requirement to check the gas safety of a privately rented home, but not to check its electrical safety. Given that electricity kills at least one person a week in the home and injures about 1,000 people every day, and that private tenants are affected disproportionately, we should actively seek a solution.
There are similar issues with sustainability. There will always be less of an incentive for landlords to insulate properties that are privately rented, because they do not pay the bills. Cambridge has used its accreditation process to encourage landlords to uprate the energy standards in their properties. I hope that we will see that across the country, because it would help to reduce our reliance on gas, which may come from risky territories.
We should also consider making changes because people are renting for different periods. Tenancy patterns are changing for a number of reasons. People do not always want a six-month or one-year approach. We should look at new forms of tenancy and at expanding the options. There should be appropriate rolling clauses so that people can get what they want. Six-month and one-year tenancies are very insecure for families who want to put down roots and connect with the community in which they live. We should normalise longer-term leases in the private sector and educate landlords about the advantages to them of stable, longer rents. They should do better out of them.
I hope that the House will support the motion and support the millions of families and individuals who rent. The changes that I have outlined are simple, but, if implemented, will not only help to create a fairer and more stable private sector, but improve quality and investment for everybody.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Dr Julian Huppert, Caroline Lucas, Tim Farron, Sarah Teather, Lorraine Fullbrook, Mr Adrian Sanders, Greg Mulholland, Annette Brooke, Martin Horwood, Teresa Pearce, Mr John Leech and Jim Shannon present the Bill.
Dr Julian Huppert accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 June, and to be printed (Bill 182).
Intellectual Property Bill [Lords]
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
13:53 - The House divided: - Ayes: 209 / Noes: 254 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 13, page 11, leave out lines 40 to 41.
Amendment 3, page 12, leave out lines 6 to 7.
Amendment 4, page 12, leave out line 19.
Amendment 5, page 12, line 41, at end insert—
‘(9) In this section “design right” includes an unregistered community design and a reference to the owner of the design right is also to be read as a reference to the owner of a community design right in a design.’.
Amendment 1, in clause 17, page 17, line 31, at end insert—
‘(3A) In making an order under this section which confers jurisdiction on a court, removes jurisdiction from a court or varies the jurisdiction of a court, the Secretary of State shall—
(a) ensure he takes into account the views of—
(i) HM Courts and Tribunals Service;
(ii) the Scottish Courts Services;
(iii) the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service; and
(iv) any other appropriate body;
and
(b) where the number of patent cases is such as to meet the requirements as set out in Article 7 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, to confer local divisional court jurisdiction on—
(i) in England and Wales, the High Court;
(ii) in Scotland, the Court of Session; and
(iii) in Northern Ireland, the High Court.’.
Amendment 6, in clause 20, page 18, line 32, leave out ‘obtained in the’ and insert
‘created or obtained in the planning of, or’.
Mr Wright
It is good to be back discussing the Intellectual Property Bill.
We discussed the new clause in Committee and are returning to it on Report because, in the intervening period, there has been no progress. I will remind the House about this long-running saga.
The Government made proposals on copyright exceptions in 2012, during the passage of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. In December 2012, the Government published “Modernising Copyright”. One could be forgiven for thinking that that was a simple and straightforward means of implementing the recommendations of the Hargreaves review, as the Government try to maintain. I will come on to the crucial matter of implementation in a moment. However, the level of opposition from stakeholders and the delay in implementing the Government’s proposals suggest otherwise.
In “Modernising Copyright”, Ministers stated:
“The Government will publish draft legislation for technical review in 2013. It intends to introduce the measures in the smallest possible number of statutory instruments to minimise disruption to stakeholders, make best use of Parliamentary time and ensure that the revised system is implemented in a clear and consistent manner. The intention is that measures will come into force in October 2013.”
None of those plans has proved successful.
Major changes to copyright have usually been made through primary legislation. The Copyright Act 1911 placed provisions into one piece of legislation for the first time, and the Copyright Act 1956 put into statute the UK’s accession to the universal copyright convention, and protected for the first time media such as films and broadcasts by copyright. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provided a major reform of the copyright process, and currently remains the main legislative framework.
When modernising copyright, however, the Government do not intend to make changes via primary legislation but rather through statutory instrument. As is clear from the document I have already cited, the Government always intended to bundle up the proposals on copyright exception into
“the smallest possible number of statutory instruments.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 54W.]
On Report of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill in October 2012, the Minister stated that
“any proposed exceptions will be the subject of secondary legislation and will therefore be debated. Each separate element of a statutory instrument can be debated—that is the function of the secondary legislation procedure.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 406.]
That is certainly true; each element can be debated separately, but the key point that will concern the House is that it will not necessarily be possible to vote on each element separately, and that still seems to be the Government’s position.
On Second Reading the Minister stated that
“the regulations will not be completely bundled up.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2014; Vol. 574, c. 83.]
That is a curious phrase that I referred to in Committee, which gives rise to the strong possibility—even probability—that bundling will occur. In Committee, he said that he was not in a position to say how many different instruments there will be, and that the Government were still consulting on the matter with parliamentary counsel. It is six weeks or so since we discussed the issue in Committee on 30 January, but I do not think he is in a position to provide much of an update. In Committee the Minister said:
“The problem with IP and copyright is not insufficient reviews, but insufficient implementation. We are implementing. That is what the Bill is about,”.––[Official Report, Intellectual Property Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2014; c. 91.]
However, evidence shows that that is far from the case.
Let us be clear and put on the record the dither and uncertainty that the Government have provided to those stakeholders involved with copyright. As I said, the Government’s response to “Modernising Copyright” was published in December 2012. In early June 2013, documents were published in relation to new exceptions for private copying, parody, quotation and amendments to exception for public administration. Later that month a new exception for data analysis for non-commercial research was published, as were amendments to exceptions for education and research, libraries and archives.
In July 2013, further amendments to copyright exceptions for people with disabilities were published. All documents were subject to consultation periods that ended in the summer or early autumn of 2013. Since then, no tangible progress has been announced. On Second Reading the Minister pledged that regulations would be laid before the House in February, and in Committee I asked whether the Government still intended February to be the target date. The Minister responded:
“That remains our intention; I cannot put it more strongly than that, can I?”––[Official Report, Intellectual Property Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2014; c. 93.]
Well, he could. We are now into mid-March, and we have still not seen any white smoke from Victoria street. That delay is causing uncertainty among the creative industries, and undermining our competitiveness and attraction as a nation for this crucial sector in the new economy.
The hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) is knowledgeable and diligent about these matters. He is the Prime Minister’s adviser on IP and served on the Committee, and I am pleased to see him in his place this afternoon. Last week, he received a response to a parliamentary question that he asked about progress made by the Department on drafting changes to copyright exceptions. I hope he will not mind my quoting the Minister’s response, because it is important and helped shape my view on whether we needed an amendment on Report. In his reply to the hon. Member for Hove, the Minister said:
“The Government are grateful for the contributions of all those who responded to the various consultations and have continued to engage with stakeholders since the review closed. We have made a number of technical changes following the helpful input of stakeholders, and we consider the regulations have been improved as a result. So, the regulations will be different in light of the valuable consultation process.
The draft regulations are subject to final checking and in accordance with routine practice the Department is currently consulting the legal advisers to the Joint Committee on statutory instruments. This process can help to avoid difficulties about powers, drafting, etc. arising at a later stage, and assists both the Department and the Committee in minimising any delay in the passage of an instrument. Unless otherwise agreed with the legal adviser, Departments should normally allow a period of not less than two sitting weeks for this advance scrutiny. The regulations will be laid before Parliament and published as soon as this process is complete. The regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution and will be debated in both Houses of Parliament.
The Government will publish a response to the technical review, explanatory notes, guidance and other supporting documents alongside the regulations. This will explain the changes we have made to the drafts on which we consulted and why. Copies of all of these documents will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be available on the IPO website.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2014; Vol. 576, c. 944W.]
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
That was a very good speech.
Mr Wright
Thank you very much.
Does what the Minister said mean that we will see the regulations in less than a fortnight? When will they come before the House for consideration? Will it be before the next Session begins in June? Given that, as his answer states, the Government have made a number of technical changes, and as the regulations will be different, will he confirm that a further round of wider consultation is not needed? He cannot seriously suggest that a commencement date of 1 April 2014 is still feasible. Will he give further details?
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the earlier part of that answer, in which the Minister stated that he welcomed the contributions and had made amendments accordingly, is potentially good news?
Mr Wright
It could be good news, but we are acting in the dark. The Minister said in Committee—the hon. Gentleman was there—that the Government are in implementation mode. However, the hon. Gentleman, who is a knowledgeable expert, must accept that it looks very much like the Government are making it up as they go along, with no long-term vision for the direction of IP or copyright.
The Government have been left floundering. The hon. Member for Hove alluded to the fact that they have had to be rescued by stakeholders and have reinforced the impression that IP policy is not considered a priority, despite the importance now and in future of the creative industries. That is why new clause 1 is as relevant now as when we discussed it in Committee. The Government’s handling of this important matter has been shambolic, and I should like to test the opinion of the House on it. It is important that we send out a clear message that copyright is important. It is an important driver of wealth creation in the 21st century, and what the Government have done is not good enough.
On amendments 2 and 3, clause 13 was debated at length in Committee and in the other place. I do not want to detain the House, but, as I have said several times during the passage of the Bill, it is the most contentious measure. It is a significant matter when Parliament decides to impose criminal sanctions. The provision that ensures that anybody convicted of deliberately infringing registered designs can go to prison for 10 years needs careful consideration.
Some stakeholders have stated that such a provision will have a chilling effect on innovation in this country and that, as a result, Britain will lose something of our comparative advantage and competitiveness in creativity and innovation. We should not easily give away that advantage in innovation and design. As a result of that persuasive argument from industry—from Dyson and others—the Government tabled amendments in Committee to tighten the wording of clause 13 to ensure that unintentional infringement is not captured by the new criminal sanctions.
Mr Gray
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that outstanding company in my constituency. Dyson now employs some 1,500 designers and does groundbreaking design work in Britain. I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition for agreeing to table the amendment. The word “intentional” should be included in clause 13, but will he explain why amendment 2, which removes insignificant changes from the exemption, makes any sense at all?
Mr Wright
I will come to that later, if I may. In Committee, Government amendments reworded the clause to ensure that it referred only to designs
“with features that differ only in immaterial details from the design”.
Amendment 3 would remove that wording. Let me explain the purpose of that to the hon. Gentleman. We do not want to set the bar lower than the Government intend, but the current wording will provide more uncertainty and the prospect of further litigation. Is there not a risk that the clause will focus on counterfeits rather than on intentional infringement and copying? Given what the Minister said in Committee, I am pretty sure that that is not what he intends.
I mentioned in Committee the fascinating and informative case of Apple v. Samsung. In the context of that court case, is there not a need to consider the design corpus and the informed user? The test for infringement of community designs is whether the later design produces an overall different impression on the informed user. I believe that that is important and would like the Minister’s view. Why is he not using that wording from community designs legislation?
The Minister might recall that in Committee I quoted the judge in the Apple v. Samsung case, who said:
“When I first saw the Samsung products in this case I was struck by how similar they look to the Apple design when they are resting on a table. They look similar because they both have the same front screen. It stands out. However to the informed user (which at that stage I was not) these screens do not stand out to anything like the same extent. The front view of the Apple design takes its place amongst its kindred prior art.”
Does the Minister accept that his current wording, which emphasises “immaterial designs”, will more than likely be concerned with counterfeits? Why has he not included in the clause the common community wording for infringement of community designs, which asks whether the later design produces an overall different impression on the informed user? That is the purpose of amendments 2 and 3.
Like other proposals, amendment 5 has been debated several times during the Bill’s passage in the other place and the House. It is essentially about consistency and the scope of effectiveness. If the Government believe—it is a big “if”, and opinion is polarised—that intentional infringement of design rights should be subject to a prison sentence of up to 10 years, why should that criminal sanction apply solely to registered designs rather than also to unregistered designs?
As I mentioned in Committee, about 4,000 designs are registered in the UK each year, and about 18,000 to 25,000 unregistered designs are lodged with the Anti Copying in Design database. I also mentioned in Committee a glaring inconsistency in the Government’s position—that is at the heart of the amendment. On the one hand, in Committee in the other place in June, the Minister said:
“SMEs…do not tend to register their designs”.
If so, what are the Government hoping to achieve with that provision? On the other hand, the same Minister said:
“The introduction of criminal sanctions for unregistered rights could lead to a negative effect on business and innovation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 June 2013; Vol. 745, c. GC395-409.]
If that is the case for unregistered designs, why is it not the case for designs that the innovator has gone to the trouble of registering? I cannot believe that the Government’s position is consistent.
In Committee, the Minister gave a practical example to illustrate his opposition to the amendment by referring to the design of a sofa. Where I come from, we call a “sofa” a “settee”—that is the proper word for that piece of furniture. The Minister said that, if a case about an unregistered design of a settee—or a sofa—were to be brought before a criminal court, it would need to establish whether the right existed and which parts of the design were original. As we discussed in Committee, surely the concept of design corpus would apply not only in the civil court, but also for the higher standards demanded in the criminal court, where the Government are pushing, and to registered designs and unregistered designs.
In Committee, the Minister said:
“We should not forget the ultimate reason for the Bill and the clause. There are small and medium-sized enterprises up and down the country in the design business that are being ripped off. Their designs do not have the protections that they require.”––[Official Report, Intellectual Property Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2014; c. 67.]
However, the vast majority of designs are unregistered, and the Government’s proposals will do nothing to help them. Small firms without resources will still run the risk of being ripped off by larger and unscrupulous businesses. Clause 13 in its original form did not address that, and the Government changes to the clause through the Bill’s passage in this House do not do so either. The Minister must accept that inconsistency, and amendment 5 tries to deal with it.
Mike Weatherley
May I start by paying tribute to all the members of the Bill Committee for an excellent couple of days of deliberations on the clauses? In particular, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) for drawing out points for debate without needlessly pushing for votes on each one, and of course to the Minister for reflecting on each point in a highly constructive manner—and not grumpily at all.
There are several areas of concern in the Bill. The first is in relation to education. As a general rule, rights holders have lost the debate with the public generally. Many see creative output as something they should be able to access for free—after all, they have been doing it for years; it is not a tangible product; they probably would not have bought it anyway, so they are only increasing the awareness of performers; and the chances of getting caught are low and there is no penalty. On a positive note, there have been moves by industry to step up the game in terms of education, and we have had some Government-funded schemes such as those produced recently by the Intellectual Property Office. But with the Department for Education ruling out any formal copyright education in schools, we need a co-ordinated approach, led by Government and helped along by industry. In my view, the IPO is best placed to lead the charge on education on IP matters and it was my intention to add a clause to the Bill to formally require the IPO to report annually on what initiatives it had undertaken in the past year. In the end, I have not pushed for that amendment after hearing assurances from the Minister that education on the importance of IP will be at the heart of the IPO’s activities.
My second concern related to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hartlepool, especially in relation to the differences between offline and online crime penalties. Even with this Bill, there remains a worrying message that online crime is considered to be one fifth as serious as offline crime. It may be that the maximum penalty of 10 years for offline crime is too high and is unrealistic, and therefore online crime will never get the same penalty. I hear that argument. However, in Denmark they have recognised this and have a two-level crime, with 18 months maximum for less serious stealing and six years for serious commercial crime. Importantly though, in Denmark the penalty is the same for both online and offline crime. I was particularly pleased that in Committee the Minister accepted that this issue does need to be looked at, even if only to underpin the message that IP crime is equally serious, and has undertaken to review the anomaly and report back. That is a very positive step and I look forward to the results of the review. For that reason, I will not support the hon. Gentleman’s amendment.
My third concern has been less easily satisfied and relates to criminal penalties for copying designs. I welcome the introduction of a criminal penalty for registered designs. While it has always been possible to claim for damages in the civil court, this was expensive, took a great deal of time and, ultimately, did not provide a sufficient deterrent. The threat of criminal proceedings almost certainly will. I also welcome the addition of the word “intentionally”. This may give rise to difficulties in proving intent, but ultimately no one should want to see anyone subject to criminal penalties for not knowing. I appreciate that ignorance is no defence normally in law, but in design it probably should be. Providing someone has undertaken reasonable checks to be sure that someone else has not already produced the idea, criminal sanctions would be a step too far.
The Bill does not include a criminal offence in relation to unregistered designs. I fully understand that all designers should be encouraged to register their designs formally in most instances, and I fully understand that doing checks to ensure no infringement of an unregistered design is more difficult—and in many instances, impossible to check completely. However, given the insertion of the word “intentionally” into the Bill, one has to ask why the penalty cannot be a little harsher and more of a deterrent. As it stands, even if a designer can prove that a copy of an unregistered design was done intentionally, the only recourse the original designer will have in law is once again the civil courts, and that is often just not enough of a deterrent for someone who wishes to take others’ designs as their own. Nevertheless—
Mike Weatherley
I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless, I do not intend to support his amendment which would harmonise unregistered and registered designs, at this time. The Bill is a step in the right direction and I merely put down the marker that should evidence be provided that the law is failing in this regard, we should come back to this issue and consider it again. I am prepared to see where the legislation as it stands takes us, rather than supporting the amendment now. All I ask now is that the Minister acknowledges the potential and agrees to return to the point in a future Bill.
The hon. Gentleman should be aware that an IPO conference is coming up in June, which will address some of the IP issues that he was talking about. I will return to the issue on Third Reading, but it is important that the Prime Minister and No. 10 make a clear declaration about intellectual property being a property right. If that is done, it is not necessary to add new clause 1 to the Bill.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I am glad to have caught your eye, Mr Speaker, in this not so crowded Chamber. I presume that everybody is paying great attention to the debate on their television screens. It goes to show the lack of interest in intellectual property issues, which disappoints me very much. As I have said before, we need a Minister who is answerable for intellectual property in this House, so that we can raise these very important questions, and so that an IP Minister can respond to these critical debates on this very important issue.
Amendment 1 stands in my name. We have discussed the issue before—on Second Reading and in Committee—and we have had assurances from the Minister, but now is the time for a cast-iron commitment. He knows the anxieties and concerns about this issue, not just from the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh, but from the whole legal community in Scotland, which remains very concerned that Scotland will lose the right to judge, assess and hear cases to do with patents.
The Minister may have his views about me as a Member of Parliament, but the Faculty of Advocates and the Court of Session in Edinburgh could hardly be described as hotbeds of nationalist militancy. If even the Faculty of Advocates could write to the Minister in such graphic terms about its concerns, surely those concerns should be taken into account and treated seriously. We have heard enough warm words from the Minister; we must now start to hear him express a commitment to Scotland.
It is possible that, after centuries, we will lose the right to consider patent issues in the Scottish courts. Clause 17 makes provision
“to confer…remove… or vary the jurisdiction of a court”
in relation to the new unified patent court, thus effectively allowing the United Kingdom to decide how to approach the whole issue of divisional courts. The UK can have up to three or four of them. Why can it not accept the Court of Session as one of those courts? My amendments would simply ensure that Scotland was once more a jurisdiction with the ability to rule on important patent cases.
We all support the arrival of the new unified patent court. Of course it makes sense for patent hearings to be unified across all the jurisdictions in the European Union, and many of us have argued long and hard to that effect. It will make life so much easier for our inventors, creators and artists. However, it cannot come at a price for Scotland’s legal establishment. For Scotland, with its history of invention and creation, to be denied the ability to consider the issue of patents is—patently—absurd. For decades, if not centuries, the Court of Session in Edinburgh has had the power to consider patent issues in Scotland. We have built up experience and skills that may be lost if we are denied access to a divisional court.
Scotland has a distinct legal establishment. For the last 300 years, as members of the United Kingdom, we have been able to keep our own Scots law when it comes to matters such as this, and people have acquired the necessary experience of that law—and, of course, we in Scotland have a history and culture of creativity that goes back for centuries. As you know, Mr Speaker, Scotland practically invented the modern world: everything from tarmacadam to television was invented by Scotsmen, and today we are still achieving things through our biotechnologies and biosciences. There has been Dolly the sheep, for instance, and—I recall that the Minister rebuked me when I mentioned this in Committee—our contribution to the Higgs boson. Scotland has a culture of being able to invent and create, and we must be allowed to consider issues relating to that culture in our own courts.
Yesterday, in advance of today’s debate, a programme on BBC Scotland showed some of our fantastic new creators and inventors, who are coming up with wonderful new products. They were discussing the importance of allowing these matters to be considered in Scotland. Our Scots law is a totem, an important centre. Some fantastic examples were shown during that BBC Scotland programme—and, I should add, there were some particularly good comments from me. The programme demonstrated the degree of interest in these issues that exists in Scotland, as indeed it should, because the creative industries are important to Scotland. Indeed, they are probably more important to Scotland than they are to the rest of the United Kingdom: we invest more in them, and they play a dynamic and important role in the overall Scottish economy.
Our history of invention and creation makes it plain that Scotland is more than adequately equipped to be a successful independent nation. We know that we could be one of the wealthiest nations in the world because of the resources and skill of our people. If we were independent, this would not be an issue, because, as a member state of the European Union, we would be allowed direct access to the unified patent court. There is an especially important reason why that should happen. It is important to the legal establishment, and it is important to all the individuals who are involved in business. Why should Scottish business men have to bear the extra costs of going to a different jurisdiction to have their day in court and secure justice in relation to important patent issues? We have some incredible new industries in Scotland, not least in the renewable sector and particularly in oil and gas. Our businesses, including small and medium-sized enterprises, need to be able to come to Edinburgh for this purpose. Not being able to do so is an inconvenience that small businesses in Scotland can ill afford.
This is in the Government’s gift. All the Minister need do is say “Yes, the court in Edinburgh will be one of the divisional courts.” London, of course, will have one of the central divisional courts, as will Paris and Munich. As I said in Committee, all that we need is New York: then we could have “Pop Muzik” by M. So London will be looked after, but what about the other capitals in the United Kingdom? We are always being told that Scotland has a part to play in the UK—indeed, that is what the debate that we shall continue to have over the next few months is all about—so why has it been overlooked?
Mr Willetts
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond on the amendments and new clauses proposed by the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), and to respond to the important contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley).
Amendment 6 relates to the Freedom of Information Act. The new exemption in clause 20 should give substantial reassurance to the academic community that important research and related information obtained or derived from ongoing research programmes will receive appropriate protection under the FOI Act. Indeed, in the spirit of respect for Scotland, which the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire called for, we are implementing the so-called Scottish exemption. The provision already applies in Scotland and we are applying it to the rest of the UK. That is what we were asked to do and we are doing it.
However, I understand that there are still some concerns about whether the Act provides effective protection in relation to premature release of information created during the planning stages of research programmes—for example, information contained in grant applications, plans and licences. The Government recognise the significant value that material may have to researchers and institutions. I want to place on the record why we believe the Act is capable of protecting such material.
Section 22 of the FOI Act allows any material to be withheld if it is held with a view to future publication and it is reasonable and in the public interest to withhold it. That means that research material intended for future publication can already be protected. Also, clause 20 builds on the protection offered by section 22 by providing specific protection for material that is part of a research programme whose results are intended for publication. But the protection it offers is not just for the results; it extends to any information that is obtained in the course of, or is derived from, a research programme.
Mr Iain Wright
We discussed this matter in Committee. Does the Minister think that, as a result of the implementation of clause 13, the ratio of registered designs to unregistered designs would change? In a nutshell, does he think that more people would register their designs as a result of clause 13?
Mr Willetts
It is hard to give an estimate on that. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has underestimated the significance of registered designs. He suggested that their scope was quite narrow in comparison with unregistered designs. Let me give him the figures. There are already a large number of registered designs in existence. The UK’s and EU’s publicly accessible registers hold about 728,000 design registrations that are in force in the UK. That is a substantial number. I do not want to try to forecast whether it will become even greater, but we are extending criminal sanctions to cover those 728,000 design registrations. That is a significant step towards protecting our design community.
It would be difficult to extend those sanctions further to include unregistered designs, given the uncertainties involved, but let me assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hove that we will evaluate the effects of this legislation. Following its conclusion, a suitable framework will be developed to evaluate its measures, including the criminal sanctions for copying a registered design. The evaluation will include an assessment of the effectiveness of this measure, and we will keep an eye on whether further changes need to be made to its operation and scope, and whether there might ever be a case for including unregistered design rights.
Mr Willetts
I do not want to give a time scale. The hon. Gentleman has already referred to one that I gave upstairs that has come back to haunt me, so I am wary of offering him any more time scales when faced with his blandishments. All I can say is that it will take time for the new system to take effect, and we will need to monitor it. We will undertake to do that.
I will now move on to the hon. Gentleman’s amendments 2 and 3. Having sought to broaden the criminal sanctions to cover unregistered designs, he is seeking in the same group of amendments to narrow the scope by effectively restricting the sanction to exact copying only. That would be the effect of amendments 2 and 3. That would go too far in narrowing the scope of the provision.
I remind the House that the clause was introduced to assist designers who told us of the problems they had in dealing with copyists who set out to copy their designs intentionally and blatantly. That is what we are tackling in this important legislation. They believed that such copyists were skilled at playing the legal system and counted on smaller businesses running out of time and money to pursue them. They told us—as I am sure they told my hon. Friend the Member for Hove and others—that the issue was not restricted to exact copying. Copyists are clever enough not to implicate themselves in that crude way; the issue often involves tweaking an existing design. The sanction protects against that by referring not only to exact copying but to the copying of
“designs which differ only in immaterial details”.
The amendments would in effect restrict the penalties for copying to exact and counterfeit copies only. The sanction would therefore fail to address the very problem the designers have told us about.
The combined effect of the amendments would be to create greater uncertainty by extending criminal penalties to unregistered designs, and to fail to tackle a genuine grievance by narrowing the provision to cover only exact copying. We are tackling that grievance in the Bill. I hope that, in the light of my comments, the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendments.
Let me now turn to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire. I always enjoy his speeches, in which he proudly talks of the contribution of Scotland, not only to the UK but to nothing less than world history. He is absolutely right about that. For me, the Scottish enlightenment is one of the great events in the history of ideas, and I always enjoy hearing celebration of it.
I understand the principle behind the hon. Gentleman’s amendment and the importance of the issue to legal services and innovative businesses in Scotland. We have been working closely with the court services in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, as well as with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service in England and Wales, so that we can take account of their views. Let me make it clear to him again: the Government will look favourably at any proposal to site a local division wherever there is a business need, and a local division can be located in Scotland should there be enough cases to support one. I said on Second Reading that it was very possible that there could be one in Scotland, and I stand by that.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will consult with the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland and with the court services in those jurisdictions. It is not necessary to legislate to ensure that the consultation and co-operation will happen, because we are already doing it. It is also not necessary to legislate nationally in order to set up a local division, because the process for doing so is purely administrative. That process is set out in the unified patent court agreement. We will be following it with consultation.
Pete Wishart
I am reassured by what the Minister has said. He has been consistent in his responses on the issue. Let me try to put it in another way. Does he foresee any reason why the Court of Session in Edinburgh could not acquire one of the divisional courts of the unified patent court?
Mr Willetts
The only reason I can imagine for that not happening is if there were a conspicuous lack of demand for the services of a local division. That is the issue: if there is no demand for it, there is no point setting it up. The hon. Gentleman, however, assures us and we are hearing a lot of people say that there is a demand for it. We are saying that, if there is a demand, it is likely to go ahead, but we do not need to legislate for what is an administrative process to set something up in response to demand. If demand is substantial, it will happen. I hope that I have made our position clear.
New clause 1 was tabled by the hon. Member for Hartlepool. On this, he is in a bit of a muddle. We have set out our plans on copyright exemptions, following the Hargreaves review. Some hon. Members may recall the large volume of reports and consultation exercises that I wielded in Committee. We have had an enormous amount of consultation and engagement with stakeholders on the planned copyright changes. We do not need a new clause such as this to provide for yet more consultation and consideration. We are grateful to all those who have responded to the various consultations and we have continued to engage with stakeholders since the timetable for the last review came to an end. We have made a number of technical changes following the helpful input of stakeholders, and we consider that the regulations have been improved as a result. They will be different in the light of the valuable consultation process.
The hon. Gentleman read out at great length my response to a parliamentary written question last week— I do not think there are any copyright exemption issues in quoting at such length from parliamentary answers—in which I said that the draft statutory instruments are now being finalised, and we anticipate that they will be laid before Parliament
“as soon as this process is complete.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2014; Vol. 576, c. 945W.]
I will go a tiny bit further for the hon. Gentleman and say that probably, and I very much hope that, they will be laid next week.
I fully recognise that laying the draft statutory instruments next week, if we are able to do so, still means that this process will have taken longer than we forecast and expected. That is a source of great frustration, but we are dealing with parliamentary draftsmen, and they need time to sharpen their quill pens, to get the right parchment out and to prepare their processes. Nevertheless, we will be laying the draft statutory instruments very soon indeed.
Pete Wishart
The Minister simply cannot get away with that. I am not leaping to the defence of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), which I am sure he can do for himself, but the Labour Government did bring in the Digital Economy Act 2010, which the Conservative party said it would support and implement. Whatever happened to that?
Mr Willetts
We are talking about the copyright exemptions covered in new clause 1. Let me be absolutely clear that, by comparison with any previous Government, we are now moving on to implementation. I have said to the House that we will be aiming to lay the draft statutory instruments before Parliament soon.
Mr Iain Wright
When I was discussing new clause 1, I asked about the commencement date. Given the imminent and fast-moving laying of the draft regulations, does the Minister anticipate that the commencement date will be 1 April?
Mr Willetts
I have the experienced and wise Leader of the House beside me on the Front Bench, and I think that things are reaching the stage where, arithmetically, once we remove the weeks in which the House is not sitting, it will be hard to have the commencement date as 1 April. We recognise that it might be some time shortly after 1 April. That will depend on how the timetable pushes out.
A paradox in the position of the hon. Member for Hartlepool is that we are here getting on with something that the Labour Government were not able to implement, but he is standing up to say that it is taking us too long, while bringing before the House a new clause that would make things take even longer. We do not need any more delay, we want to get on with it and we are trying to get on with it. The only effect of his new clause would be to bring the process to a grinding halt so that he can have yet another review, when the last thing we need is more reviews. I hope that in the light of that he will withdraw the new clause and not press his other amendments.
Mr Wright
It has been an interesting debate on this group of amendments. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for taking part.
The Minister started with amendment 6. He said, rightly, that the Government are implementing the Scottish exemption. The whole purpose is to provide as much reassurance as possible that, despite any premature disclosure, research plans are protected under freedom of information. I am not entirely certain that he has provided that to the satisfaction of the research community, but this is something that we will need to look at.
The Minister went on to talk about clause 13, and I still maintain that there is a huge inconsistency between the approaches on the infringement of registered design rights and on the infringement of unregistered design rights. Looking at the body language and the eyes of the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley), I would say that he thinks that too. I cannot understand why having criminal sanctions in respect of unregistered design rights would have a chilling effect on innovation but such sanctions in respect of registered design rights would not. Surely the position is inconsistent. My other concern is that this is hindering and penalising micro-businesses and small businesses. Registering a design is a huge cost to business. The cost of registering a single design or the first design in a multiple application with the Intellectual Property Office can be £60. For every additional design in a multiple application the cost can be £40. That cost and the time scale can be particularly prohibitive to design businesses, which is perhaps why we see only a relatively small proportion of designs being registered.
The Minister may recall that in Committee I mentioned the different lengths of protection. Although registered design rights provide 25 years of protection compared with the 10 to 15 years of protection provided by unregistered design rights, registered design rights need to be renewed every five years. The cost of re-registering a design increases on a sliding scale by about an additional £100 each time, up to a cost of £450. So on a five-yearly basis the cost of re-registering a design for small businesses and micro-businesses could be in excess of £1,000. That seems to be penalising small businesses and micro-businesses, and inhibiting innovation as much as possible. That is not what we should be doing. I maintain that the costs of employing and commissioning a lawyer to deal with this process are prohibitive now and will be in the future. All this is costing designers a fortune and I am not convinced that the Minister has a consistent position.
The Minister finished by discussing new clause 1 and saying that I am in a bit of a muddle on it. If I am in a bit of a muddle, most experienced stakeholders in the copyright business are, too. The Government have floundered. They have taken far too long, floundering in the dark. They are not providing the certainty and long-term vision that is so important to the future of the UK economy—it needs that. We need to show our lack of appreciation for what the Government are doing. He has not been able to provide any real certainties. We may have the measures in a couple of days or we may have them in a couple of months, but there does not seem to be any great co-ordination and certainty. We are also still in the dark on the issue of bundling. It is not good enough for him to take more than two years on this and I want to show my dissatisfaction by testing the opinion of the House on new clause 1, although I will not press the other amendments.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Willetts
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I start by giving thanks to all those who served on the Committee and spoke on Report. I thank the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) for his lively scrutiny of the Bill and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) on his close and constructive engagement with the Bill.
The UK is in a strong position. As recently as January this year, the US Chamber of Commerce ranked our IP framework as second only to that of the US, and our IP enforcement as the best in the world. We are now maintaining and improving that global position. According to the most recent United Kingdom trade and industry business barriers survey, one in four British businesses had been put off doing business abroad because of the risk of IP theft. That is why we are working with businesses to improve their understanding of IP protection and providing specialist IP attachés for overseas markets.
In the course of our debates, several Members have spoken specifically about China. On the basis of my recent visits to China, I can assure the House that we are noticing a significant change in China’s attitude towards IP. It is putting resources behind enforcement and we are engaging closely with it. Most recently, the Intellectual Property Office and City of London Police met senior Chinese police and customs officers and contributed to an Interpol training programme for 400 Chinese police managers.
At home, we have been equally tough on tackling IP crime, and £2.5 million has been invested in the police IP crime unit, which has made 17 arrests since its launch in September and helped to suspend 690 worldwide websites that were selling counterfeit merchandise online. The new crime unit is also leading on a ground-breaking initiative in collaboration with the creative and advertising industries to target infringing websites offering illegal downloads of music, films and books, and to disrupt the advertising revenue on such sites. We are also making it easier, quicker and cheaper for businesses to resolve their IP disputes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hove and others have asked how we will ensure that businesses are educated appropriately about the changes that the Bill will introduce. We will be taking action in a number of ways to educate business. We will be building on existing guidance and we will incorporate education about the changes into our wide-ranging outreach programmes. We will be working with key organisations, such as Anti Copying in Design, to ensure that businesses are clear about what the new law means for them. But our focus will not just be on business. To raise awareness about the new criminal offence brought forward in the Bill, the Government will provide training for trading standards officers and engage in other measures.
The Bill has been broadly welcomed by industry and by Members of this House and the other place. It will offer real support to Britain’s 350,000 designers, which is long overdue. The design measures in the Bill will improve the legal framework for both small designers and large businesses. The introduction of a criminal sanction for the intentional copying of a registered design in the course of business has sparked the most debate in this House and the other place. Opinion remains divided on whether a criminal sanction for design copying is necessary, but I believe that the right balance has been drawn and I look forward to seeing how the sanction has deterred criminal activity from taking place.
Let me be absolutely clear. We believe that a culture of copying in design is not acceptable in this country. However, we have listened to concerns that the wording of the criminal sanction is not clearly enough defined. Amendments were made in Committee that were welcomed by industry organisations the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys and the IP Federation. The Bill that we are sending back for the other place to consider has been further improved.
Other changes to the designs legal framework made in the Bill have been widely welcomed. They include clarifying who owns a design and removing inconsistencies between EU and UK systems. Clarifying the IP landscape increases certainty for industry and makes it easier to use IP in the course of business. That aim is also carried through into the patent changes, such as marking products with an internet link and increased work sharing arrangements with overseas patent offices.
In 2013 the total number of UK patents processed surpassed 2.5 million. Our numerous UK patent holders have benefited from the very successful patent opinions service, and the Bill provides a logical and useful extension of that service. The proposal to allow the Intellectual Property Office to initiate revocation proceedings has been welcomed by patent holders, with one SME stating:
“It makes absolute sense that revocation proceedings should be able to be started by the IPO....as clearly SMEs cannot afford the high legal costs to challenge patent validity.”
That is just one of the many ways in which the Bill will help SMEs.
Finally, I wish to touch on the Freedom of Information Act exemption, which led to some debate in Committee and on Report. The exemption provides the appropriate parity with Scottish legislation, and I am certain that the Ministry of Justice will wish to review how it operates in practice.
The Bill is not an attempt to solve every IP issue; it is part of a wider programme. Nevertheless, every measure in it is practical and desirable and reflects the views of our designers and creators. I very much hope that the House will support its Third Reading.
Mr Iain Wright
As I said during my opening remarks on Second Reading, intellectual property matters and its importance is growing in the world of the 21st century. Britain will retain and extend its comparative advantage and ultimately create wealth, prosperity and rising living standards for all in this country, not by undermining employee rights, sacrificing the security of those in work and racing to the bottom, but by commercially applying our research, innovation, creativity and design skills. That requires a robust legal framework to ensure that people’s creative efforts, whether in music, film, broadcasting, video games or high-value manufacturing, are not stolen.
On Second Reading, I quoted the recent report of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport on the creative industries. It is worth quoting again:
“Given the importance of the creative sector to the UK economy and the relative importance to that sector of strong IP protection, strongly enforced, the Government must do more to protect and promote UK IP as a system for growth.”
That is what we have tried to bring about during our deliberations. On a number of occasions in Committee, the Minister and I mentioned the recent Global Intellectual Property Index, produced last year by Taylor Wessing, in which the UK was placed at No. 1 in the world for IP. It should be the objective of the Bill and of IP policy that this country should retain that No. 1 spot in the face of fierce competition around the world.
The desire to remain the best in the world drove the Opposition to question, challenge and scrutinise the Minister throughout the passage of the Bill. We do not want to see a chilling effect on innovation in this country—a concern raised by some senior industrialists—and the introduction of criminal sanctions for up to 10 years for infringing registered design rights needed to be considered extremely carefully. I hope that we have done that.
There remains a concern. Last month, the Institute for Public Policy Research said in “March of the modern makers”, its excellent report on the creative industries:
“Overall, government policy both on…promoting value in intellectual property and on protecting intellectual property from theft has unravelled somewhat.”
The IPPR highlighted the fact that
“Enforcement measures are delayed, proposals for new copyright exceptions are being brought before Parliament with unproven benefits and potential risks, and new systems for better access to copyright material have not yet been given a chance to prove their value.”
There remains a risk that the UK will slip down the global rankings for IP faster than a music track slips down the download charts—
Mr Wright
Thank you; I thought long and hard about that. It is copyrighted.
The risk I mentioned will remain if the Government continue to provide such an unravelling policy with uncertainty, delay and lack of enforcement.
I thank hon. Members for contributing during the Bill’s different stages, particularly in Committee. I am delighted to see in their places the hon. Members for Hove (Mike Weatherley) and for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who made excellent contributions. I would like to think that the deliberations were good natured throughout. I thank the Minister, who was never less than polite—if occasionally grumpy.
Mr Wright
He knows it is true. I also thank the Minister’s officials.
In many ways, the Bill is brief and flimsy. However, like the issue of IP itself, it is important and often overlooked. We will continue to hold the Government to account, to ensure that we retain the No. 1 spot in something that gives us a significant comparative advantage in the modern economy, now and in the future.
Mike Weatherley
The Bill is excellent as a step in the right direction. At times, back in 2010 and 2011, it felt as if the juggernaut that is intellectual property rights was heading towards dilution as the norm. However, I feel that the brakes have been applied recently and that the mood in both Parliament and elsewhere is now changing.
We have an excellent IP Minister in Viscount Younger, and I found John Alty and others at the Intellectual Property Office to be very accommodating and helpful. However, given that the Bill is the main legislation on intellectual property over a full Parliament, it is important to mention some of the items that have not been included but should definitely be considered.
The first is education. Government and industry must work together to inform the public better about the fact that IP is important to every single one of us. Is it too much of a stretch to say that our NHS depends on our protecting IP for our creative industries? I do not think so. Without the £71.4 billion added gross value that we generate from our creators, which includes £15.5 billion from overseas earnings, we would need to borrow or raise taxes elsewhere. Those are not attractive options.
As a country, we should thank the creative industries for being such an important contributor to our economy. I welcome all Government measures to support the industry, and protecting IP is one measure of support. I have challenged the IPO to provide details of 100 forums a year that we need to be at to promote IP. Industry has committed to find representatives to go to those forums. That, and other measures, need to be carried out.
The second item not included in the Bill is what I refer to as “follow the money”. If we can stop sites that host illegal material advertising and, additionally, find a way to stop payments being made for illegal material via Mastercard, Visa, PayPal and other forms of payment, we can take away the main reason why many of those sites exist. I recently met representatives of the police intellectual property crime unit and others on that very point. Following a very useful discussion, I hope we can produce a report with suggestions in the next month or two. I thank Steve Head, the commander of PIPCU, and his team for their excellent work and support. I have also just met Google representatives to discuss the same point.
All that brings me to search engines generally. We often forget that it is not the search engines that create or consume illegal content. I am aware of a band that recently released a CD that was on 20 Russian torrent sites within an hour—it did not appear on Google rankings until some hours later. The CD was not on those Russian torrent sites because it was on Google; it was there because the Russian sites were monitoring what was on iTunes. I am currently working with Google on some suggestions and I have promised the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills a report on the matter shortly. I thank the law firm Olswang for its assistance.
There is one other point in the IP chain that needs to be mentioned—internet service providers. Like search engines, they are not the persons creating or using illegal content, but their lines are transporting the activity. They do not need to be the policeman, but they can be part of the solution. Whether that is via a levy on users to fund education enforcement or whether it is making the ISPs accountable for illegal activity is something to be debated. None the less, I am sure that they need to be part of the solution.
A worrying footnote is that I am told that the voluntary copyright alert programme—VCAP—proposals cannot be implemented for at least a year once an agreement has been found on the other technicalities that we are going through at the moment. I must say that that feels more like prevarication than determination to implement, but I am not a technical expert, so I cannot comment on that further, but I would welcome others doing so.
The industry has made it clear to me that it feels that a US-type IP tsar or director-general would be useful in co-ordinating Departments and industry and delivering IP-related initiatives.
Mike Weatherley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion. I would like to see the Government at least look at the idea. I appreciate that we have an IP Minister, but his priorities would be different to those of a director-general.
Finally, above all else, what the Bill needs is for the Prime Minister to state categorically that IP rights are the same as property rights, and are something to be cherished and protected. In many ways, Europe is looking to us, in the UK, for IP direction, and this repeated message is important so that rights are not drip fed away.
The IPO is organising an IP enforcement conference for June, which will be important. Indeed we are renaming that conference “Respect for IP” and I am sure that it will form part of the Government’s direction on IP generally. In summary, there is still much to do, but this is a good Bill overall and a positive step in the right direction.
Pete Wishart
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the last Back-Bench word in this Intellectual Property Bill. It is significant that this is the first dedicated intellectual property Bill that I have actually seen in my 13 years in the House, and I would like us to mark that. I hope that we see many more in the future.
I thank all Members who have taken part, especially those on the Front Benches who have contributed so much to what has been a very friendly look at some of these issues. I did not know until Sunday that the Minister and I share a birthday. I wish him a belated happy birthday, and hope that he had as good a day as I did.
Pete Wishart
I would not dare to answer that one. None the less, I hope that the Minister had a good day on Sunday. No Minister could be better equipped to deal with a Bill on intellectual property than the one who is famously known as “Two Brains”. He has deployed those brains to a fantastic extent as we have discussed this over the past few weeks.
Is the Chamber not quiet? We have had just one speech from the Opposition Benches and one from the Government Benches. That reinforces the point made by the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley), which is that we need a champion for IP in this House. We need to get this matter fixed properly. It is unsatisfactory that IP is placed in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills when all the other disciplines that IP is there to serve—the creative industries, music, film and television—are handled by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. There is something wrong in the way that this is managed across Departments. It is unsatisfactory that the Minister who is responsible for intellectual property is an unelected lord whom we do not get an opportunity to question and who does not lead debates in this House. We need to start thinking properly about how this matter is co-ordinated across Whitehall.
It is surprising that there is so little interest in this matter. Let me just go over the figures again. The creative economy has grown by 8.6% in recent years and is now worth something like 4.3% of our total GDP. That is £71 billion a year—that is what the IP industry contributes to our economy. I would expect people to be rushing into the Chamber to contribute to debates such as this, but, as I have said, the House is empty. It is disappointing to see so many empty seats and to hear so few contributions on something that is so important and significant for our whole economy.
When it comes to intellectual property, Governments only get one shot. We heard mention of the Gowers review, which was conducted in my first few years in the House under the first Labour Government. The Minister was right to say that progress on the matter was slow until Hargreaves stepped in. None the less, the Gowers review was really what defined that first Labour Government for me. I remember leading an Adjournment debate on the conclusions of the Gowers review in Westminster Hall. We managed to discuss some of the things that had been suggested.
Under the second Labour Government—the Minister was a little unfair on them—we had the Digital Economy Act 2010. With exceptions, it was an important and meaty piece of work that was prepared to be quite brave and to take on vested interests. I do not know whether other Members remember this but we had thousands of e-mails about that legislation. I remember too the bravery of the Labour Government in pursuing it in the face of such orchestrated opposition. The sheer number of e-mails coming through from organised groups and self-proclaimed digital champions is the sort of thing that spooks Members of Parliament. The Labour Government were brave and it was unfair of the Minister not to recognise that or the efforts that were made to address some of the clear issues that we have in the creative economy, especially in digitisation.
The Conservative Government said that they would pick up measures in the Digital Economy Act. I remember the then shadow Minister coming to the Dispatch Box passionately to support and defend the Digital Economy Act, but what happened? Absolutely nothing. That is not entirely the fault of the Government. They have had legal disputes and ongoing tensions with the internet service providers. Now that we are just about there, we have no clear way forward for the Digital Economy Act. That Act, in terms of the Hargreaves process, is probably more important than this Bill. It is probably the one thing that could make a real difference in re-educating new generations of people who want to access content responsibly. We need measures on the statute book. We are running out of time in this Parliament, so it is very unlikely that we will see them. It is a big, big loss and a massive disappointment for all of us who want to address, productively and constructively, the very many issues that concern our creative economy.
What has defined this Parliament is Hargreaves, and this Bill is probably the end of the process. Is it good enough? Well, there are good things in it. The digital copyright exchange is a fantastic innovation, and the things that Richard Cooper demonstrated proved that positive and good things can be done. There are obviously exceptions. I know that we will be looking at all that in a statutory instrument over the course of the next weeks. There is great anxiety and concern in the industry, and the Government must listen to it. Yes, I know that we consult stakeholders and hold meetings with them, but the Government must listen to these people and take what they are saying a little more seriously, because they run incredible creative industries.
I thank the Minister for his response to my concerns about the divisional court in Scotland, which I raised on Second Reading and again in amendments. I assure him that we will produce the demand for such a court, if that is the only thing stopping Scotland securing it. I am pleased that that was the only barrier that he was able to detect to our having a divisional court in Scotland. I look forward to reporting that back to the legal establishment in Scotland, so that we can move the matter forward.
Then we come to the huge elephant in the room—Google. We must address Google, because it is the gatekeeper—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. This is about what is in the Bill, and not what is not in the Bill. I have given the hon. Gentleman a little bit of scope, but we are now running into danger. I know that we are not under any time pressure, but we need to talk about what is in the Bill and not what is not.
Pete Wishart
My last word on Google is that we must deal with it. We must ensure that we address the matter. This Bill is good, but thin. I know that the Hargreaves process was dealt with in a number of ways. There has been the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, statutory instruments and of course this Bill. As I have said, this is the first dedicated intellectual property Bill. The response from the design industry has been mixed. Obviously, it welcomes some of the very good measures, such as criminal sanctions in the areas of registered designs. I note that there was disappointment that unregistered designs were not included, but we had a good debate about that. I hope that we can revisit that at some point and deliver more satisfaction to our design industry.
All in all, we are where we are with this. We look forward to going forward. Let us be a little more creative and imaginative when it comes to dealing with intellectual property and copyright issues. The Government have more or less concluded their look at intellectual property. Now it is time to start thinking about how we go forward. Let us go forward constructively and with a bit more imagination.
Mr Willetts
I want briefly to make two final comments. First, several Members referred to the need for an IP tsar. Let me make it clear that we have something better than a tsar—a viscount. In Viscount Younger of Leckie we have a Minister who is already discharging those responsibilities very well. Of course, for those who say that it is not right that he is in the House of Lords, it is worth pointing out that under the previous Government the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Lord Mandelson, was in the House of Lords. Having a Minister in the House of Lords is a very reasonable way of proceeding, and Viscount Younger does an excellent job.
Finally, I am grateful for hon. Members’ contributions. I am not sure that I would describe the Bill as thin. I would certainly call it a slim but well-proportioned and effective Bill. On that basis, I hope that it will secure a Third Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill: Programme (No. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 24 June 2013 (Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (Programme)) and 9 July 2013 (Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
Subsequent stages
2. Any further message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mark Lancaster.)
Question agreed to.
Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Andrew Robathan)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this we may take Lords amendments 2 and 3.
Mr Robathan
Lords amendment 1 is the first of a number of amendments made in another place at the Government’s behest following extensive discussions there. They follow changes we made to the draft Bill after discussions in this House’s Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I hope that it can therefore be said that we have listened to people during the passage of the Bill and that it has been improved as a consequence.
Lords amendment 1 limits any reduction in the size of the Northern Ireland Assembly to one Member for each constituency—from six to five. It also requires that any such reduction must have cross-community support in the Assembly. In the other place it was correctly pointed out that under the Bill’s previous provisions the larger parties in the Assembly could legislate to reduce its size by a substantial number. The House of Lords was of the view that there would be limited safeguards to prevent them so doing.
Many in Northern Ireland believe that, with 108 Members, the Assembly is too large, but it is not the Government’s intention that the Assembly should shrink dramatically. When it was established, the intention was that it should be a widely inclusive body, which is essential to the healthy functioning of the Northern Ireland settlement. The Government therefore tabled this amendment to ensure that the drafting of the Bill better reflects that policy. We hope that the Assembly will carefully reflect on the possibility of reducing its size at a time when spending in all parts of the public sector is under pressure.
We are, of course, leaving it to the Assembly to decide whether to reduce its size, and the amendment confines any reduction to one Member per constituency. If the Assembly decides to take that up, smaller parties and minority voices will still be well represented. I trust that the House will agree that these are welcome amendments.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
My colleagues and I are comfortable with Lords amendments 1 to 3, which we think are sensible, so we will not oppose them. Any reduction in the size of the Northern Ireland Assembly should quite rightly be a decision for that Assembly. As an MP who no longer sits in the Assembly, like some of my Northern Ireland colleagues sitting behind me, I agree that any reduction in its size should be voted on by the Assembly, rather than imposed from here.
Although my party agrees that there is a case for reducing the number of Members of the Legislative Assembly at some stage, any discussion of that must take into account the sensitive local considerations. Such a move might be inadvisable at the current time. We firmly believe that any change to the Assembly’s composition must be guided by the principles that it should be representative, proportionate and reflective of both traditions in the wider community.
As Baroness O’Loan said in the other place, reducing the number of MLAs returned to each constituency could have serious consequences for representation in Northern Ireland. We must always be careful not to leave certain areas unbalanced or unrepresentative. We have a clear interest in retaining plurality of representation and must pay keen attention to factors that are specific to Northern Ireland when making these decisions.
We have also made it clear that we are concerned about the increasing concentration of power in the hands of two parties. We would be cautious about any measure that might exacerbate that situation. For that reason, we support the measure to ensure that the Secretary of State requires a cross-community vote in the Assembly before any legislation to reduce its size can be passed. That cross-community element is embedded in the Good Friday agreement of 1998 and the consequential Northern Ireland Act, which was passed in July that year. Embedded in that Act were the principles of proportionality, mutual respect and understanding. Given the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland, and given that we do not wish to exacerbate the situation, we feel it would be better if those principles were embedded in the size of the Assembly. I am therefore happy, on behalf of my colleagues, to support the amendment.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Our party strongly supports reducing the size of government generally in Northern Ireland—and across the United Kingdom for that matter—including the number of Government Departments in Northern Ireland. We are also on record as wanting to see a reduction in the number of Assembly Members. We believe that Northern Ireland can function more efficiently and in a leaner and better way with fewer politicians for the size of its population.
In May there will be elections to new councils in Northern Ireland, the number of which will have been dramatically reduced from the present number, and the number of councillors will also be reduced. We are in favour of the general thrust to reduce the size of government, and we have already put proposals to the Assembly’s Assembly and Executive Review Committee on that issue.
When the Minister responds to the debate, will he comment on the consultation that took place with the Assembly parties on the amendment? Although, under the amendment, the decision to reduce the number of MLAs can be taken by the Assembly, it can reduce the number by only one for each constituency—from six to five. I would certainly be very interested to know to what extent the Government consulted on that provision with the Assembly parties, because it has been generally understood that the measures that would come before the House would have the broad consensus of parties in Northern Ireland.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Perhaps when he responds the Minister will say not only whether consultation was held, but with whom it was held and what information was given by the individual parties. That would allow us to see whether the results of the consultation are in line with what he proposes today.
Mr Robathan
I will correct this if I am wrong—it was before my time—but my understanding is that as a result of the consultation with the parties in the Assembly, which I believe took some time, the intention was to reduce the size of the Assembly by one Member per constituency. The problem with the Bill as drafted, until amended, is that it would allow the parties in the Assembly, if they so wished, to reduce the number by as many as they wished—perhaps down to one—because there is no limit. That is their lordships’ point, which we took on board in saying that the number would be determined by that which had been consulted on.
Mr Dodds
I thank the Minister for that clarification.
We certainly take on board the reasoning behind the amendment. What strikes me, though, is the Government’s concern about the Assembly passing legislation on a substantial reduction that could disproportionately affect the smaller parties. One of the things that was raised in the previous debate and is worth raising in this debate is that the Government did not express any corresponding concern when proposals were brought before this House on reducing the number of constituencies for the United Kingdom Parliament. We well remember the debates in this House, which ultimately came to nothing, about reducing the number of seats. Many of us from Northern Ireland constituencies pointed out that the net effect in Northern Ireland would be a reduction of two parliamentary seats. In fact, it would have provided for a rolling review whereby the number of seats in Northern Ireland—and indeed in other parts of the UK—could have been adjusted upwards and downwards virtually from election to election. That would have had not only a very destabilising effect on the political process generally, but a direct, knock-on, consequential effect on the number of Assembly constituencies and Members. The concerns expressed across the House—certainly by all the Northern Ireland parties—did not seem to have the same resonance with Government.
I accept the sincerity with which the Minister has brought this matter forward. We should bear it in mind, however, that the number of Assembly Members would have been directly affected as a result of the proposed changes that eventually came to nothing but were certainly intended by the Government. That would have had a major impact on the Assembly and its workings—on the stability and outworkings of the agreements, and so on. When we are discussing the size and powers of the Assembly, and all the rest of it, sometimes things are done that have, or could have, very direct impacts.
We have no particular number in mind for the size of the Assembly, but we do believe that it is time to get on with it. Now that we have this enabling power, assuming that the Bill is passed with the amendment in place, we hope that the parties that have been reluctant to reduce the size of government, and thereby the burden of government and the extent of the over-governance in Northern Ireland, will take seriously the views of the people out there. I hear that people on all sides believe there needs to be a reduction in the numbers in the Assembly and in Government Departments. There is an idea that interfering with or changing in any way anything to do with the institutions that were set up by the agreement would somehow undermine the process, but that is not sustainable or tenable. People are looking for more efficient government and for Government to save money in a time of austerity, and we should take their concerns on board. I hope that people will now take this enabling power and use it to reduce the size of the Assembly.
We once heard the then leader of the Social and Democratic and Labour party, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), say that some of the ugly architecture of the agreement needed to be done away with. Some people still hold the view that nothing about the institutions can change at all. However, we are now in 2014, many years on from the Belfast agreement and a considerable way on from the St Andrews agreement, and it is time that politicians responded to people’s views and concerns and took a lead in reducing the burden of government on households and on taxpayers.
Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)
I congratulate the Government on listening to their lordships and accepting these amendments.
Fifteen years on, I am a bit like the Good Friday agreement myself—that much older and that much greyer.
Paul Murphy
Not so much wiser, I think.
I vividly recall that we decided on the final number for the Assembly in the middle of the night on Maundy Thursday. There was an argument that the Assembly should be bigger than it turned out to be—some of the smaller parties thought it was essential that they should all be represented—but we came to what appeared to be something of a compromise with 108 Members. I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). When the Government were dealing with the United Kingdom parliamentary boundary changes, they were challenged—I challenged them, as did the right hon. Gentleman and others—about the consequences of reducing the number of MPs in Northern Ireland for the Assembly, and therefore for the whole balance that had been agreed. That is now water under the bridge, so it is not an issue today, but it shows the mentality at the time.
In Wales, we have a population of 3 million compared with a population of 1.5 million in Northern Ireland, and an Assembly of 60 Members compared with an Assembly of 108 Members in Northern Ireland. That is obviously quite a difference. The Government recently appointed the Silk commission, which has recommended that the number of Members of the National Assembly for Wales should be increased because it has now achieved primary legislative powers and therefore has an insufficient number of Back Benchers to scrutinise legislation.
I very much take the point that there is no great merit in having a set figure if there is agreement to reduce it. My only mild criticism of the amendment is that it specifies a figure of five, and if, with agreement, the parties said that it should be four, the Bill would prevent them from implementing that. Nevertheless, a reduction from six to five is a start. Two important principles lay behind the number that was chosen: first, the need to make the Assembly in Northern Ireland as pluralist as possible so that as many points of view as possible are represented, which was a good approach; and, secondly and crucially, the need to ensure that changes are agreed with the political parties in Northern Ireland. I would be interested to hear what the Minister says about any consultations he or his predecessors had with Northern Ireland’s political parties to come up with the final figure and final recommendation that we are considering.
A few weeks ago, Northern Ireland was, in a sense, captured by a crisis about a so-called one-sided deal that may have occurred some years ago. I do not want to go into the details of that, but merely say that anything that is one-sided will eventually flounder. Everybody has to agree; otherwise, eventually, the deal will not last. This can be very difficult. For example, our agreeing on the release of prisoners in Northern Ireland—perhaps the most difficult part of the Good Friday agreement—was based on the agreement of the parties involved in the talks. Therefore, the key aspect of the amendment, which I wholly support, is the importance of getting general agreement.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a deal brokered and supported by one party for republican terrorists who are on the run from justice in Northern Ireland cannot be described as a “so-called” one-sided deal? It is a one-sided deal, and its secrecy makes it a dirty deal as well.
Paul Murphy
Mr Deputy Speaker will stop me if we go into the details of what we discussed some weeks ago, but I will simply say that the principle of all parties agreeing a policy is critical to its success. The issue, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, is one that involved not just political parties, but paramilitary organisations as well. The principle, however, has to be agreed: there must be agreement between the parties all the time, even if it takes weeks, months or even years to achieve it. Otherwise, it will be so fragile that it simply will not continue to have any validity at all.
I agree with the Lords amendments. I will also be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the consultation that was held on the details of the size of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
I also rise to support the Lords amendments. It is worth noting that my party agrees with the Democratic Unionist party on this occasion, because that has been a rather rare occurrence in recent years. We wish to see significant reform of the Assembly structures and the burden they place on the population of Northern Ireland.
The principles of the Good Friday agreement—power-sharing, inclusion and proportionality—are very important. Whatever changes are made to the Assembly, they need still to reflect those principles. There are many ways in which those principles can be implemented in practice to allow Northern Ireland to have a leaner, more efficient Government. I believe that that would benefit all the people of Northern Ireland and that it is something the Assembly should wish to take forward. We should be open to reform that would make our Government more agile and that would allow our governance to move away from the structures that often impede its ability to deliver for the electorate. Obviously, we would like the Assembly reforms to go much further, but that is a matter for the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. However, I concur entirely with the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) that the time for talking about this has come to an end. We now need to see real progress and take the opportunity these amendments present to reduce the number of Members per constituency and then, as part of that process, reduce the number of Government Departments so that there is a correct balance between those in the Executive and those in Back-Bench positions holding them to account.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I apologise for not being in the Chamber when the debate commenced on this very important Bill. Will the hon. Lady identify what the Alliance party believes to be the impediments that the Assembly’s current structures have resulted in?
Naomi Long
I appreciate the opportunity to do so, but I will not go too far, because Mr Deputy Speaker will be quick to reign me back in. In terms of what the AERC is looking at, we want a review of the question of an addition to the numbers of Members and Departments. We also want to move away from the Assembly’s designation system—which I believe copper-fastens sectarianism within our structures and manages division rather than addresses it—towards a weighted majority voting system. I believe that that would be much more fluid and that it would allow Government and, indeed, Assembly decisions to be taken much more quickly and easily than is currently the case with our mutual vetoes, which do not serve Northern Ireland well.
I would also like the Assembly to have opposition structures similar to those in this place, which has a properly financed and funded Opposition who can hold the Executive parties to account. It is a very difficult job. During my time in the Assembly I sat as part of the unofficial Opposition—we were not in the Executive—and although it was a very nice place to be and we could be critical of what was going on without having the responsibility of making the decisions, it was not properly funded or researched. Often it was done on a shoe string in comparison to the support received by the majority of Assembly Members, who were members of Government parties and had access to the relevant structures.
Sammy Wilson
I think that anyone listening to this debate would be surprised to hear that, while there appears to be a willingness to see the changes mentioned by the hon. Lady, there has been absolutely no move towards making them. Indeed, a properly structured, effective Opposition could be easily obtained if those who talk about it were prepared to drop out of the Executive and take up opposition positions, but, of course, they do not.
Naomi Long
That is interesting, because it suggests that it might be the DUP’s plan for after the next elections. It, too, has called for a properly structured and funded Opposition at the Assembly, but I do not see it walking away from the post of First Minister and all its other Executive posts. This is not about which is the biggest party in Northern Ireland, because government is founded and constructed on proportionality. Why would we as a party walk away from our proportional entitlement to govern when others do not? This is not about the Alliance party being in opposition—that is not a point of principle. We did our part in being constructive in opposition. This is about having an Opposition who could be formed of Members from bigger and smaller parties co-operating and collaborating together, as can happen in this place. It is rather facetious to suggest that one party leaving the Executive and essentially giving its ministerial responsibilities to other parties with which it fundamentally disagrees would be a way of structuring opposition.
I believe that the AERC reforms will come and I will certainly press for them, as, in fairness, will my colleagues in the Assembly. However, we need to convince those in Northern Ireland—we need to take cognisance of this—who have felt politically excluded over a long period of time that such reform is not designed to further exclude or diminish their role in the governance of Northern Ireland. The stability we enjoy today requires buy-in from all sections of the community, and we cannot squander that simply in order to have efficiency.
Lady Hermon
Is there any evidence to suggest that the general public in Northern Ireland wish to have an Opposition at Stormont or whether, in fact, they are in favour of power sharing between parties that, collectively do their very best for everyone in Northern Ireland?
Naomi Long
I think there is evidence that the public would like to see an Opposition, and that evidence is their frustration with the amount that can be delivered under the Executive and the structures as they stand. The most common complaint about the Assembly is its lack of delivery, and I think that all Members would recognise that that is a challenge for all of us whose colleagues are representatives there. People feel frustrated that things take so long and that the process is far too cumbersome.
I think that an Opposition would help to speed up that process and that they would, therefore, be welcomed. I concede that people may not necessarily articulate the argument in favour of an Opposition so directly, but I believe that the implication is that most people would respond if we cut through some of the morass of slow and weighty governance and its burden on the Assembly and created more efficient governance.
I am happy to support the amendments. I believe that a reduction to five seats would maintain the principles of inclusion, proportionality and power-sharing. I also believe that they present the Assembly and the AERC with a renewed opportunity to get about the business of reducing the size of the Assembly, reducing the level of governance and, with the powers they have, starting to deliver real change for the people in Northern Ireland.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I also rise to support Lords amendments 1 to 3, particularly relating to the size of the Assembly.
We live in days when everything that is spent by elected representatives and their offices and by institutions, ministerial Departments and Government is scrutinised to the nth degree by the public and the press. That is right and proper and we should be above reproach in such matters. That also means that, just as we expect our constituents and businesses to deal efficiently with finances, we must do the same. Leaner does not mean meaner: it means that we can do things better and more efficiently.
For the record, I supported the partnership Government at the Assembly, because that was the way forward at the time and it still is. Although an Opposition will hopefully come at some time, the shape of Government in Northern Ireland enabled all the parties to sign up and be part of the decision-making process. Whether we reduce the number of seats to five or to four, the principle remains that efficiencies need to be made, which means a reduction in the number of Assembly Members.
Lady Hermon
It is awfully nice of the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, to give way. I wonder whether he would love to take this opportunity to put on the record his admiration for the people of North Down, just to make sure that nothing in his remarks a moment ago might be misconstrued. North Down is, in fact—[Interruption.]—yes, the jewel in the crown of constituencies in Northern Ireland.
Jim Shannon
I am very pleased to say how enamoured I am of the people of North Down. The people of Ards will lead the way in that relationship. We also share a football ground between us: Ards plays at Bangor—
Jim Shannon
We have got a team. The team has a lot to do, but we are doing our best.
We work alongside the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) in this Chamber on many issues. We work together as MPs, and the councils will also work together. I was just making the important point that we want to retain the character of Ards.
I read with interest the views of Members in the other place who questioned the ability of the Assembly to handle an issue of such size and complexity. I firmly believe that the Assembly can function and do its job as long as there are no behind-the-scenes deals by the Government. One such deal was referred to by the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy). That matter rankles with us all, and it will do so until we can have a debate and sort out the whole matter. Such deals cause disruption and end up eradicating the trust that has been built up over the years.
I took part in a debate about the adult autism strategy this week. In it, I highlighted the way in which the Northern Ireland Assembly has, across the United Kingdom, led the legislative field in Europe with its Autism Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. It is a comprehensive Act for autism that beats the legislation anywhere else in Europe. I therefore believe that allowing the size of the Assembly to be a reserved matter is only right and proper. I am sure that the Minister will respond very positively, but we now need action: the words are over; let us have action and let us have the deal done.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
Inspired, as ever, by the wondrous words of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I can only say that I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister, were he present, would say that he not only loves the people of North Down, but adores the people of South Down—in fact, of all the Downs—and that he would almost certainly express his adoration and passion for the whole of northern Europe, nay the globe. For the record, may I say on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition that we have immense respect and affection for the people of North Down and, if you will allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, especially for their elected representative, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)?
I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) is not in the Chamber. He is currently gliding smoothly into Dulles airport for what used to be the St Patrick’s day celebrations, but are now the St Patrick’s fortnight celebrations. He has assured me that he will watch this debate with keen interest. I have no doubt that when the party starts in the White House, he will demur from any invitations in order to watch it on catch-up.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. As much as I am enjoying the entertainment—I allow a little scope, but I am not sure how far that scope will take me to airports around the world—I think that the hon. Lady does not wish to intervene now, and I want to hear the hon. Gentleman get to at least some of the Lords amendments.
Stephen Pound
An unusual feeling of amity is spreading its warm embrace over the House today, in many ways because we have discussed this matter in some detail. Certainly those who were in their lordships’ House to hear their discussions will have been impressed, as I was, by the speeches of the noble Lord McAvoy, who made his case very powerfully, and of the noble Lord Alderdice, who in a very detailed refutation of the amendment moved by the noble Lord Empey, made the case for preserving the present size—108 Members—of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
It is in some ways unfortunate that the Dublin statement made in August 2012 by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson)—he called for a reduction in the size of the Assembly and of the Executive, and mentioned there being an Opposition—has slightly coloured today’s discussion. The then shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), said that that contribution was unhelpful, unwarranted and unnecessary.
One of the most important points made today was mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long). She referred to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which is currently considering these very matters. It is appropriate for that process to continue, and we support the Lords amendments.
Mr Dodds
The hon. Gentleman mentions the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) asked whether, if there was agreement among the parties and even in that committee for a reduction to, say, four Members per constituency, anyone in this House would oppose it. I presume that Her Majesty’s faithful and loyal Opposition might go along with a widespread view expressed by Members of the Assembly and the parties.
Stephen Pound
The contribution made earlier by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) was extraordinarily impressive in that it was the first time I have ever heard any politician on the Floor of the House seek a diminution of powers and a reduction in the number of elected Members. The leaner and, if not meaner, then certainly cleaner and greener Executive and Assembly, as was mentioned—[Interruption.] Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I withdraw the word “greener” in that context? That was entirely a slip of the tongue, and I will arrange for something better.
The point is that the Bill very carefully circumscribes the numbers—no fewer than five, not more than six—so the definition is fairly tight. Clearly, if something results from the AERC that it wishes to bring to the House, I am sure that the Secretary of State will look at it. Our opinion would be that it is a devolved or reserved matter that should be dealt with on that basis.
In relation to other discussions about the future formation of the Executive and the Assembly, I was interested to read on the official Conservative news website ConservativeHome, which I have to say I read out of a sense of duty, rather than delight—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We should not go down that line.
Stephen Pound
Indeed, not Mr Deputy Speaker. A rapprochement between the Conservatives and the DUP is proposed, although in my experience the DUP is most eminently not for sale: I have never heard of such a proposal in my life.
Mr Robathan
I am afraid that I cannot be quite as entertaining as the hon. Gentleman, and I shall not try to be. ConservativeHome is not an official website. It is very interesting to read. I believe that it is called a blog, although I am a little out of date on such matters. People may put whatever they like on it. It is not an official website. However, we welcome support from all parties.
Stephen Pound
It was the word “Conservative” that fooled me, and the fact that the author of the article was a distinguished Conservative Member of the House and a former member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
We are considering the first group of their lordships’ amendments. Just as the Opposition said in the upper House, we are happy with the structure of the amendments and will not oppose them. All the contributions that we have heard today have been positive and forward-looking, and all have given us hope for the future.
If I may say so in closing, it was particularly impressive to hear the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), who was so much a part of the process. He has worn well, as has the peace process. Long may both continue to flourish.
Mr Robathan
I will respond briefly to a couple of the points that have been made.
First, I hope that it will reassure the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) to hear that I, too, have argued endlessly for a reduction in the number of Members in this House, just as a turkey might wish for Christmas. I have always said that there are too many Members of the House of Commons. Personally, I would reduce the number to 500, although that is not my party’s current policy.
I welcome the views of the right hon. Member for Belfast East on progress—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I mean the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) is also sitting in the Chamber and I can see one or two differences between the two of them. The right hon. Member for Belfast North spoke about the need for change in the political structure in Northern Ireland. All the parties in Northern Ireland realise that there needs to be change.
I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Belfast East about opposition. What is important is that the people of Northern Ireland want to see the Government in Northern Ireland held to account. We understand why the set-up came about in the Belfast agreement and we support that reason. However, I do not think that anyone believes that the current First Minister and Deputy First Minister structure will last for ever, because very few things do.
I was asked whether there was consultation with the Assembly parties. There was consultation with the parties before the Bill was amended. The clause was consulted on. The assumption in the consultation was that there would be a reduction of one Member in each constituency. That was inserted as a safeguard to ensure that a greater reduction was not steamrollered through. The smaller parties felt, rightly or wrongly, that they might be disadvantaged if there were a reduction of two Members per constituency. I think that this is a matter for the Assembly. However, the consultation was about a reduction of one Member per constituency and that was agreed to. That is why we brought forward Lords amendment 2.
The right hon. Member for Belfast North mentioned the reduction in the number of constituencies in the United Kingdom for the Westminster Parliament. I have put my cards on the table and said where I stand. I have been roundly pilloried for that from time to time by my constituents. However, because a different electoral system is employed for the Northern Ireland Assembly, such a reduction would not have the impact that he suggests. If there were a reduction in the number of constituencies in Northern Ireland, there would still be the same number of Assembly Members per constituency. There would be an overall reduction, but the same number of Members per constituency. The smaller parties would be protected because they would have the same number proportionally per constituency.
Mr Dodds
I am interested to hear what the Minister says. I am at a loss to understand how he can make that assertion, because he does not know, and nobody knows, what the Boundary Commission would come up with. We do not know where the two seats would be lost or what the configuration of the new 16-seat arrangement in Northern Ireland would be. Depending on where those seats were lost and where the boundaries were drawn, there could be a disproportionate effect on my party or on smaller parties, or there could be an impact on the nationalist-Unionist balance. He cannot assert what he has just said with any confidence because he does not know, and none of us knows, what the Boundary Commission recommendations would be in such a circumstance.
Mr Robathan
With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that applies to any boundary of any constituency. My point is that the proportional representation system would allow smaller parties to have their say. Of course, there might be some unhappy situations. If I were able to stray beyond the remit of this debate, I would point out that there is a disproportionate number of Labour seats in the House of Commons, given the number of votes. However, I would not dream of mentioning that at the moment.
Paul Murphy
The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) referred to what the reduction would be if two seats were lost. There would be a reduction of 10 Members of the Assembly. There would be a further reduction of 18 Members if the number of Members per constituency were reduced to five. That is a reduction of 28 Members. The Minister does not seem to grasp the fact that the situation in Northern Ireland is totally different from the situation in the rest of the United Kingdom. The very fine balance of cross-community support could be affected by doing that.
Mr Robathan
On the contrary, I do grasp that fact. I do understand that the situation is different. The right hon. Gentleman worked very hard on the Belfast agreement and afterwards as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He will know that the settlement is not perfect and that many people would disagree with the current boundaries. We believe that the Assembly should be enabled to determine the reduction in its size. That is what clause 6 does, with the safeguard of Lords amendment 2. It is only an enabling clause, because we have devolved the matter to the Assembly and are allowing it to sort it out. I am sure that it will do so.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 10
Civil Service Commissioners for Northern Ireland
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 5 to 8.
Mr Robathan
The amendments that were made in the other place to clauses 10 and 11 relate to the way in which responsibility for the civil service commissioners and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission might be devolved to Northern Ireland in future. The intention of the amendments is to ensure that there is sufficient opportunity to debate the arrangements before an order is brought before Parliament for devolution and to ensure that the important issues that need to be considered are highlighted before devolution takes place.
We had already undertaken, as a first step, that there would be a full public consultation on those issues. That commitment remains. Clause 10 would move the appointment of the civil service commissioners for Northern Ireland from the excepted category to the reserved category, making it possible for the civil service commissioners to be devolved using procedures that are laid down in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Those procedures require cross-community support in the Assembly and a vote in each House of Parliament.
Lords amendment 4 to clause 10 will require the Secretary of State to lay a report in Parliament at least three months before he lays any order under the 1998 Act on the devolution of responsibilities in respect of the civil service commissioners for Northern Ireland. In that report, the Secretary of State will be required to set out the effect that the order would have on the impartiality of the Northern Ireland civil service, the merit principle for appointments to it and the independence of the civil service commissioners.
The intention of the amendment is to allow sufficient time to consider the arrangements for the devolution of the commissioners, if that should happen. Although responsibility for the civil service in Northern Ireland is already devolved, the Government recognise that the House might want to take into account the overall arrangements governing the civil service before deciding whether to devolve the appointment, functions or procedures of the civil service commissioners, given the extremely important interests that the commissioners safeguard. We have agreed that we will facilitate a debate on those issues at that stage.
Mr Robathan
The issue is whether to devolve the civil service commissioners to Northern Ireland. The civil service itself is already the responsibility of Northern Ireland, whereas the commissioners are currently under the control of the UK Government.
Mr Robathan
Currently, I understand, the civil service commissioners for Northern Ireland answer to the UK Government, but by devolving this issue, they will answer to the Northern Ireland Executive. I believe that to be the case, but just in case I am wrong—[Interruption.] Yes, the proceedings and functions are currently reserved, whereas the appointment is excepted. We intend to change that, so that appointment will also be reserved. I think that is a sensible way forward, and I thought it was supported.
Paul Murphy
I am not sure about this, but the Minister may know the answer. What is the position of civil service commissioners in Wales and Scotland, and particularly in Scotland?
Mr Robathan
Since the right hon. Gentleman was once Secretary of State for Wales, he might be better able to answer that than I am. I will write to him and let him know because I do not know the situation in Scotland and Wales.
Clause 11 proposes moving responsibility for appointments to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and its functions, from the excepted to the reserved category, making it possible for those responsibilities to be devolved in future. As with civil service commissioners, that raises questions about the commission’s independence, including its accountability should it be devolved in future.
Lords amendments to clause 11 set out a similar procedure to those to clause 10, and also require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament at least three months prior to introducing any order on the devolution of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. In that report, the Secretary of State is required to set out her view about the effects that such an order would have on the commission’s independence, the application of internationally accepted principles relating to human rights institutions, and the relationship between the commission and the Assembly. We recognise that these issues are of real concern to those concerned with the effective operation of the commission.
Lady Hermon
I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has done an enormous amount of good in Northern Ireland, although that is not generally or widely recognised. Will he explain whether the commission is pleased and content with the changes that will be implemented by the proposed legislation?
Mr Robathan
The point about the Lords amendments is that there will be no change to the current status of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. We initially intended it to be devolved to the Assembly and the Executive, but any change will take place after further consultation. I am afraid the answer to the hon. Lady’s question will come during further consultation rather than now.
Devolution of the responsibilities of civil service commissioners and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission will, of course, be subject to consultation, and the Lords amendments intend to ensure that devolution is approached with proper consideration and scrutiny. I hope that the House will agree that that is the right approach.
Lords amendments 7 and 8 are technical amendments concerning the commencement of clause 24. Members will be aware that clause 24 amends an order-making power already passed in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, to allow us to take forward, by order, the changes to the new biometric framework in the reserved and excepted fields. The Northern Ireland Department of Justice could not legislate for that because the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2013 received Royal Assent too late, on 25 April 2013. The amendments will allow us to bring the position of Northern Ireland regarding the retention, use and destruction of biometric data in the interests of national security, or for the purposes of terrorist investigation, into line with that of Great Britain.
As the Bill is currently drafted, clause 24 would come into force on the day the legislation is passed. However, the order-making power in paragraph 8 of schedule 1 to the Protection of Freedoms Act is not yet in force. The amendment to commencement is intended to avoid a situation where the amendment to the order-making power in clause 24 comes into force before the power itself. That would have no practical effect and is technically undesirable. The change is entirely technical and has not been prompted by any debate or concerns in the other place. I hope that the House will agree to it.
Mr Dodds
Again, I would be interested to know the extent and outcome of consultation with the Executive parties about the issues covered by the amendments, other than the technical points relating to clause 24, which are of no particular concern and accepted by virtually everyone. Lords amendments 4, 5 and 6 deal with civil service commissioners and human rights commissioners. These are enabling powers that would transfer civil service commissioners to the reserved category. As the Minister said, the functions and proceedings of civil service commissioners are currently reserved.
The issue of reporting to Parliament was debated in the other place. I have no difficulty with as much parliamentary debate, scrutiny and accountability as there can be on these matters, or with bringing forward a report, as proposed by the amendments. I have no concerns about that and would certainly not oppose it. However, the purpose of the report to Parliament is, first, about the effect that the transfer would have on the independence of the commissioners, secondly about the principle that appointments should be based on merit after fair and open competition, and finally about the impartiality of the Northern Ireland civil service. One concern was that as things stood, without the Lords amendments, if Parliament wanted to pass responsibility for that matter to the Northern Ireland Assembly, it would do so by Order in Council, since such matters are reserved. That would not allow for amendments, and would be simply accepted or rejected in its entirety.
It would, of course, allow for any concerns about the independence of commissioners, appointments on merit, or issues of impartiality to be debated, but if there were concerns about those matters then no doubt Members of this House and of the other place would vote accordingly. If there are concerns about any of those things, I presume that the Government would not have an Order in Council. One wonders what the purpose of the measure really is.
There will be a debate and a report. Presumably everyone will say, “Well, we’re all content and happy,” and we will proceed to the Order in Council. However, if people say that they are not happy, or if the report states that things are not good, the Order in Council will not be introduced. To me, the whole thing seems effectively like window dressing, and I wonder about its purpose, other than to allow an extra debate, which I am perfectly content to have.
Mr Robathan
The amendment—[Interruption.] I think the Cheltenham festival is on, which is of great interest to the Irish—and to me, as it happens.
The amendment takes account of the concerns that were expressed in the other House. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the clause rather than the amendment. The amendment is designed to provide further time before anything is devolved.
Mr Dodds
With respect, I am addressing the amendment, which seeks to introduce a new requirement. It means that, at least three months prior to seeking parliamentary approval for an order, the Secretary of State must report to Parliament on the three issues I have described. The simple point I am making is this: if there is any concern or debate, or the slightest suggestion that there would be a detrimental effect on the independence of the commissioners, or on the impartiality of the Northern Ireland civil service, or that appointments would not be made on merit, the Government would not bring forward an Order in Council. A response would be given to a request from the Northern Ireland Assembly saying, “I am sorry, but this is the reason.”
I am not opposing the measure, but asking about its real effect. Presumably, the report will not be subject to any vote, because the only legislative instrument is the Order in Council. The measure does not seem to have much effect in reality other than to provide for another debate, which I am not opposed to. I am very happy to give the issues the greatest possible scrutiny and debate.
Lady Hermon
I agree wholeheartedly with the valid points the right hon. Gentleman makes. Even if we do not press the amendment to a Division, I urge him to include me—he is well capable of doing this on behalf of Democratic Unionist party Members—as someone who also seeks a clarification on this from the Minister. If the impartiality of the Northern Ireland civil service is called into question, the Secretary of State should not proceed with any such report.
Mr Dodds
I join the hon. Lady in that, and the Minister has heard it. It is entirely sensible. None of us in the House or, I dare say, in the Assembly would want to undermine in any way the independence of the civil service commissioners or allow anything to interfere with the principle of appointments based on merit after fair and open competition. We would not want anything to disadvantage the Northern Ireland civil service by casting a taint on its impartiality. My experience in government—I have been in the Northern Ireland Executive—has left me with the highest regard for the Northern Ireland civil service, which has done an immensely good job by and large, in many difficult situations in the governance of the Province.
I raise those points not to oppose the provisions, but to query them. Sometimes, we ask why legislation is necessary. The provision strikes me as being somewhat superfluous in terms of parliamentary process. We are legislating to say, “Let’s have a debate at some point in future.” I do not see why we need to do so, unless somebody does not trust someone who might be in power in future—they might believe that that someone might not act in the best interests of the civil service of Northern Ireland.
The same comments apply to Lords amendments 6 and 7, which propose making a prior report in respect of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, like the one that is produced on the civil service commissioners for Northern Ireland. I will not rehearse the separate arguments in that regard.
Lady Hermon
Amendment 6 obliges the Secretary of State to look at
“the application of internationally accepted principles relating to national human rights institutions”
as they may apply to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. I draw the House’s attention to the word “national”. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is a regional human rights institution, not a national one. How can the Secretary of State comply with that statutory obligation?
Mr Dodds
I do not know whether the hon. Lady will seek to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, but she makes a good point. I look forward to the Minister responding to it. As she says, the amendment mentions “internationally accepted principles” and their application vis-à-vis national human rights bodies. Her point is valid. The amendment says that not only the independence of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is a matter for the report, but the relationship between the commission and the Assembly.
Given that the clause is a small provision—it simply provides an enabling power, which the Order in Council will implement—on what basis will the report be compiled? Will there be an investigation? Will there be an Assembly inquiry, with evidence being taken on how the measures operate? If it were devolved, it would be a matter for the Assembly, so what would be the purpose of reassuring ourselves in this House and in the other place about all these matters three months prior to a debate?
Ms Ritchie
I support the amendments and I understand the points that have been raised by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) on their reasoning and the rationale behind them. In relation to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the civil service commissioners, the amendments are sensible. It is right that before any discussion of the future devolution of these elements, proper consideration is given to the impact on the impartiality of the civil service.
I well recall the considerable discussions in 1988 and 1989 in this House and the other place on the advances to be made on ensuring there is respect for people in workplaces and on fair employment. References were made then to the need to respect the merit principle in private sector organisations above a certain level of employee. Comments were also made about the Northern Ireland civil service and the need for impartiality, fairness and due participation across the community if we were to build a society that was reflective of and proportionate to the wider Northern Ireland. I see the amendments in that context.
It is important that any report on the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission pays regard to the importance of its independence in conforming to internationally recognised standards and maintaining a balanced relationship with the Assembly. In that respect, I regret that the Government have not seen fit to introduce a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland. There has been considerable discussion and indeed, some months ago, the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) sponsored the visit of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Consortium to discuss the need for such a Bill—and the impetus within the wider community for it—that would enshrine the rights of all in legislation. Such a Bill is still urgently needed. It cannot be covered by a UK Bill of Rights. There are rights that are peculiar to Northern Ireland, which has a particular political situation that needs to be recognised. I regret the fact that the Government did not see fit to introduce a Bill of Rights that could have run concurrently with the Bill through both Houses. I ask the Minister to reflect on that issue when he sums up, to talk to his colleagues in government, and to ensure that such legislation is introduced.
I know what the Minister’s response will be. He will say that such a Bill would need the support of all parties in Northern Ireland, but I can tell him that the idea has received considerable support among the wider community in Northern Ireland, with considerable impetus behind a Good Friday agreement based on the principle of consensus and agreement. I think he would also find such support here. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the need for a Bill of Rights.
This is our last opportunity to discuss a Bill which, although short, is important to Northern Ireland. I have only one regret. During the Bill’s earlier stages, we were concerned about the lack of transparency surrounding the issue of an increase in the Assembly’s mandate from four to five years. On Second Reading I described the issue as a mystery, because it was never resolved. I would not like to think that that was part of a secret deal between two principal parties in the Northern Ireland Executive and the British Government. Yet again, I ask the Minister to clarify that issue.
Other issues relating to Haass have been raised during the Bill’s passage. My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) raised the issue of the Historical Enquiries Team, and asked how there could be more coherence in inquiries so that patterns and trends that emerged could be dealt with. In that connection, a book called “Lethal Allies”, about the Glenanne gang, was published recently. A pattern emerged in the type of activity involved in murders of that kind. We felt that those issues could have been reflected in the Bill.
All of us who represent Northern Ireland constituencies and take our seats here want a just and lasting settlement for everyone which is based on our moving on. It is interesting to note that Richard Haass, who spent six months in Northern Ireland drawing up proposals on reconciliation, on the past, and on flags and emblems, said today in a United States congressional committee that he wanted Northern Ireland to move on. He has expressed his fear that it could slip back into the violence of its troubled past if we, as politicians, do not grasp the opportunity to deal with divisive issues. I believe that that opportunity exists now, and that we should move forward.
I believe that there should be no more secret deals, no more on-the-run letters, and no more get-out-of jail passes, as I think they were termed by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). We must move forward on the basis of transparency, openness, fairness, equality and proportionality for all. The amendments will take us a step further towards fair representation, and a consensual approach to politics and to dealing with issues that still need to be addressed in Northern Ireland.
Jim Shannon
I want to make a couple of brief comments about the civil service commissioners and the Human Rights Commission.
Northern Ireland has had its own civil service since the 1920s, and, as others have said, it has done admirably over the years. The Northern Ireland civil service itself is and always has been a devolved matter, but in 1998 it was decided not to devolve the civil service commissioners at least for the time being. Like their Whitehall counterparts, they are responsible for ensuring that appointments to the civil service are made on merit, and on the basis of fair and open competition. I believe that the amendment will ensure that by requiring the Secretary of State to present a full report to the House, so that all will be open and transparent before any devolution takes place, and I therefore support it.
Naomi Long
In the light of what was said by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if the Minister told us on the basis of what evidence the Secretary of State would prepare the report? The only reason for debating the report would be contention about its content. There would be a reason for debating it if, for example, the Secretary of State said that there was no issue relating to fairness and transparency, but other Members disagreed. The substance on which the report was based would be important in informing any such debate.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) did beforehand. The Minister has heard it made very forcefully, therefore, and I will touch upon it now as well. We do seek that clarification. I am sure the Minister has received lots of scribblings from his civil servants in the corner to enable him to respond and we look forward to hearing what he has to say.
Stephen Pound
Two points really need to be made. First, this is some of the most important business we have discussed on the Floor of the House. It is a matter of some shame that the Government did not introduce this group of amendments on Report in the other place, as that would have allowed a more informative and in-depth discussion. We could have spoken to it at greater length.
I wish to place on record at the outset a reiteration of the comments my noble Friend Lord McAvoy made in the other place: the Opposition do not oppose these amendments; in fact, we support them. However, I feel it is essential that we place on record one crucial and important factor. When we are talking about the institutions in Northern Ireland, we must not see them through the prism of Great Britain. Lord Alderdice referred in the other place to the size of the Assembly and said specifically that comparisons with Wales and Scotland were otiose, as there are functions and duties that fall to the Assembly in the Northern Ireland that are entirely different, and in many cases involve far harder work than would be found in Scotland or Wales. The obvious example is the land border with another country.
As all Members know, there are also huge key differences between the Northern Ireland civil service and the Westminster civil service. People who spend some time in Northern Ireland swiftly realise that civil servants in Northern Ireland have an entirely different role. They have a much higher profile partly because when there have been occasions such as the suspension of the Assembly or different governance arrangements, civil servants have taken decisions that are very often taken by Ministers. They are known far more widely; they have a higher profile. They engage with the public and they promote policies. The difference is not just practical; it is also cultural. That makes the report all the more significant.
I feel, however, that the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) has put his finger on an important point. There is a lacuna in the amendment regarding the nature, format, structure, content, aim, intention and extent of the report. We need to have an idea of the precise intention behind it. Will it be a tour d’horizon of the whole issue relating to the civil service commissioners? Will it cover just a specific point? Will it be an update? We need to have some idea, because this is an extremely important subject. I cannot imagine that anyone in the House will object to the issue of impartiality and the merit principle.
I said that I would be brief and, for once, I shall keep my word. These are important matters, and they perhaps need to be ventilated at length on another occasion, but for the moment we support the amendments. We seek further clarification on the nature of the report, and we underline yet again a fact that must never be forgotten— that we are talking about an entirely different sort of civil service. We must bear that in mind in making any decision on these matters. We support the amendments.
Mr Robathan
I am glad that everyone supports the amendments, although it was not entirely clear to me that that was the case as I listened to the debate. The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) has just pointed out something that I should have known—I suspect that the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) already knew it—which is that there is only one home civil service, which has one set of civil service commissioners. The Northern Ireland civil service is separate, which is why it has separate civil service commissioners. The answer to the right hon. Member for Torfaen’s earlier question is that there are no similar relationships in Scotland or Wales. This is not something I have come across before, actually.
The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) asked why we have the amendments. The reason is that, in the second Chamber of this Parliament, concerns were expressed—by, among others, Lord McAvoy—that insufficient safeguards and transparency had been built in. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has suggested more than once, there were concerns about trust and transparency. In response to those concerns, the Government tabled amendments in the other place that will allow further consultation if anyone is concerned. I understand that their lordships wish to have a debate on the matter in their House; whether they do so or not is another matter.
Naomi Long
There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that the Secretary of State will be compelled to lay an Order in Council. They would therefore do so only if they were convinced that all was in order. On what basis, therefore, would the report be produced? Any report that we would debate in this House would be a positive one, and we would need to see the evidence base for that. It would be interesting to know precisely where that would come from.
Mr Robathan
The hon. Lady has put the cart firmly before the horse. I know that this is very old fashioned, but I believe that the purpose of consultation is to consult and to listen to what people have to say. If, for instance, everyone were agin the devolution of these powers, there might not be a report. The purpose of the amendments is to say that we will not bring one forward until there has been consultation. I am astonished to find people criticising the Government for trying to be consensual.
Naomi Long
Far be it from me to tell the Minister what his own legislation says, but it does not actually say that at all. It does not say that there will be consultation followed by a report. It says that a report will be produced, and that a debate on that report will be held three months before an Order in Council. That time scale suggests that the Secretary of State will already be intending to have an Order in Council, and will already have decided that the issues are not a problem. It is the basis on which such a decision will be made that we are trying to discover today.
Mr Robathan
I assure the hon. Lady that the reason for the amendment is to allow further consultation so that the report can be issued. If she wishes to be a consultee, I am sure that that would be fine. We have not laid down every step and turn that will be taken, but we are trying to proceed with the support of the parties. We have had the support of all parties for the amendments, so I am not entirely clear what the concerns are. Transparency and trust have been discussed, but that is what we are trying to allow—transparency, so that everyone trusts the process.
Mr Dodds
The Minister seems to be getting a little tetchy, if I may say so. Members of the House are carrying out their parliamentary duty to scrutinise the Bill. As the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) said, amendments were introduced on Third Reading in the other place, not on Report, so this is the first chance we have had to debate them. It is perfectly proper to examine the amendments, even though we will not divide the House on them. This is the first opportunity we have had to debate these matters.
May I pick the Minister up on his reference to Members in the other place raising the issues, to ensure that there will be a debate? Is the Minister saying that there will also be a debate in this House on the report?
Mr Robathan
The report will certainly come before the House. If there is a need for a debate, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will ensure that there is one, as I understand it—
Mr Robathan
If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to call for a debate, we will have one. This is a matter for consultation—
Mr Robathan
Hold on. The reason the amendments were introduced on Third Reading is the perceived unhappiness in the other place about the existing clause. The amendment allows for further consultation, and the amendments have been welcomed. They are not designed to harm the parliamentary process in any way; quite the opposite, they are designed to allow further consultation.
Mr Dodds
I am grateful for the fact that the Minister has now placed on me the responsibility and burden for initiating debates, Government business and so on. I hope that he will involve me more often. I am surprised, but I welcome it and will follow him up on it—I am happy to discuss it with him in more detail. He is simply saying that we may have a debate and all the rest of it, but what is the purpose of a report being drawn up, and it being of such importance, if it is not to be debated? Why will the Minister not give a firm commitment that we will have a debate on the report?
Ms Ritchie
I thank the Minister for giving way again. Further to the intervention of the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), where in clauses 4, 5 or 6 is it specified that there will be consultation? Reference has been made by the Minister to consultation, but the Bill does not actually say that.
Mr Robathan
The reason for our discussion now is the amendments to the clauses. We are having a debate on the Floor of the House of Commons to discuss those matters. I am telling the hon. Lady that there will be consultation, whatever it says in the piece of paper in front of her. The point of the report is to inform parliamentarians of the Secretary of State’s view about the effect of devolution after consultation. She will not come to that view without having consultation. If there is agreement, there is not necessarily a requirement for debate; if there is some disagreement, there would be a requirement to debate—but we are aiming for consensus. The point made by the hon. Lady about what is actually written down in the amendment is somewhat spurious.
Ms Ritchie
I have to say, and my colleagues across the parties in Northern Ireland who sit here would agree, that the legislation would normally state whether there was to be consultation, so that that consultation could actually take place. No one was trying to say one thing, but to do the other.
Mr Robathan
I say quite categorically that the purpose is to allow the Secretary of State to consider the issues transparently, engendering trust, which has been mentioned. There will be consultation—I can assure the hon. Lady of that.
Let me deal with something else the hon. Lady mentioned. I was surprised she said that human rights in Northern Ireland were different from human rights elsewhere, as I seem to recall that human rights are usually referred to as being universal. Although there are sad and particular conditions in Northern Ireland, I do not think that the human rights of an individual there are any different, and nor should they be treated differently, from those of somebody elsewhere. We have the Human Rights Act 1998 in place, and if all parties in Northern Ireland wish to propose some special legislation at the Westminster Parliament, we would of course consider it, but I see no need for such a thing, and I have never heard anybody suggest there was a need before.
Ms Ritchie
May I suggest to the Minister that a Bill of Rights is required in Northern Ireland to deal with the special circumstances that exist in Northern Ireland? There may not necessarily be cross-party consensus, but there is a need for that Bill of Rights to deal not only with issues of the past, but those that have an impact on the present and the future.
Mr Robathan
I will take that suggestion away and consider it, but I have not heard that from anybody else in the four or five months I have been doing this job.
This has been a rather longer summing up than I expected and, on that note, I shall conclude.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Is the Minister giving way or has he concluded?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Is the hon. Lady indicating that she would like to speak?
Lady Hermon
I would indeed like to speak on this group of amendments, so thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to do so.
I am very surprised, and exceedingly disappointed, that the Minister seems not to have read the Belfast agreement. If he had done so, he would understand that it contains an entire page and chapter dedicated to human rights. In fact, the agreement creates the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and gives it, among other things, the statutory obligation to bring forward and advise the British Government on a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland which contains rights particular to Northern Ireland. That obligation is in the Good Friday agreement or Belfast agreement—whatever one chooses to call it, it is still the same thing. So I was disappointed that he put it on the record this afternoon that he does not understand that the agreement contains a specific obligation about a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland. Whether or not we all wish to have one is a completely different matter, but the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) has made a very valid point.
I listened carefully to the Minister’s response to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). When pushed strongly by various interventions, the Minister gave a categorical assurance that there would be consultation before a report was brought to this Chamber or indeed the other House. I ask him to give the same categorical assurance, and reassurance, that any report brought forward by the Secretary of State would be discussed not only in another House, but in this Chamber.
When I came to the Chamber to debate this Bill for the final time, the atmosphere was cordial. I apologised for being a little late, but the atmosphere was cordial at that stage. It grieves me to have to say that the Minister has unnecessarily churned up a lot of disagreement and annoyance, because there is now confusion about what these amendments mean. It would have been helpful to the House if better clarification had been given in his wind-up and if he had not wound up so very quickly that other hon. Members to whose points he was responding did not have an opportunity to have their views aired properly in this House. I am disappointed to be saying that on the record.
I welcome the Minister’s appointment to the Northern Ireland Office. He had not been particularly well, having had an operation on his leg, and we are delighted to see him back in this House. However, may I just urge him to spend a little time, before he next speaks in a Northern Ireland debate, reading the Belfast agreement, which is supported by thousands and thousands of people? I will give him this opportunity to correct the record by allowing him to intervene on me to show this House that he has read it in depth and that somehow the provisions on the Bill of Rights escaped his attention.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The Minister does not require the leave of the House. He may intervene on the hon. Lady.
Mr Robathan
I understood from the Belfast agreement, which I have to confess I read some 16 years ago when it came out, that the setting up of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission dealt with the particular issue of human rights. If I am wrong, I apologise.
Lady Hermon
I would urge a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office please to refresh his memory about the Belfast agreement. It is really embarrassing for a Minister who took up his job last autumn to make an admission to the House that he has not read it since it was signed in 1998.
Moving swiftly on; it is important when considering this amendment for the Minister to have clarified the point about the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission being measured by the Secretary of State who has to report to this House and to the other House on
“the application of internationally accepted principles relating to national human rights institutions”.
With the greatest respect, the word “national” is included there. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, of which I am a supporter—I am not always a fan of everything it does, but I am a supporter—is a regional human rights commission. Therefore, how on earth could the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland bring forward a report measuring the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission by “national” international standards rather than regional ones? I made that point in an intervention, albeit on the right hon. Member for Belfast North, but I did hope that the Minister would respond to it. As we will not seek to divide the House, clarification on that point is essential. I do not want to burden the Secretary of State even more than she is already burdened in Northern Ireland, but she has been asked to do an almost impossible task. If the Minister would like to intervene on me again, with the assistance of the hard-working civil servants who have brought forward these amendments—I praise the Northern Ireland civil service for its work, impartiality and high standards—I would be thrilled and delighted for him to do so.
Mr Robathan
I am sorry if the hon. Lady thinks that I have been in any way obtuse, because that was not my intention. The point about the report is that it will inevitably be discussed because the devolution order would have to be approved by the House. That is what the amendment does. It puts off the order of devolution.
With regard to the word “national”, I understand that the amendment refers to “internationally” and the Human Rights Act to which this country has signed up, and I understand that that is how it is effected. I understand that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is separate, but as I explained, the human rights are universal. We have signed up to the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights.
Lady Hermon
I am most grateful to the Minister for that intervention, which does not really clarify matters, but I give recognition to the Minister for having responded with such good temper after my criticism of him. This is a hugely important and significant piece of legislation for Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is hugely important, as are the Northern Ireland civil service commissioners and the civil service. I just say again—I apologise to the Minister for my tone—that I was profoundly disappointed with the Minister’s response to the sensible interventions made by the right hon. Member for Belfast North, and the hon. Members for South Down and for Belfast East (Naomi Long) and other colleagues who have spoken. It would be wise, after 16 years—I say “wise” in a better tone of voice—for the Minister, before coming back to speak on an important piece of Northern Ireland legislation, to read the Good Friday agreement, the Belfast agreement, in detail.
Lords amendment 4 agreed to.
Lords amendments 5 to 8 agreed to.
Business without Debate
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Rail Franchise Agreements
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
As I make my speech, Members could be forgiven for thinking that they have heard it all before, for indeed they have. It was three years and three days ago that I first set out the case for reform of rail franchises based on my constituents’ experience of the South West Trains-operated London to Portsmouth line. Since then we have had another two changes of Secretary of State and two changes of Minister of State. I have raised this issue with Ministers and with South West Trains, and have ongoing discussions with my constituents, yet matters have not improved. The debate on rail infrastructure has become even more focused on capacity, and with good reason.
When making the case for High Speed 2, the Government have pointed out that the number of passenger miles travelled on the national rail network has increased from 20 billion in 1992-93 to 36 billion in 2012-13; the number of rail passenger journeys has increased from 976 million in 2002-03 to 1.502 billion in 2012-13, a 54% increase; and inter-city journeys have increased from 77 million to 128 million in the same period, an increase of 65%. As is well known, the rail-using public pay handsomely to make those 128 million journeys, and many of them feel that they are not getting value for money when they must travel in discomfort caused by standing or an inadequate seat.
On the London-Portsmouth line the discomfort debate centres on the vexed matter of the blue 450 Desiro carriages. South West Trains introduced the carriages in significant numbers in 2006 to address overcrowding on the trains made up of 444 Desiro carriages, arguing that a rake of 12 450s has 140 more standard-class seats than a rake of 10 444s. To justify the move, SWT used the passengers in excess of capacity surveys conducted in 2005 and 2006. There are two problems with the rationale: one a flaw in SWT’s logic and the other a flaw in its argument.
First, South West Trains contends that by substituting a rake of 450s for a rake of 444s, 140 standing passengers will be allowed to sit. For example, the 5.50 am train from Portsmouth harbour showed a peak count of 164 standing passengers. When the 450s were introduced, SWT supposed that that would leave only 24 people standing. On paper that seems to work, and when replying to the previous debate, the then Minister seemed to agree with the premise that the 450s mean fewer standing passengers between Woking and Waterloo. However, in practice, things are not so simple. The 444 carriages are four seats wide—two either side of a wide aisle and all with armrests, so there is space between each seat. The seats are mostly arranged in an airline style and one can face a fellow passenger only across a table. The tables and personal space allowed by the wide seats permit commuters to work or take refreshment in acceptable comfort. What is more, each and every one of the 299 seats in a 10-carriage rake can be used.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as sequels go, “London to Portsmouth railway line II” is tediously similar to the original, so you will know where the plot is heading. The tedium is repeated day after day for Portsmouth commuters. The notion that there will be an increase of 140 seats when a 10-carriage rake of 444s is replaced by a 12-carriage rake of 450s is total fantasy. The 450 carriages have five seats squeezed across their width arranged in a three-plus-two format with a narrow gangway in between. There is no space between seats and there are no armrests; many passengers must travel face to face and literally knee to knee. Laughably, South West Trains’ own ergonomic investigation found that 59% of passengers do not fit within the confines of the seats
“when their elbows are taken into account”.
Simply put, that means that nearly 60% of people do not fit because, unfortunately, human evolution has not kept pace with South West Trains’ aspirations and Britons have stubbornly refused to mutate into the armless monopods for whom the company would clearly prefer to cater.
The consequence of the dimensions of the seats on a 450 is that only three of the five seats across the width of the carriage can be used if those seats are occupied by what we might call three 59ers—those among the 59% who do not fit. If only three seats in a carriage can be comfortably used on a 450 rake, there are, coincidentally, only 444 available places to sit—some 150 or so fewer than in the original rake of 444 carriages. In practice, it is not at all clear that the 450s will reduce the number of standing passengers. In addition, Portsmouth passengers are obliged to make a 97-minute inter-city journey in a carriage that is uncomfortable and was specifically designed for shorter, suburban routes.
Obviously, crowding happens when the train is nearest London, as the vast majority of passengers will use the Waterloo terminus. Arguably, the 450s are suitable for the 45 minutes nearest London, when the train is busiest. Passengers joining so close to the capital can take the discomfort and violation of personal space for a time, it is thought. However, how many of them would rather stand than cram themselves into the uninviting middle seat of what is, without gaps between seats, effectively a 129 cm bench? Those seats are no more comfortable for the suburban than the inter-city commuter; the discomfort is simply reduced by the shorter journey.
On the criterion of delivering more seats, the use of the 450 carriages is on shaky ground. We might have the same number of seats, or fewer, but we certainly have many more discontented passengers. It is little wonder that, in a survey of Twitter activity last year, South West Trains was found to be the most complained-about operator in the country.
Even if we accept the South West Trains rationale at face value and assume that all the extra seats can be used to relieve overcrowding, the case still does not add up. If the only reason for bringing in the 450s on just under 50% of week-day services was to address overcrowding, we are entitled to wonder why all but one train on the line, up or down, is formed of 450 carriages on Saturdays, when there is no danger of overcrowding.
In reply to me last time, the then Minister explained that South West Trains was obliged to lease the new Siemens rolling stock under a section 54 undertaking, but it was also confirmed that the train operating company can deploy the sets as it will. Why, then, park all the 444s and force all passengers to travel in discomfort? A possible answer comes from an anonymous Siemens employee who provided the “No to 450” campaign with evidence to suggest that the 444 services were replaced by the 450s so that the mileage on the 444 carriages would fall into a cheaper maintenance bracket, saving South West Trains some £2 million a year.
The consequence is that the passenger pays the same for a less good service and can be obliged to travel for over an hour-and-a-half on a train that was never intended for such a route and causes extreme discomfort. Furthermore, the commuters from Woking to Waterloo—the very people whom South West Trains and the Government argue are helped by the 450s—still might not get a seat or will have to take a very undesirable seat.
That is not a problem to South West Trains, reasoning as it does that the inadequacies of the 450s are merely
“a comfort issue not a health risk.”.
That is not only an unsatisfactory attitude to the welfare of my constituents, but not entirely correct either, as visits to chiropractors for regular users are not unknown. Indeed, I handed a dossier of correspondence that I received from hundreds of passengers on the line to the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), which detailed the health complaints attributed to the specification of the 450 carriages.
My constituents and I are realistic enough to recognise that whole-scale change will not happen, but there is a change that could be made in the short term that would do much to relieve the strain on south coast commuters. Using the latitude to deploy carriage sets as it will, South West Trains should provide for a half-hourly express service between Portsmouth and Waterloo, which is made up of 10 444 carriages. As an express, it would not stop in the suburban commuter belt and, as it would be at the same times each week day, Portsmouth residents could adjust their routine to catch it, thereby relieving the crush for suburban commuters on stopping services. South West Trains might even use its imagination to give the service a name, recalling a more charming railway age. The “Portsmouth Flyer” or the “Navy Express” would do nicely. That is a modest request, and one that I hope the Minister will join me in urging upon South West Trains.
The situation on the London to Portsmouth line is symptomatic of the way the privatised railway network is configured. The forces of competition, which should benefit the customer, only work when there is a viable alternative to railway travel, or a particular railway route. In the case of Portsmouth, some alternative is offered by the improved road network and the longer journey by rail into Victoria. For most, there is simply no option but to take the train to Waterloo.
The moment of most intense competition in the privatised rail network, when market forces can have the greatest positive impact on the rail passenger’s experience, comes during the tendering process for a rail franchise. After that, the impetus of competition within the sector principally benefits the train operating company or its supplier. For example, passengers have not benefited from South West Train's apparent decision to save money by limiting the use of 444 carriages, and they have not seen a reduction in ticket price or an improved service in the light of the cheaper lease cost of the 450s. It is incumbent on the Government to use the competitive forces of the tendering process to drive the best deal for passengers, and the best way to do that is to give passengers a voice in the process.
What consideration has the Department made of how to involve passengers in the tender process? I would also like to see, as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the Department for Transport know, comfort requirements included in new rail franchise agreements. It is a cause of some bewilderment to me that when contracting for services that have to carry passengers the length of the country there are no criteria for the standard of comfort they should expect on different sorts of journey. The fact that rolling stock manufacturers produce different classes of carriage shows that the industry recognises the different demands of suburban and inter-city travel and it should do in the rail franchise agreements.
In its response to the “Reforming Rail Franchising” consultation, the Government said that they
“may ask bidders to commit to quality improvements which are within their control, such as the onboard environment; station environment; customer service and information.”
What progress has the Department made in that respect? Will it make those matters necessary criteria in the bidding for new franchises?
I feel that perhaps I should apologise for putting the House through this litany of complaint once again, but I hesitate to do so because I am aware that my commuting constituents have lived with it on each of the three years and three days since its last outing in this Chamber. Will the Minister meet me to discuss these matters and work with me to ensure that, in another three years, by which time a new rail franchise agreement will have come in, I can—my constituents willing—make a rather different speech?
Shakespeare wrote:
“There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries”.
Let us take the opportunity of new rail franchise agreements to ensure that Britain’s railway users need not voyage in misery, but travel thanking their good fortune that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) served as Minister for the Railways.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) for securing the debate, and indeed for her closing remarks—I give all thanks for God’s good fortune that I am a Minister. I hope that she will take some comfort from my remarks about the changes we have made to the franchising system since re-establishing it in March 2013, as some of the things she spoke about are now integral to the new franchising process.
As we heard, my hon. Friend has been an extraordinary doughty campaigner on behalf of the constituents in relation to the service from Portsmouth. I know that there is a significant file of correspondence between my Department and her on the subject, and I know that she has previously secured debates on the matter in the House.
Although I am tempted to use the three hours available, that might not find favour with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will limit my remarks to the standard length for Adjournment debates and speak for about 15 minutes. I will talk first about the franchising process and the reforms we have made, and then address some of my hon. Friend’s specific comments and offer some words that hopefully will help her as she continues, quite rightly, to campaign to ensure the best for her constituents.
It is important that we understand exactly what a franchising process is and the general principles the Department follows in that regard. Strictly speaking, as most people understand, a franchise agreement is merely a contract between the Department and the operating company that sets out the responsibilities of each party. In many ways that is what we are buying through the privatised railway. Our franchise agreements contain a number of schedules, all of which include obligations that the train operating companies and the Secretary of State have to one another.
It is also pertinent to the debate to point out that when we make a franchise agreement with a private sector partner we go through a number of processes to ensure that the process is run correctly and is free of influence. The Secretary of State announced a new franchising programme in March last year, including, for the first time, a long-term schedule and the direct awards that we will make. That ensures that the process can be for the long term, that bidders can bid correctly and that there is the right number of bidders in the process to ensure value for money. We plan to update that schedule annually, and I or one of my colleagues will update the House on that in the near future.
The process the Departments undertakes has been set out in detail in the franchise competition and process guide. There are detailed changes from competition to competition, but the process is broadly simple. However, there have been a number of changes that I think are pertinent. One of those changes—a huge change—has been in the consultation that takes place with the public and the rail industry. That is essential to the ongoing franchise programme. We are revising our public consultation procedures to ensure that we consult as widely as we can when setting objectives for new franchises, and that has dramatically increased the amount of consultation that the Department undertakes.
In recent competitions, we have worked extensively with Network Rail and the Office of Rail Regulation, but also, more importantly and pertinently for the issues that my hon. Friend raises, with Passenger Focus and, particularly in the London area, with London TravelWatch. That has ensured that the wider industry and the wider interests outside the bidding community have been involved in looking at what should be the proposed specifications. We are asking organisations to provide in future their own advice on bidders’ responses to franchise competitions. We have also spoken to Members of Parliament, local authorities and other local groups, and consulted widely with the Rail Delivery Group and the bidders themselves to ensure that our propositions are robust and deliverable. All those groups now have a chance to make a significant contribution to, and have a significant impact on, the specifications. It is absolutely key to the new franchising process that the Government have committed to that level of engagement as we move forward, and there has clearly been an improvement.
As my hon. Friend said, the privatisation of the railways has seen an industry that was in decline turn into a resounding success story. We are now moving into a crucial period where Government, having reset the franchising process, must work in partnership with the private sector to build on that success. That is why the process has been restarted. We are taking steps to improve the way in which we contract with the private sector. That has been highlighted most recently in the new contract procedure that we are undertaking with the east coast main line, where we set out a prospectus that provided for consultation with the public and the rail industry, as I described, before the invitation to tender. We in Government need to deliver the highest quality specifications in invitations to tender which ensure that the bids we get mean that the franchise arrangements will deliver the best possible rail services for passengers and taxpayers.
The second point that is key in understanding the changes to the franchising process that we have undertaken in the past year is that, for the first time ever—this is one of the biggest changes we have made—we are taking into account non-financial factors in our assessment of bids. We are doing this right now as we evaluate the bids for the Essex Thameside and the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchises. In the past, ever since the start of rail franchising, we have scored bids only on the financial elements and the elements that deliver a return in terms of premium or reduced subsidy. The financial factors are obviously important, but as my hon. Friend said, the quality of service that passengers receive, and therefore the quality aspects of bids, must be taken into account. The Department now does that, particularly when, as is often the case, the financial aspects are relatively closely matched and the quality aspects can be a potential tie-breaker in the assessment of bids.
This has been put in place to drive a certain set of behaviours in bidders, which, in turn, drives a certain set of changes to the bid and the outcome for passengers once the franchise agreement is in place. Putting quality into the bidding process is not only changing the mindset of bidders but, most importantly, putting the passenger at the forefront of the franchising process. We have recognised that in the past this process has not always delivered for the passenger or the taxpayer, and that is the rationale for the change. These are often rightly referred to as the quality issues, and they will improve the experience of passengers.
Each franchise competition will inevitably assess its own approach to quality and consider the balance between affordability and appropriateness with regard to the objectives that the Secretary of State and the private sector hope to achieve in the franchising process. It will also consider the ways in which we can improve the experience for passengers and the long-term value for the taxpayer.
The Department recognises the need to provide the right environment to encourage the continuing success of the railways. A large amount of my hon. Friend’s speech rightly centred on the rolling stock. The Department faces some considerable capacity issues. The increase in the number of people wishing to travel on a number of routes means that we need to find ways to increase capacity.
People who travel often want to sit and I understand the tensions my hon. Friend has referred to with regard to the rolling stock on the Portsmouth to London line. The class 450s that were put in place by Stagecoach South West on that route have undoubtedly increased the seating capacity, but she is right to raise issues about how that capacity is reached. There is a regional trend towards the common adoption of three-plus-two seating in standard class, which allows more passengers to be seated and fewer to be required to stand, but I recognise that there is a judgment to be made on comfort.
My hon. Friend referred to an interesting report that concludes that a seat that is judged to be comfortable can lead to some pain and that, conversely, a seat that is judged to be uncomfortable may cause no damage at all. Although the report rightly highlights some of the possible complaints about the 450s and their formation, I am not sure that it is as conclusive as has been suggested to her campaign. None the less, she is right to point out that the 450s have implications for many of her commuters who do not regard them as comfortable. Therefore, as I pointed out, the new franchising process seeks to achieve a balance between affordability and quality. We must consider whether the balance between capacity and the appropriate comfort of passengers is right.
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss in some depth the merits of the 444 as against the 450 and its appropriateness for her commuters. I also hope that my rather long explanation of the franchising process—although it could have been much longer—has led her to recognise that there has been change that allows for the possibility of new services that would be of benefit to her commuters. I would very much welcome her contribution on that and I am sure we will discuss it at our meeting. A semi-fast Portsmouth Flyer, or even the Mordaunt Express—which would be an excellent innovation—would be possible under the new franchising process.
One of the aspects that I have not described in more detail is that, while we are setting minimum temporary speed restrictions as a train service requirement, we are also giving points to bidders to consider how new markets and opportunities, which the new capacity we are building and the huge Government investment in the railways afford, can be incorporated in the new franchise agreements. When we start the refranchising process for my hon. Friend’s line, I would urge her to take the opportunity to engage in that process. There is a real opportunity to influence it. I hope she will take it and I am sure she will make that point at her meeting with me.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has quite rightly said that we need to put passengers at the heart of franchises. The changes that we are making to the franchising process are starting to make a real change in ensuring that passengers are central to the franchise competition. We are now consulting them, and we are looking at the possibility of using innovation to take that consultation through the evaluation process, so that the quality provided to passengers is assessed in the bidding process for the first time ever.
It is a new and changed process, and I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that it will certainly start to make a potential difference to her commuters when we put the line’s new franchise process in place in two years’ time. As I have just said, I am delighted to have the opportunity to meet her in the interim. I hope that my remarks have given her some comfort that the Government recognise the plight of the Portsmouth commuter and recognise that some changes are possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Driving Tests
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mary Creagh
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new drivers passed their first driving test in each of the last five years.
[Official Report, 3 March 2014, Vol. 576, c. 710W.]
Letter of correction from Stephen Hammond:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) on 3 March 2014.
The full answer given was as follows:
Stephen Hammond
The information requested is in the following table:
Number | |
|---|---|
2008-09 | 345,411 |
2009-10 | 320,695 |
2010-11 | 744,044 |
2011-12 | 332,697 |
2012-13 | 310,373 |
Total | 2,053,220 |
The correct answer should have been:
Stephen Hammond
The information requested is in the following table:
Number | |
|---|---|
2008-09 | 345,411 |
2009-10 | 320,695 |
2010-11 | 336,349 |
2011-12 | 332,697 |
2012-13 | 310,373 |
Total | 1,645,525 |
Westminster Hall
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rolling Stock (North of England)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner.
The TransPennine Express service is without doubt a vital artery for the north of England, and it is worth explaining exactly why that is. Its routes cover most of the north, from Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria to Newcastle, and of course at the hub of the network are Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds, connecting out to Liverpool and Cleethorpes. All in all, the area that its services cover has a population of more than 15 million people. That surprised even me, and I am an occasional user of the service and someone who has always lived in the north of England. To put that in perspective, TransPennine Express serves nearly as many people as live in the whole of the south-east of England, including London. That point is at the heart of today’s debate, which is about whether the rail network in this country provides equally for people in the north of England and people in the south-east and London.
Not surprisingly, the services provided by TransPennine Express are already busy. Indeed, the operator won the title of Passenger Train Operator of the Year in 2010, with record growth in passenger numbers from 13 million when the company started in 2004 to 23 million in 2010. That is an impressive record. However, it now seems that because of the shambolic nature of this Government’s handling of rail franchising, TransPennine Express is at the receiving end of a catastrophic series of decisions, initially triggered by the collapse of the west coast franchising process nearly two years ago.
Of course it is the north that will suffer the consequences yet again, because the end of the line of this terrible series of decisions made by the Department for Transport and Ministers is the loss of nine of the TransPennine Express Class 170 Turbostar train units, which will be transferred to Chiltern Railways. By the way, that figure represents a 13% loss in the capacity of TransPennine Express.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I have congratulated her on several occasions now on securing essential debates, and this debate is no exception. Was she as astonished as me last Wednesday at Prime Minister’s questions at the reaction to the raising of this exact issue by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw)? Also, will she confirm that passengers are up in arms, including Helen Egan, a constituent of the Deputy Prime Minister’s, who told me that every morning she has to stand from Dore station in Sheffield to Piccadilly in Manchester?
Angela Smith
I completely concur with my right hon. Friend’s remarks. Last Wednesday was an illustration of just how little significance is attached to the needs of train users in the north of England; there was an immature response from the Government Front Bench team to a serious question.
Angela Smith
I myself used TransPennine Express only the other week and when I got to the station I found that one of the carriages on the train had been removed, and a significant number of people had to stand from Sheffield to Manchester. In fact, that is a regular experience for people using that line, the Hope Valley line, and it is just the same for people using the Leeds to Manchester line. This is a pressing issue.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend; she has gone right to the heart of the issue. Does she agree that this situation is not only a consequence of the west coast main line fiasco but a long-term consequence of the Government’s not investing in enough rolling stock throughout the whole country?
Angela Smith
I completely agree with my hon. Friend; he, too, always gets to the heart of the debate quickly. I will refer to that point later in my speech.
In his remarks about last Wednesday’s Prime Minister’s questions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) made an important point, because one of the consequences of what is happening is that at least the Prime Minister will benefit from a better service when visiting his constituency at weekends, even if the same is not true of my constituency and my right hon. Friend’s constituency.
It is also clear that the process that has led to the transfer of these trains has the fingerprints of Ministers all over it, with DFT Ministers clearly involved in the chain of events that has led us to where we are now. In fact, what we are seeing, as I have already said, is the end result of the botched failure of the west coast main line refranchising, which incidentally cost the tax payer £55 million, and Ministers cannot deny that they were at the heart of that process.
The other factor that has played a part in creating the situation that we are discussing today is the Government’s ideologically driven desire to privatise the east coast main line before the general election next year. To achieve that aim, the Government decided to negotiate costly franchise extensions with many incumbent operators, such as First TransPennine Express, being given a 10-month extension from April 2015 to February 2016. That is at the heart of the decision to transfer these carriages to Chiltern Railways.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and I apologise for not being able to stay for all of it. Does she agree that one of the difficulties that this situation creates for providers is planning their rolling stock needs for the future, and that that is particularly important when so many of the trains that serve my constituency will not even be Disability Discrimination Act-compliant by 2018?
Angela Smith
Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I will refer to the situation relating to the Pacer trains later. She is absolutely right that the leasing agreements for franchises such as Northern Rail and TransPennine Express end in 2015. TransPennine Express has been unable to secure leases for trains beyond then, because other operators can offer longer and more financially secure tenures to the rolling stock company, Porterbrook. That issue is at the heart of this debate.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
The hon. Lady is completely right in saying that the 10-month extension period is at the heart of the problem and the commercial issues that it creates for the leasers of trains. However, I do not quite follow in her logic flow how that is related to the east coast main line. Perhaps she could explain that.
Angela Smith
It is because the decision to prioritise the privatisation of the east coast main line has led to a delay in the refranchising process for TransPennine Express, which has put it on a short lease—a short-term life—and it cannot plan beyond 2015-16.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
As my hon. Friend knows, we in the all-party group on Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire try to keep these debates on an all-party basis, and we have been very tolerant. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) shouted at her a little earlier. However, we are all in favour of the northern hub. Some of us think that High Speed 2 is a problem. Many of us would much rather get the northern hub sooner. However, there is a network across the Pennines that we must sustain and improve quickly.
Angela Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Indeed, I agree with him on most of those points, particularly about the northern hub, which was initiated by the previous Government and brought forward to completion, in terms of agreeing all the terms and the funding for it. That was a genuinely cross-party effort, and there was a genuine consensus on it, to ensure that the northern hub goes ahead. However, the problem with the northern hub is that although it opens up the network, frees it up and creates more capacity, there remains a potential problem, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) referred earlier, of providing the rolling stock that is necessary to ensure that we can make good use of the increased capacity.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
We need to highlight the point about the differentiation in investment in different parts of the country. At a presentation last week to the all-party group on rail in the north, Network Rail outlined its plans for investment, including in the northern hub. However, the only reference to the north-east of England were signs on the map saying, “York”, and, “To Scotland.” The north-east of England was not an afterthought—it was not even a thought.
Angela Smith
That illustrates perfectly that we have to defend it. It is one of the sad realities of parliamentary life that those of us in the north of England, including those in the north-east and the furthermost outreaches of the north-west and Cumbria, have to defend our corner at every twist and turn.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) wanted me to give way. I shall, but this is the last time, because I really must make progress.
Jason McCartney
I thank the hon. Lady, my neighbour, for giving way. I also praise my other neighbour, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who rightly said that we should not be harrumphing about partisan points here, because we have worked so well together in this Chamber.
I wonder whether the hon. Lady would like to congratulate the Government on the £550 million investment in the northern hub and the electrification of the TransPennine route. Let us all work together to get better trans-Pennine services and better services on Northern Rail as well, which I use in my constituency.
Angela Smith
I said a few moments ago that I acknowledge the consensus on the northern hub and I am pleased to see it go ahead. On the basis of the hon. Gentleman’s comments, I assume that he will support the argument we are making today, to ensure that that rolling stock remains in the north of England and that we have sufficient rolling stock capacity to make good use of the northern hub, once it is completed.
Angela Smith
I will not give way any more, because I have had 11 minutes and have some way to go and other hon. Members will want to speak. I am sorry.
In February, Porterbrook reached an agreement to transfer nine Class 170 trains from TransPennine to Chiltern Railways, as I said, where they will be used on new services between Oxford and London. I am informed that the DFT was kept completely in touch with these negotiations and therefore, I assume, so were Ministers. It is vital that the House be informed of who knew what and when. Indeed, I echo the questions asked by the esteemed Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). Who decided to transfer the trains away from TransPennine? When did DFT officials first learn of the proposal? When were Ministers informed of the proposal? The trains concerned currently run on routes from Manchester to Cleethorpes, Hull and York, taking in Sheffield and a large part of south Yorkshire. They are modern trains built between 1998 and 2005.
The rail industry press is reporting that Northern Rail’s older Class 158s could be transferred on to TransPennine routes as replacement stock. If these stories are correct, the logical consequence will be a problem passed on ultimately to Northern Rail, which is already short of diesel-powered trains.
The other logical consequence of delayed franchising and the rush to privatise the east coast main line is that commercial imperatives encourage rolling stock companies, such as Porterbrook, to distribute their stock to train operating companies that can offer deals over a longer period. Hence Porterbrook signed a lease with Chiltern Railways in February, with the full agreement of the Department for Transport. I have had that in writing. This was confirmed in correspondence between Chiltern Railways and the DFT.
It is accepted that First TransPennine Express tried to negotiate with Porterbrook to prevent the trains from being transferred and leased to Chiltern Railways, but it is also accepted by First TransPennine Express that it could not enter into a new lease, because of the short period left before its franchising agreement expires.
The Minister has questions to answer. First, with these matters in mind, can he, today, offer a cast-iron guarantee that no passenger service will be downgraded or withdrawn, even temporarily, as a result of transferring these Class 170 Turbostar trains to Chiltern Railways? Will the Minister also confirm or deny the press reports that the Department is considering transferring Northern Rail’s Class 158s to the TransPennine franchise to plug the gap? After last week’s Prime Minister’s questions, when the Prime Minister said that he “will look carefully” at this issue, will the Minister tell me what progress has been made on resolving it, given that commitment from No. 10? Why does not the Minister just put our minds at rest by using powers under section 54 of the Railways Act 1993, which enable him, apparently, to secure the continued presence of the rolling stock in question on TransPennine services?
TransPennine runs some of the most overcrowded services in the country, as my hon. Friends have said. The franchisee itself has warned that, from May 2014 to the end of the current franchise term, it will require all its existing fleets to be able to deliver the significant capacity increase that it has committed to provide, and the same number of vehicles will be required to sustain the same level of service into the new franchise from April 2015. Let us not forget the other part of the equation, Northern Rail, which serves, as the name suggests, much of the rail needs of the north of England and which is also threatened, as I have explained, as a direct consequence of any loss of trans Pennine trains.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend rightly concentrates on the effects of this transfer on services in the north of England, but I remind her that the TransPennine Express also serves Scotland, including Edinburgh. Although I understand that the units that serve Edinburgh directly will not be affected by the transfer, I am told by colleagues in the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers that there could be indirect knock-on effects from units that serve Edinburgh being used to serve other routes elsewhere in the network and that, therefore, we too will be affected by the changes that have been introduced.
Angela Smith
Indeed. The turnout today draws out an important point in this debate, which is the far-reaching consequences of the weak decisions made by the Department for Transport and its Ministers over the past two or three years, leading to one short-term decision after another and, in turn, leading to consequences that reach far beyond the immediate TransPennine routes, which are, of course, Sheffield-Manchester and Sheffield-Leeds. The consequences reach right out into Scotland.
Gordon Birtwistle
The hon. Lady will appreciate that Network Rail spent about £20 million on the Todmorden curve and another £20 million-odd reconstructing the Cliviger Holme tunnel. We will have a brand-new tunnel and a brand-new rail link from Burnley to Manchester, but we will not have any trains. [Interruption.] Is the suggestion that people walk the line to Manchester? When are we going to get some trains? I am advised that we are going to get them in December—they have should been coming in May—but even that is now in jeopardy. We are putting a lot of pressure on Northern Rail to deliver the trains, even in the state they are in, never mind getting new trains. If we can get the ones it has to run that link it would be good. Will the hon. Lady request that trains be provided?
Angela Smith
The hon. Gentleman has encapsulated perfectly the lack of strategic grip that seems to be present in the DFT. Building a curve and new link but not being able to use them illustrates perfectly the stupidity of the position that we are in.
It appears that Northern Rail will receive fewer additional units from the south than it was promised in 2009, when Lord Adonis, the then Secretary of State for Transport, announced a major programme of electrification in the north. Back then, it was proposed that six Class 319 electric trains would be refurbished and transferred from First Capital Connect to Northern Rail in 2013—last year—and that they would operate between Manchester and Liverpool. However, it was recently reported that only three units would now be delivered, behind schedule and un-refurbished. A senior Northern source has been quoted as saying:
“We’ve told DFT we’re less than 10 months away from the proposed start of the electric service, we’re beyond the critical path, they’re not going to get refurbished and we’re not going to be able to operate the full service in the time we’ve got available.”
On top of these important issues there is another important perspective to this debate: just how serious are the Government about devolving power to the regions? The Minister knows well, following encouragement from the Department for Transport, that northern transport authorities have formed the Rail North group, with a view to taking responsibility for Northern and TransPennine services from 2016, and that date cannot come quickly enough for me. The proposed core of this network would cover around 21% of all UK stations. However, Ministers now appear to be rowing back on these proposals.
In November, it was reported that the Government were reconsidering their position, and in January a poorly defined partnership agreement between the DFT and the Rail North group was announced, without much of the devolution that was first promised. It subsequently emerged that the Department may force the Northern Rail operator to raise car parking fees. That move is opposed by the West Yorkshire passenger transport executive and flies in the face of true devolution. Given that the Department decided to move trains from the north to the south and is retreating on its promise to devolve rail network responsibilities, is localism now a phrase without meaning as far as the Government are concerned?
We in the north believe that we need efficient, well-run railways with modern trains providing the capacity that a growing network needs. We need those trains so that our economy can compete with the south—we all know how big that challenge is—if we are to close the north-south gap. On the Northern franchise, however, the average age of the fleet is 23 years, which compares with a national average of 18 years. Many routes are still served by the Pacer railbuses, which make up about a quarter of the fleet. I will not name my source, but I was approached several years ago by someone who asked whether the Pacer trains might have a future in the new country of Kosovo, but the trains may still be required on those Northern Rail services if the Government do not get their finger out.
The Pacer trains cannot be made compliant with disability access regulations without extensive refurbishment, and the oldest units are 30 years old. Under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 the trains will either have to be made compliant or be withdrawn before 1 January 2020. Ministers have already said that that is
“generally a matter for train operators.”
The train operators are having their arms tied behind their back by decisions made in DFT that do not give franchisees the security they need to secure deals with the rolling stock companies. Because of the shortage of diesel trains in the UK—this is the other big issue—Pacer trains, which are unsuitable, may have to remain in service for longer than they should.
Angela Smith
No, I really must move on.
What assessment has the Minister made of the ongoing viability of the Pacer trains, which are heavily used on the Northern franchise? Passengers in south Yorkshire, on the Doncaster to Rotherham and Rotherham to Sheffield routes, hate those trains, which provide a terrible service and are like sitting on a trolley bus—they are awful. The trains give an awful ride, and they give passengers the impression that they are using a second-class, substandard service.
Has the Department considered applying for an exemption to disability access regulations for the Pacer trains that could see non-compliant vehicles in use beyond 2020? That is an important point. Northern Rail passengers need to know whether Ministers will allow those trains to be used beyond 2020. We need an answer.
I will now bring my comments to a close. It is becoming obvious where the Government’s priority lies when it comes to rail lines, and the priority is not with passengers in the north of England. As their ill-fated, illogical and shambolic franchising policy goes off the rails, it is the north of England that suffers. We are witnessing a situation in which the huge blunder that was west coast franchising has led to a comedy of errors, with the consequences landing squarely in the lap of the north of England and its railway services. The real issue, of course, is that the Government are just not getting to grips with the heart of the problem mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton, which is that there are not enough trains in the system to provide the expansion capacity that the UK so badly needs.
At least the Prime Minister will be happy, now that he knows that there will be additional, modern 170 trains running into his constituency, making it easier for him to cope with the arduous journey to London. Hopefully he remembers that that comes at a cost to rail users in the north and beyond, as they will be left with less capacity, more crowded trains and, undoubtedly, frustrating delays as a result, unless we hear confirmation from the Minister today that the Government will ensure that that terrible decision does not go ahead. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and his answers to my questions.
Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)
Order. I will set a time limit of four minutes in the expectation that it may have to be reduced.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) on securing this important debate, which provides an opportunity for us not only to complain about various aspects of the services that serve our constituencies but to acknowledge the massive investment that the Government have made in the railway network. My constituency is served by TransPennine Express’s Manchester airport station to Cleethorpes service, which is the most important link, as it provides connections at Doncaster and Sheffield to the rest of the network. My constituency is also served by East Midlands Trains, more of which in a moment. Northern Rail provides a Cinderella service between Cleethorpes and Barton-upon-Humber in the sense that it is completely disconnected from the rest of the Northern network.
TransPennine Express’s Manchester to Cleethorpes service uses a combination of Class 170 and Class 185 units. TransPennine Express’s clear intention, restated to me only last week, is to remove the 170 units from that service. Will the Minister clarify that? The 185s are far superior, and the 170s are only two-coach trains. The services at peak times are very overcrowded.
Andrew Bingham
As my hon. Friend is aware, that route goes through my High Peak constituency. We are talking about the north today, but the route serves my constituency, which is technically in the east midlands. The route is widely used by my constituents to get to work in Sheffield and Manchester. I am sorry that they do not all go to Cleethorpes, but my constituents use the route, too.
Martin Vickers
I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I recognise that people in his constituency would like to get to Cleethorpes, so anything we can do to improve that will be welcome.
When I spoke to TransPennine Express last week, it assured me that the 170s will be removed, that the 185s will continue and that extended four-coach trains will begin shortly. If the Minister is able to confirm that, or if he is able to get back to me, it would be much appreciated.
Understandably, much of the emphasis has been on the TransPennine Express and Northern Rail services, but East Midlands Trains also serves my constituency. This will be the moaning part of my contribution, because in the almost four years since I have been the Member for Cleethorpes I have made representations to TransPennine Express about the single-car unit that operates between Grimsby and Newark. When people board that train, it is announced that when the train reaches Market Rasen there will be standing room only. Passengers know that the 9.20 from Grimsby, which forms the 9.55 from Market Rasen, and the peak return journey from Lincoln at 17.23 will be overcrowded. The one-car unit is unsatisfactory. That point has been acknowledged by the company, and still, four years later, there has been no improvement. That is beyond reasonable. New units could have been built in a couple of years, let alone shuffling units around the network.
The decision by TransPennine Express has highlighted the possibility of further emphasising the north-south divide, which might be only a perception, but we all know that perception counts for a great deal in politics. Will the Minister confirm what responsibility his Department has for those decisions? Was the Department consulted? Does the Department have to agree, or is the matter entirely for the rail operators? If the Department has to agree, I sincerely hope that the decision was made by officials, rather than by Ministers. As I said earlier, the decision adds grist to the mill by emphasising the north-south divide. The Government have invested a lot of money in the network, including in the northern part of the network, and we do not want to lose the good will that that has created.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) on securing this debate. I want to make a few brief comments, particularly on the trans-Pennine service between Hull and Leeds and Manchester.
Members may know that Hull and East Yorkshire has a population of some 500,000 people, but we have one service an hour from Hull to Leeds and Manchester. The line is poor, so the maximum speed is 50 mph. We have problems with outdated signalling, so no trains can run after 10 pm and the rolling stock, as we have heard, comprises the two-coach 170 trains, which causes real problems with overcrowding at peak times of the day. As I understand it, we were originally supposed to have the Siemens Class 185 stock, but that has been used for other parts of the network. People living in Hull and East Yorkshire are saying, “If the Government are serious about securing the rebalancing of the economy and ensuring that the regions get the investment they need, why is our train service not very good and likely to get even worse with the plans afoot to move the rolling stock to other parts of the country?”
My hon. Friend has clearly set out that we have to have this debate because of the debacle in the Department for Transport on franchise procedures, but I want to raise the issue of the electrification of the trans-Pennine service. Some bright spark in the Department thought it was a great idea to electrify the line as far as Selby but not to go as far as the end of the line at Hull. That ridiculous situation, with that section left out of any electrification, has implications for the rolling stock that can be used. People and businesses in Hull were very annoyed about that, but they did not just sit and moan. They put together a bid of private sector money to allow that electrification to go ahead in the round of electrification that has already been announced. It only requires the Department to put in a small amount of money—I think it is £2 million—with the rest coming from the private sector. The bid has cross-party support and the business community is up for it. We had a meeting with the Secretary of State, and I hope that good sense will prevail and we will be included in the electrification arrangements up to 2019. Hull will be the UK city of culture in 2017, but how will people get to Hull with the ramshackle train service that is currently operating? There is one service an hour and no services after 10 pm to Leeds and Manchester.
When the Chief Secretary came to Hull last week, he seemed completely oblivious to the private sector bid. That shows a problem in the Government. Private sector money is on the table and ready to go, but it is being ignored by the Chief Secretary, who did not seem to know anything about it. I hope the Minister can reassure me that the Government take the electrification proposal seriously. I also hope that he can answer the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge on why we need the rolling stock problem sorted out as soon as possible to put people’s minds at rest.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
It struck me, Mr Turner, that you represent probably the most southerly constituency in the House. It is just as well that you are not able to contribute.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) on securing this opportune debate and putting her points in a feisty way, although I think she could have been a little more consensual. It was not this Government, after all, who decided that the best way to spend £6 billion was on Crossrail, rather than on improving rolling stock in the north. I speak as a jaundiced member of the Crossrail Bill Committee, to which I was sentenced for two years.
Rolling stock is not just a trans-Pennine issue; it is a quality issue in many areas, because, frankly, the quality is dire. I have had a long-standing campaign against the Class 142s, which are essentially Leyland buses on wheels. They were originally produced by Mrs Thatcher, almost as an emergency motion to keep Leyland Motors going. Most of them still running are on the Northern Rail franchise, although not all—some are on Arriva in the Welsh valleys. Those trains are not the oldest stock in the northern area—the oldest are the refurbished Merseyrail trains—but they are certainly the most uncomfortable and the most outmoded and they are not disability-compliant. They are probably not safe in either a collision or a derailment, and they certainly deter business passengers.
Any sane franchise arrangement would seek to get rid of the Class 142s, and I have tried to help with that. I have investigated the safety issues and I have contacted fellow northern MPs, some of whom are present for this debate. I have surveyed passengers, and I have spoken to franchise holders, the Department for Transport— particularly on the safety issues—and the media. The BBC did a good exposé of how bad conditions are on the trains, which are virtually cattle trucks. The responses I get are various: I am told that the trains are cheap to run and that, although they are rickety, one man with a decent set of spanners can usually repair them, saving an expensive trip to the repair shop; I am told they have utility, because they can be coupled and decoupled on the smaller lines; and I am also told that someone has to have them and, more horrifyingly, that they might be refurbished at some point. That sends a chill of fear down the spine of anyone travelling in the north.
Andy McDonald
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern? The last time I was on a Pacer 142, I was horrified to see that where a seat had become detached from its iron frame, it had been bolted back and new cloth had been put on, with the likelihood that it would last a lot longer.
John Pugh
With that example, one surely has to think about what would happen in an accident where a passenger was thrown around the carriage.
Despite the appalling treatment of the northern franchises, patronage, profitability and demand are up. To be fair, the Government have started to realise the potential. They have started to put capital into the north, and we should all praise them for the northern hub go-ahead and the electrification. They have also, I hope, started to realise that we get a raw deal in the north. Recently, my colleagues and I submitted a document called “Grim up North?” to the Chancellor, which, among other things, analyses transport expenditure.
We are not fighting a particular Government but a Whitehall mindset. Frankly, Sir Humphrey knows all about Chiltern Railways. His friends travel on those lines and he has used them. Time and again in the Department for Transport, we come up against obstacles, whoever happens to be the Minister. We come up against what is called the business case argument, which basically says that transport investment should follow demand and profit, and the Department will point out that those are greatest in the south. That is not a false view, but it has to be set against the other principle that transport strategy and investment can drive demand, profit and economic growth. Unless we do something to arrest the downward spiral, we will continue to have a good case made within the Department for investment in the south and a rather mealy-mouthed case made for investment in the north.
It is rather like being in a strange family, where there is a large, obese child—a sort of cuckoo in the nest, rather like London—and when the food is doled out or, in this case, when franchises and coaches are doled out, we look at our meagre portions and we complain. We are told and will be told by the Department that the demand and the profits are greatest in the south, and that is where the franchises want to go, but we simply cannot go on like that. We have to contest the Whitehall mindset. We are already seeing signs of that mindset clawing its way back. Although we have the northern hub and electrification, there is anxiety about franchise devolution, as the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge pointed out; there is a lack of thought about the consequences of electrification for those areas that are not electrified, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) pointed out; there is confusion about the franchises; and we have rolling stock issues in abundance. Generally speaking, we have to recognise that, while we can carry on moaning and appearing like whingeing northerners, there comes a point when we collectively need to move from being whingeing northerners to becoming rebellious northerners.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
As the debate so far has shown, rail in the north has long-standing problems that affect constituencies across the whole region. The problems include the rolling stock: in the north, the average age is 24 years compared with London Overground, whose rolling stock is, on average, 2.8 years old, and with C2C—the London to Essex line—where the average is 12 years. Those figures tell quite a tale. As hon. Members have mentioned, another issue is the availability of appropriate rolling stock after the welcome electrification, on which there is still no clarity.
In the short time available I want to focus on the key issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), which is the totally unacceptable situation of First TransPennine Express, which serves people across the north with an already overcrowded service, being set to lose 13% of its fleet to Chiltern Railways. It is a consequence of the west coast main line debacle and the way that franchises were changed and decisions were made for directly negotiated extensions of existing franchises. It appears that the interests of the leasing company, Porterbrook, rests with moving the trains to Chiltern Railways, rather than leaving them for the 10-month extension that has been awarded to First TransPennine Express.
That issue has been raised at the Select Committee, which has already written to the Secretary of State to ask several important questions. I want to focus on two of them. First, did Ministers know what was happening? We understand that they did. If they did not, they should have known that something so important was going on. Secondly, what will Ministers do about the situation? It cannot be right that the interests of a leasing company are put above those of passengers. There are other, more general issues about how rolling stock and franchises are organised, but that is the nub of the problem. The interests of the leasing company appear to be in moving these much needed carriages from the north to the south, because it can get a better financial deal.
David Mowat
I congratulate the hon. Lady on mentioning Porterbrook, because its role is crucial. I will be interested to hear from the Minister why Porterbrook has taken this decision. I understand that it was offered only a 10-month extension, but it is and has been customary for leasers to give trains to the next company that takes over the lease. Porterbrook was not at risk had it persevered with the 10-month extension and it really does seem an odd decision. Has the Transport Committee had any sight of the commercial terms of the earlier deal with First TransPennine Express?
Mrs Ellman
The Transport Committee has not yet seen the deal; it is just asking questions at this stage. Everyone here today—or certainly everyone on the Committee—just wants to know what is going to be done. We have not yet received a response from the Minister to our questions, but one may be in the post at this very moment. What did Ministers know about the matter? If they did not know about it, why not? More importantly, what are they going to do about it for the interests of the travelling public right across the north?
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) on securing the debate, which has involved much talk of the north of England. My seat is in the east midlands, but the line that has been discussed today actually goes through my constituency. It is a vital line, and I have similar concerns that the number of carriages will be reduced. We have lots of employment in High Peak, but people also travel to Manchester or Sheffield. I support the northern hub and the extra capacity that the Hope Valley line will receive, which is vital because the line also carries a lot of freight.
The matter has been brought to my attention by two constituents—a Mr Benson and a Mr Walker—who live in different parts of my constituency, which is also served by Northern Rail. If the carriages are removed, they will have to be replaced with carriages from Northern Rail, which will have an impact on not only the line that is served by First TransPennine Express, but the Northern Rail line that serves the rest of my constituency. Of the 10 busiest stations in Derbyshire, five are in High Peak and are served by Northern Rail, and there will be implications.
The matter is cross-party, as it should be, and I want some reassurances from the Minister. We have until April 2015 before the changes kick in, so we have time to examine the issue and to put it right. We can discuss the carriages that are being lost—I have sat on trains and thought that they could be a little bit comfier—but the capacity of the trains that go in and out of my constituency is causing my constituents great concern.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) is present today, and the Minister will remember from his previous role that we banged the drum about our bypass as another way of getting across the Pennines, which is what this is all about. We talk of building economic growth, but to do so we need to generate employment so that people can work. If they cannot get about, the whole project is stymied.
Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)
All today’s contributions have been about assisting people and about social and economic mobility. There is the new station fund, and I led the campaign for Ilkeston station, which will transform the town and enable people to get out and about and take opportunities. That should always be the focus of what we politicians are trying to achieve for constituents.
Andrew Bingham
I agree with my hon. Friend and give her great credit for the work that she did down in Erewash on Ilkeston station. She is absolutely right that this debate is not just about a few carriages being tacked on the end of a train; it goes far beyond that. I am mindful that many other Members want to speak and that time is short, so I will limit my remarks. I have a letter here that will go to the Minister and to the Secretary of State, and I will be interested to know the responses. Like the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, I have some concerns, as do my constituents.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) on securing the debate. I want to focus on Hartlepool. Hartlepool and Seaton Carew stations had almost 580,000 passengers last year. Hartlepool is the sixth busiest station in the north-east, which is probably a result of the direct service to and from London operated by Grand Central, but also of Northern Rail services, which operate southbound to Middlesbrough and northbound to Newcastle, calling at Seaham, Sunderland and Heworth, with some services continuing to the Metrocentre, Hexham and Carlisle.
As has been said, to facilitate greater economic development, it is important to attract more people on to the railways through reliability, value for money, the provision of routes where people want to go, at a time that suits them, and, crucially, rolling stock that is modern, clean, accessible and comfortable for passengers. One of the Department for Transport’s 12 policies is expanding and improving the rail network. Within that policy the Department states:
“Rail is vital to the UK’s economic prosperity. If rail services are inefficient and do not meet people’s needs for routing or frequency, business and jobs suffer.”
I do not think that anybody would disagree with that, but the condition and suitability of the rolling stock is also about meeting people’s needs. I ask the Minister: why is quality of the rolling stock not included in that policy?
If the age of rolling stock is seen as an indicator of comfort for passengers, Northern Rail, as we have heard, is lacking. It currently has the oldest fleet of rolling stock in the franchised railway, with an average age, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) said, of 24 years. The average age has increased steadily since quarter one of 2008-09, indicating that no investment in newer stock has been made.
Ian Mearns
The line that my hon. Friend is talking about, which serves Teesside, the east Durham coast and Sunderland and goes through to Newcastle and beyond, passes through my constituency. The sad fact is that, although Teesside and Tyneside are only 35 miles apart as the crow flies, a train from Newcastle to Middlesbrough is timetabled to take an hour and 35 minutes. It is a disgrace.
Mr Wright
My hon. Friend is right, and that is partly because of the age and condition of the rolling stock. Things are bad on that line, particularly for Hartlepool commuters, because, as we have heard, Northern Rail is still operating the old Class 142 Pacer trains, which were built as a stopgap in the 1980s. They are little more than cattle trucks and are totally unsuitable for a modern rail network.
A constituent who commutes to and from Newcastle for work every day wrote to me about Northern Rail services, which she described as “dilapidated”:
“I’m sure that you are aware that the condition of the train is also antiquated and they frequently break down due to age and disrepair... in winter they lack an operative heating system and are filthy...The service received by passengers on this line is worse than ever and something must be done in order to bring Northern Rail to account and operate within its rail passenger charter.”
I hope that the Minister will address those concerns directly.
I have several questions, but they boil down to this: when will my constituents receive modern, comfortable and appropriate rolling stock, with such things as customer information systems and suitable accessibility for disabled people, which seem commonplace elsewhere in the country, but are lacking in my area? Why are Hartlepool and the north-east so badly short-changed, given that fares have gone up remarkably?
Is the Minister planning to change the formula for spending on transport? Expenditure per head of population on transport infrastructure in London is £2,595; it is £5 per person in the north-east. I appreciate that the formula is based on population, but the Minister must accept that that gross imbalance is simply wrong. Will he consider levelling the track on transport spend for the north-east to help facilitate proper economic growth in my region? Secondly, will he use smarter procurement to stimulate more manufacturing of rolling stock in the UK, and particularly in the north-east? The Government’s handling of the Bombardier issue on Thameslink was little short of shambolic, although their handling of last month’s decision on Crossrail was better. Will the Minister endeavour to ensure that Hitachi, newly based in the north-east, can be as competitive as possible, enabling manufacturing to be retained and enhanced in the north-east, jobs to be created, and supply chains to have the long-term confidence to plan for the future?
My area is badly short-changed over the quality of train services and rolling stock, and I hope that the Minister will address that.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
I want to start by saying that the moving of 13% of TransPennine Express trains is an unacceptable outcome. However, we need to understand why it has happened. It is still not clear to me whether it is an intended or unintended consequence—the tail-end result of a number of actions.
I want to respond to the north-south divide issue, on which the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) made an excellent speech. There are things that the Government have done that were not happening before, in relation to the northern hub and the electrification of the north; but that only partially rebalances the vast difference in spending per head mentioned just now by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright). That is not something that happened under the present Government; it happened under the previous Government as well, and it is an endemic issue to do with the way the Department for Transport evaluates projects. That is what we need to think about in the next few years.
To return to the main issue, the 13% of TPE trains are being moved because a 10-month extension has been piled on. Porterbrook apparently takes the view that it can get more money by moving the trains to Chiltern Railways, away from TPE. The first question is whether the decision was predictable. I do not fully understand the reason for the 10-month extension, which is why I intervened earlier, to ask how that was related to the east coast main line. However, given the fact of the 10-month extension, perhaps Porterbrook is trying to protect its commercial interests by its actions. In that case, normally what happens, apparently, is that the owner of the trains leases them to the next winner of the franchise; so if TPE lost the franchise, the normal custom and practice would be for Porterbrook still to be protected, because the trains could remain in the north. I ask the Minister why that did not happen in this case, to what extent it was predictable by the Minister or officials, and whether it is only the officials who are accountable in that sense.
Is the contract that has now apparently been signed by Porterbrook and Chiltern Railways irrevocable? Can it be changed? If it cannot, another issue arises. I heard mention of powers under section 54 of the Railways Act 1993 earlier; would they allow the contract to be reopened and re-examined? As I said when I began, the outcome, whether intended or not, is unacceptable.
Porterbrook’s role needs a lot more examination. We shall not have time for that today, but I hope that the Select Committee will understand, when it investigates, what drove Porterbrook to make a decision that is not, on the face of it, rational, given the custom and practice that I mentioned—that whoever might win the future franchise, if there is a change, would in any event use the same trains. Finally, I want to ask whether the Department for Transport has sight of the full commercial terms of the Porterbrook and Chiltern Railways contract, vis-à-vis the Porterbrook TPE contract that is apparently being replaced.
Putting all that to one side, the outcome is unacceptable, and something needs to happen.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
I hope that colleagues will forgive this cuckoo in the nest—a Scottish MP intruding on the debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) for securing the debate. Continuing my animal analogy, I want to address the elephant in the sitting room. Hon. Members, who are rightly angry on behalf of their constituents at decisions about rolling stock and franchises, will be disappointed if they believe that chastising a Minister, of whatever party, for the decisions of civil servants at the Department for Transport can be the equivalent of a magic wand, and make everything right. The structure and nature of the industry simply will not allow train operating companies to make their own decisions about which rolling stock is most appropriate for their passengers.
I have never been an advocate of the wholesale nationalisation of the railway industry and I am not about to follow in the footsteps of the late lamented Bob Crow by doing a 180° turn on that policy. However, I draw the attention of the House to my early-day motion 954, which points out that under the present Government the railway industry is about to be nationalised. The largest part of the railway industry is Network Rail. From September, it will be recategorised as a central Government body. It will therefore come under the remit of central Government: Whitehall—civil servants. It will no longer be a private company without shareholders, as it is today. May I therefore congratulate the present Conservative Government on nationalising the British railway industry?
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
Like many of my hon. Friends I am very much in favour of genuinely free markets. However, is not the point the fact that the market is mangled? It is not delivering for the customers—businesses and passengers—who are investing a lot of money, and for whom a properly functioning railway in the north of England is vital, just as it is in the south.
Mr Harris
I will not declare an interest. I am not being paid the salary any more; I do not need to declare an interest. However, it is a fact that since 1993, railway rolling stock has been among the newest rolling fleet of any in Europe. We have an outstanding safety record and there have been record numbers of passengers. Nevertheless, it is clear from this debate and many others in the past that the current model is not delivering for a significant number of passengers. Rolling stock is one problem, and far too often Ministers and civil servants make those decisions over the heads of the train operating companies at the behest of the rolling stock companies. That is unacceptable and clearly must be addressed if we are not to have debates similar to this in future. Another clear failure in the market—I would say it is the biggest one—is that our constituents are paying far too much for their rail fares.
The market simply does not deliver on crucial aspects. It does deliver in some areas, however, which is why I am cautious about simply saying that everything would be wonderful under nationalisation. I remember when the railways were nationalised and everything was not wonderful. We have to be cautious about taking an ideological point of view, but this is not an ideological debate; it is a practical debate.
How do we ensure that our constituents get the best possible service from the rail industry? Let us cast ideology to one side and look at what can be done practically. We may well have to follow the Network Rail example and look at train operating companies and say that the private experiment has not worked.
Ian Mearns
There is an interesting dilemma for Government, as they have conceded on state ownership. When it comes to rolling stock and train operating companies, they agree with German, Dutch and French state ownership, just not UK state ownership. Is that not a paradox?
Mr Harris
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct that that is a paradox. I have some sympathy with the Minister, because I know that his civil servants are going over the heads of the train operating companies and deciding which rolling stock is most appropriate to which franchise. I am attending this debate because every decision taken on rolling stock has a domino effect on every other franchise. The TransPennine Express franchise serves my city of Glasgow. The west coast franchise, which was badly handled, also serves my constituency and the east coast franchise, which should not be privatised before the general election, also serves Scotland. We are all in this together, as it were. All passengers rely on decisions taken by the DFT. The Minister will no doubt say that it is a privatised industry and that such decisions are out of his hands, but they are not; they are very firmly in his hands. The question we should address is: is that the correct way to make those decisions?
We must make a decision. Either civil servants and Ministers should take responsibility as well as the blame—at the moment all they get is the blame—or they should give all those decisions to the private sector and make it a truly privatised industry. My gut instinct is that that model would not work for our constituents and it is our constituents, not political ideology, that must take precedence.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) on securing this debate—it is really good to have it. I refer again to the major investment we have had in Burnley, which I raised in my earlier intervention, at the Todmorden curve and the Holme tunnel at Cliviger. We have a brand-new, £7 million station, and £20 million was spent on fitting the Todmorden curve back in so that there is a direct link between Accrington and Burnley and Manchester, which will bring much financial growth to that part of Lancashire. The opportunity has also been taken to refurbish the tunnel at Cliviger. The total bill for that would be about £50 million. We are grateful for that work. It took a long time to persuade the Government to do it and this coalition Government have done it.
Our problem now is that the trains that should have turned up at the beginning of May—I was looking forward to riding on the first one to Manchester—will not arrive on time. They might arrive at Christmas, but it might not even be then. Will the Minister give us some indication of when the first train will travel on this brand-new track to Manchester?
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) raised the state of Northern Rail trains. My wife regularly travels from Burnley to Leeds. At present, she has to rely on the bus because the line is closed while the tunnel is relined. Only recently, on the way back from Leeds, the York to Blackpool train broke down in an attractive part of no man’s land. The whole train was packed—no one could move on it. The guard apologised for the state of the train, but the passengers had to wait an hour for the next train to come along and literally push that train through Burnley, Blackburn and Preston and on to Blackpool where it could be repaired. Is that the way to run a modern railway system? Is that what the people of this country pay for?
The train my wife uses to go to Leeds used to cost £6, but now it is nearer £16. The price has nearly trebled, yet the service quality has gone down and down. Is the Minister proud of how we now run the railways in this country? If he is happy with that, so be it, but he should tell us so that we know where we are. If not, will he tell us what he will do about it? I am not happy to see £50 million of taxpayers’ money spent on a brand-new station and a brand-new link to Manchester, which we have all asked for for years—the Prince of Wales supported the project at one time—and the £20 million-odd spent on the tunnel, which had to be done, when we do not have any trains to ride on. I urge the Minister not to send us the old buses that we used to have—some of those are so old that they still have the registration plates they had when they ran around Preston. Can we have something a little more modern? At this moment in time I will accept a continuation of the wrecks we have at present just to get that on that line to Manchester.
Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)
We have four minutes left and four speakers. Tom Blenkinsop, you have one minute.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Turner. Given the shortness of time, I will get to the nub of the issues facing my constituents. First, there is the rolling stock. My fear for people in Middlesbrough and the wider Teesside conurbation is that the mainline services that link York with Blackpool and Liverpool will be given priority over the peripheral lines going north. That links into the lack of electrification on the east coast line to the north of Northallerton. Those two issues together cause fear for people in Middlesbrough and the wider Teesside area.
The rolling stock leasing companies are an issue. The TransPennine service was created by the state under British Rail and that model has survived until today, which is testament to its ability to assess the market then and going forward. In November 1995, the ROSCOs were sold for a combined sum of about £1.7 billion and, in 1996, they generated a combined pre-tax profit of £1.8 billion. We have three ROSCOs; one of which, Angel Trains, made a 60% profit in the seven months—
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I would like to mention a couple of quick points. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) referred to nationalisation. It has been pointed out that we have a nationalised system, with Nederlandse Spoorwegen and Deutsche Bahn operating franchises. The purpose of a railway system is not to provide people with an opportunity to extract value for their own benefit.
We, too, are plagued with the Pacer 142 trains, the performance of which is shocking. The travel time from Saltburn to Darlington is 53 minutes—Usain Bolt or a domestic cat could give those trains a run for their money. In fact, my wife’s grandma raced the trains years ago, and I think she could still do that now. The height of our ambition—
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
There is almost no time at all, but I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) on securing the debate. I have nine train stations in my constituency. Stalybridge, in particular, is a hugely important railway town, which features our world-famous buffet bar.
The crucial point is the huge growth in passenger numbers on services through places such as Stalybridge, Mossley and Hyde during the past decade. Passenger numbers have doubled, yet we do not seem to have a system that can meet that demand in any way, so when news comes out that we will lose TransPennine carriages to an as yet unopened railway in the south of England to provide services to Oxford, that causes extreme and palpable dismay. I thought that, in this Parliament, we were moving towards consensus on greater rail investment in the north of England. That is what I want to see and I would like the Minister to address that. The point about the age of rolling stock has been made well. Do we have a system that allows new rolling stock on to our railways? I do not think we do and I would appreciate the Minister commenting on that.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I want to talk about the train service between Bolton and Manchester. The trains are incredibly overcrowded, especially during peak times. People often have to give up on one or two trains before they can get on one, and when they do they are completely squashed, as I know, because I travel on those trains myself.
The trains are small and need to be refurbished. We need more trains because those running between Bolton and Manchester are incredibly dangerous and overcrowded. A lot of people miss their trains as a result, and I have had letters from constituents who have lost their jobs because they have not been able to get to work on time and their employer has had no sympathy for the fact that they have been spending an hour or so travelling on a local train service.
It is regrettable that—
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) on securing this debate. She is a long-standing campaigner for better rail services in her constituency. Alongside others here today, she lobbied to secure funding for the northern hub project. She gave a powerful speech, and it is entirely fitting that she should lead this important and timely debate. There is clearly an extremely high level of interest in this subject, reflecting the importance of rail services to constituents across the north and parts of the east midlands as well.
I would like to take this opportunity briefly to pay tribute to Bob Crow, who tragically died yesterday morning. No one could ever doubt Bob’s tenacity and effectiveness on behalf of the workers he represented. I met him a number of times in my capacity as shadow rail Minister. From talking to people who sat on the other side of the negotiating table from him I know just how deeply respect ran for him in the rail industry, from his opponents and supporters alike. He was a pragmatic fighter and a doughty defender of RMT members, and our national life will be poorer without him.
A year and a half after the collapse of the west coast mainline and Great Western competitions, we are witnessing another consequence of that debacle. The facts have been well covered by hon. Members. As a direct result of its 10-month franchise extension, TransPennine Express has found itself unable to negotiate new leases for its rolling stock. Its Class 170 trains, which make up 13% of its fleet, will be transferred to Oxfordshire, and we learn from the industry press that Class 158 trains may be taken from the Northern franchise to make up the shortfall.
As the Rail North group has said, the short-term direct awards appear to be causing potential and actual problems for the rail network. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is clearly not the solution that passengers need, so I have a number of questions for the Minister, which I hope he will answer when he sums up. First, for how long exactly has the Department been aware that TPE’s trains could be transferred to Chiltern? Did the Secretary of State consider exercising his section 54 powers in this case, and if he did, why did he decide against using them? Finally, will the Minister confirm that there is no protection against a similar fate for the remainder of TPE’s fleet? What is to stop the Class 185s, which are used on the majority of TPE’s services, being transferred to other operators?
I have to declare an interest in this debate as a constituency MP. Although, like the hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham), I represent a midlands seat, Nottingham station is served by Northern Rail—by the same Class 158s, in fact, that could be transferred to other franchises. Although I welcomed the decision to electrify the midland main line, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) has previously said, we still do not know what rolling stock will be used, including on the line to Sheffield.
We already have real uncertainty over rail projects. The Todmorden curve is a case in point. Restoring that 500-metre section of track will enable new, direct services from east Lancashire to Manchester. Funding for the infrastructure was secured following a cross-party campaign, which included my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones). The track itself will be completed by May, but, incredibly, no trains will run on it until December, despite previous assurances that sufficient trains could be found. As Josh Fenton-Glynn, Labour’s prospective parliamentary candidate for Calder Valley, has rightly said, that is
“an inexcusable piece of incompetence about which local people are justifiably angry.”
I pay tribute to the work he has done to bring the issue to national attention.
Northern Rail said in October that
“there are no spare trains on the market at the moment”
The case illustrates both a failure to plan, and the lack of available rolling stock for expanded services. In the meantime, the strong growth in demand for rail in the north, ably described many of my hon. Friends, has resulted in severe overcrowding on some routes.
Lilian Greenwood
I am sorry, but I am not going to give way, as we have limited time.
We heard powerful examples of the difficulties commuters face from hon. Members from across the House, including the hon. Members for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Southport (John Pugh), my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and, briefly but eloquently, my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). As First TransPennine Express has said, even a relatively small reduction in the size of its fleet could have a profound impact on services. The company said:
“Our timetable from May 2014 through to the end of our current franchise term requires all of our existing fleets to be able to deliver the significant capacity increase that we have committed to provide. Similarly, the same total number of vehicles would be required to sustain the same level of service into the new ten-month franchise extension period from April 2015.”
If replacement rolling stock is transferred from Northern Rail, the same problem will be repeated. Passengers, transport authorities and operators now face years of uncertainty over rolling stock availability before electrification is completed. Drivers cannot be trained and new services cannot be planned. If still more trains are lost, those problems will only become more unmanageable.
I understand that Chiltern’s agreement to operate the Class 170s contains a sub-lease that would allow the trains to remain in use on the trans Pennine routes until replacement rolling stock can be found. I also understand that the Department for Transport, First TransPennine Express and Chiltern Railways are parties to that lease. Will the Minister tell us whether the sub-lease can go ahead only with the full agreement of the Department and Chiltern Railways? It is important that we have an answer to that question and to the other questions that hon. Members have raised today.
When the Minister responds I hope that he is not tempted to downplay the issue by saying that this situation is simply part of the normal process of cascading rolling stock. If that is so, why is the industry press reporting that the loss of the Class 170s is
“likely to produce a serious reduction in capacity”
on the TransPennine routes? As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who chairs the Transport Committee, has said,
“this issue is causing considerable uncertainty over the future viability of TPE’s timetable.”
The Minister might say that this is simply a matter for the market to decide, and, of course, the split between infrastructure, train operators and rolling stock companies was established in the botched privatisation by the previous Conservative Government. However, if it is simply something for the industry to decide, why has the Department been involved in discussions between Chiltern Railways and the rolling stock leasing company at every stage in the process? He might try to insist that the situation is simply business as usual, but after today’s debate, that simply would not be credible. The problem is the direct consequence of the panicked direct awards programme introduced following the collapse of the west coast competition. In turn, that was caused by Ministers imposing their new franchise model on one of the most complex routes in Europe. At every stage, Ministers are directly accountable, and they will be accountable for any reduction of services that results from that chain of events.
The truth is that, for all the talk of cutting red tape, the coalition will leave a record of five years of disastrous decisions in Whitehall, a top-heavy failure to manage key projects, and a huge expansion in the Department’s involvement in the rail network. I accept that the Minister may be an unlikely occupant of a Marxist universe, but perhaps we should not be surprised by the coalition’s switch to old-fashioned command and control. After all, last year, the Business Secretary said that a “rail revolution” was taking place. With services threatened and rolling stock taken away, we now know what the rallying cry of that strange revolution—it unites MPs across party boundaries—will be: “Passengers of the north, unite! You have nothing to lose but your trains.”
Season ticket prices have risen by an average of 20% since the election. Passengers deserve better than this. The Government must face up to the scale of the problem, set out a clear plan for meeting the north’s rolling stock requirements and get the improvements in the region’s rail services back on track.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
I thank the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) for calling this debate on an important topic. Much has been made of what I may or may not say today, but I intend to cover directly some of the issues she has raised because the matter is important. Some people have suggested things I may say, but I will answer her questions.
There have been a huge number of contributions and I learned today that brevity is a virtue, and that the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) is a voice of experience and sanity. I always enjoy following the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who leads for the Opposition. She leaves me in awe of the fact that she can operate in a parallel universe. Is the real failure the 900 miles of electrification that this Government have committed to, as opposed to the nine under her Government, or is it the 11% rise in fares that would have happened had her Government been in power today?
I had an opportunity yesterday, during a Westminster Hall debate, to pay tribute to Bob Crow and to send condolences on behalf of the Government to his friends and family. Whatever our political differences, he was a doughty defender of his members and of safety standards, and I am pleased to reiterate that today.
I understand the frustrations that have been expressed today, but there must be recognition, as there was from some hon. Members, about the contribution and huge investment going into the north of England. The north of England investment plan will see £1 billion invested to improve services, to increase capacity and to ease overcrowding over the next five years. That massive investment will see electrification of the north-west triangle between Manchester, Liverpool and Wigan. The TransPennine route between Manchester and York via Leeds will also be electrified. Capacity improvements are being delivered between Manchester and Sheffield via the Hope valley line and the Chat Moss line between Liverpool and Manchester. Construction of the Ordsall chord will enable trains to run between Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Victoria stations.
Stephen Hammond
I will not give way, because I have only eight minutes.
Line speed improvements will be made on routes including those between Manchester and Sheffield, Manchester and Preston, and Manchester and Bradford. Whatever anyone says, that is a huge investment in the area. It is estimated that the wider economic benefits to the region will be more than £4 billion and have the potential to create 20,000 jobs. The Government are investing in the north of England. However, all those projects have an impact on rolling stock decisions and we are taking a broader look across the country to see why some of the problems—I accept that there are problems—have arisen. The significant steps that we are taking towards electrification throughout the country, including in the north, undoubtedly means that the rolling stock market is preparing to invest heavily in electric units. There is less demand for diesel units, and there is a short-term mismatch.
Everyone agrees that electrification will help to transform the railways by introducing faster, greener and more pleasant vehicles. It will also set up the opportunity for cascades of newly run-in and refurbished stock to other parts of the country to meet rising demand. Moreover, it is not just investment in infrastructure that will make a difference to services in the north. The intercity express programme is a major investment in rolling stock that will bring benefits to regions throughout the country and faster journey times both north and south. The programme will create new jobs in the north and will be fully implemented by 2020. The first trains being built at Newton Aycliffe by Agility Trains will bring about more reliable services. That context is important and shows the huge investment that is taking place.
I will now respond directly to some of the questions that have been asked today. The issue with the TransPennine rolling stock relates to nine Class 170 trains, which comprise 18 rail vehicles—not a higher number. Those vehicles are equivalent to approximately 9% of the total fleet. The lease for those trains expires in 2015, which is the end of the current franchise.
Stephen Hammond
I will not give way, but I will come on to Bolton in a moment.
As is usual in the commercial rolling stock market, the lease was offered from that point. The opportunity was taken up by Chiltern Railways, which agreed a new lease earlier this year. Hon. Members asked when the Department for Transport knew about that. It knew in October 2013 and the Secretary of State saw a lease in February. The Department was aware of the lease, but we cannot unreasonably withhold consent for it, so it was given.
Today, I have heard from many hon. Members about their concerns and I can report that the Government are well aware of the problem and will ensure that a solution is found. Discussions are taking place between Chiltern Railways and First TransPennine Express to allow the ongoing TransPennine franchise to retain the trains until May 2015. That will allow more time for a solution to be found. Discussions are taking place about how many of those trains Chiltern will need in 2015, and an opportunity will exist for TransPennine to retain some of the units until March 2016.
Commercial negotiations are taking place between the Department, Chiltern and others in the industry that will allow medium and long-term solutions to be found. The Department has made it clear that it expects train operators and rolling stock companies ultimately to resolve the situation, but it is equally clear that several possible solutions exist. By working in partnership, the Department can reach a positive outcome that will continue to provide the level of service that passengers are currently experiencing.
Comments were made about section 54 notices. They are only a one-way guarantee. Each guarantees the lease price, not that the lessee will not move the vehicles anywhere else. In addition, it is not contractually secure to transfer leases from one tenant franchise to another.
Some amusing but untrue comments and jokes were aimed at the Prime Minister. Anyone who knows the railways knows that Chiltern does not serve Witney, which is served by First Great Western. Moreover, it is important to make a point of accuracy that no one else has mentioned. Notwithstanding the issues involving TPE and the solutions the Government are putting in place, TPE is also taking delivery of 10 new Desiro EMUs immediately.
In the same vein, much has been said about Bolton and what might happen following the December timetable change. I met hon. Members from Bolton last week, and I understand the difficulties faced by passengers on that route. I am confident that an agreement will shortly be reached whereby electric rolling stock will operate on some services between Liverpool and Manchester from December 2014 and enable diesel trains to be released to address the capacity issues in Bolton and at the Todmorden curve. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) and the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge that that is not a failure of strategic planning, but will see services running on that section of track for the first time in more than 40 years.
Much has been said about the Pacer trains that were introduced in the mid-1980s and have rightly received their fair share of attention. With the introduction of new rolling stock into the region, higher quality rolling stock will be released for use across the network. In the forthcoming franchise competitions for Northern and TransPennine Express, the Department does not intend to specify the type of trains to be used. However, hon. Members will have seen the Official Journal of the European Union notice that we set out for the East Coast franchise and we expect to ask bidders for the Northern franchise to put forward proposals for the removal of Pacers from the area. Furthermore, as hon. Members will have noticed, the new franchise competition gives as much weight to quality as to price aspects of bids, so we expect bidders to take that opportunity to reflect that in their bids and operating plans.
Some hon. Members have contended that the Government favour the south over the north. [Interruption.] The reality, of course, is a completely different picture. The Department is taking a whole-network approach, investing heavily in services across the country for the better of all passengers in this country.
Atrial Fibrillation
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I hope that colleagues from Yorkshire who have been listening to the debate on trans-Pennine rail would like to stay for this important debate on atrial fibrillation, but in truth I know that many would ask what on earth atrial fibrillation is. Part of the purpose of the debate, therefore, is to open up our understanding and knowledge of the condition. I am sure that some colleagues at least will know that atrial fibrillation is a disease of the heart—[Interruption.] Excuse me, Mr Turner; I thought that that was the Division bell. Atrial fibrillation is a disease that causes an irregular heartbeat. It can often lead to a stroke and therefore to either a disabling long-term disability or death.
I called for this debate because 750,000 people in this country have atrial fibrillation. We know that because they have been tested for it. They may or may not be receiving treatment, but we know about them. It is estimated that another 750,000 suffer from atrial fibrillation but are undiagnosed, so we do not know where they are, although we have an idea because we can do the stats. If we know the average number of AF sufferers in a given area, we can extrapolate the numbers across the country. Where we see very low diagnosis numbers, we know that the local GPs and health service are not getting to grips with discovering who has AF, checking them out and treating them.
I would like to tell a little fairy story. There is a fantasy world in which a dreadful heart condition affects more than a million people in our country. A great deal of research is carried out, because no one really knows how to tackle it, and then there is an enormous breakthrough: we discover a new class of drugs that can not only help people to avoid having a stroke in the first place, but allow them to live a good, full and healthy life. However, the wicked godmother arrives and says, “Thou shalt not have any of these wonderful drugs, even though the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence says that they are good and should be available.”
I remind Members that the NHS constitution states that patients have a right to
“treatments that have been recommended by NICE”
when they are deemed “clinically appropriate”. That is the right of your constituents, Mr Turner, and mine. However, the fact is that most people with AF in this country are not getting the opportunity to receive such drugs. There is a real problem: we have a new generation of drugs that are recommended by NICE, but they are not available. What is the barrier? The barrier is the clinical commissioning groups and GPs.
If someone is a sufferer of AF—my wife is, which is why I know something about the condition—they are traditionally treated with warfarin, which is a very popular drug in this country. You will not be surprised to hear, Mr Turner, that even on the Isle of Wight GPs know—because they are highly skilled and knowledgeable —that warfarin is very cheap indeed. It is one of the cheapest drugs that can be prescribed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing such an important matter to the attention of Westminster Hall and of the Minister. Warfarin can be used to treat hyperthyroidism, as well as many other conditions. The issue that comes to my attention is that of GPs and their training, and their ability to administer to atrial fibrillation as required. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that GPs can do more in their own surgeries?
Mr Sheerman
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I was going to come on to that issue and I am grateful to him for making that point. The fact of the matter is that a very high percentage of people who are diagnosed with atrial fibrillation are currently either not treated with anti-coagulants, or they are given aspirin. Everyone knows that aspirin is very cheap but not effective as an anti-coagulant.
People with AF may also be given warfarin, which is a good treatment. I can say that from the heart. I have watched a close member of my family—it does not get any closer than one’s wife—undergo treatment that must be evaluated day in, day out. It is quite complicated to ensure that the dosage is right. If someone does not have a home testing kit, they will have to go regularly to the hospital for their blood to be tested and their dosage evaluated. If they have a full-time job or family responsibilities, that is an onerous requirement. As a result, many of the people who are taking warfarin are not taking it in the right dosage and so are not getting the proper, balanced treatment.
It is a scandal that 8.5% of atrial fibrillation patients are not receiving treatment, 35% are receiving aspirin, and only 56.9% are receiving oral anti-coagulation treatment. What is more, we now have three drugs that could be prescribed. We should be saying, “Isn’t it wonderful? We’ve had a breakthrough!” I hope that I can pronounce them properly—they are dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban. However, compared to the 3p that it costs for a dose of warfarin, they are more expensive—I have seen an estimate that treatment would cost around £800 a year.
That might be considered an excessive cost compared to the tiny amount that warfarin costs, but strokes cost this country £2.5 billion a year. If we really want to wreck the national health service, we should not treat people with AF properly. They will have a stroke and end up in long-term care, making great use of hospital beds and highly qualified medical staff. Such a burden on the health service could be avoided.
I have been a member of the all-party group on atrial fibrillation for some time now, and I know that its chair, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), is going to speak after me. We served together on the Education and Skills Committee, Mr Turner—do you remember when we had a very good Clerk working for us? I think he is sitting on your left-hand side. When we were on that Select Committee, you will have heard me articulate many times the watchwords, “I like evidence-based policy.” The atrial fibrillation campaign is the one, against all others, for which the evidence shows that if we have a drug that can sort out the condition, it should be used.
NICE says that we should use it, and it is clear that it is the right of patients to have it. The people getting in the way are GPs—not because they are malign, but because the cost means that they are leant on by their practices about prescribing it. Also, a very substantial population of GPs do not understand the treatments and their effectiveness—which treatments work and which do not. It is a scandal that people suffering from AF are prescribed either nothing or aspirin by their doctors. That is a very serious problem for the profession, and we have been taking it up with the Royal College of General Practitioners.
There is a second barrier, which is that even with the cheapest of the drugs—warfarin—the sophistication of the treatment and the monitoring are very difficult for very large numbers of our population to deal with. My constituents and your constituents, Mr Turner, find it very difficult to get the right dosage and to maintain the quality of treatment.
The third barrier is the clinical commissioning groups. There is no doubt that the clinical commissioning groups are a barrier to this spending. These are relatively new drugs. They were approved by NICE about 18 months ago—I am looking at the chair of the all-party group in case that is not correct—and NICE said that by now it would expect about 20% of AF sufferers to be on the new anti-coagulants, but only 3.4% of sufferers are on them. Even NICE, projecting forward, thought that the figure would already be 20%.
I do not want to talk for too long, because other hon. Members want to speak, but it is a national scandal that people are dying today, are dying every day and are having incapacitating strokes, and that that is costing the national health service an enormous amount of money and requiring the use of an enormous amount of expertise. It is a burden on the national health service that should not be there.
There is an easy resolution. It is based on science, based on research, based on evidence. It is about time that the ministerial team took the lead on this matter, that GPs woke up, and that clinical commissioning groups heard the hard words that we will not allow our constituents unnecessarily to die or suffer long-term disability just because of the inactivity of the system. We are seeing this short-term saving, this mean-minded pettiness of saving a bit of money on the balance sheet of a CCG today, when the real cost to the health service is a generic one right across our country.
This is the beginning of a campaign. We have been campaigning for a long time, but it is at a new level. We are not going to let this issue go away. This is not party political. We will chase the Minister, chase the Secretary of State and chase the Prime Minister, because this issue is important and we cannot allow this injustice to continue any longer.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in a debate that is hugely important to me on a personal level. I agree with every word of the speech by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman).
Soon after I was elected as a Member of Parliament in 2010, I was selected for Question 1 at Prime Minister’s questions. I immediately thought that that was going to be my great occasion. One knows that one is on national television and everyone is watching. It is a chance to support the thrust of the Prime Minister’s argument and I was really looking forward to it, but on the Monday morning I called my GP, because I had been suffering a bit of breathlessness, and I was rushed into hospital because he thought that I was having a heart attack. This is what influenced me greatly. I then spent three days in the assessment unit of the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, and it was probably the most expensive bed in the hospital.
As I said, I was there for three days with a supposed heart attack. No one was telling me what was happening. It was only because I became so angry that I almost had a heart attack that I had some reasonable treatment, and I was told that I was probably suffering from atrial fibrillation. I had never heard of this; I did not know what it was, but as I got to know a little more about it, I learned how, in many cases, it is very easy to put right. I was given electric shock treatment—cardioversion—which reversed the fibrillation on the first attempt, and I made a full recovery, but I learned quite a lot about the condition and I realised the sheer lack of awareness that there is of it. Then I understood what the hon. Member for Huddersfield has been telling us. The issue is not so much the atrial fibrillation itself—although it can be quite difficult for many people—but what it causes. It multiplies the chance of a stroke by about five times. That is a massive cost to the NHS, but it also completely destroys people’s lives in a way that AF does not necessarily do. There are several other diseases associated with it, but the key issue is the implications of the cost of a stroke.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point on an important issue. Those of us who work right next door to him are delighted that he made a full recovery at that time. Does he agree with me that part of making people more aware of atrial fibrillation and what can be done to help sufferers is providing defibrillators? Some very good work has been done across the country, but particularly in my constituency of Gloucester by the Rotary club, which has funded and installed a defibrillator in Gloucester cathedral; and I pay tribute especially to the Hickman family, who have raised huge amounts of money for the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, which is also doing good work in this area.
Glyn Davies
I certainly do agree with that. Defibrillators are being installed, through voluntary efforts and fundraising, in many parts of the country. That is not only a good thing in itself, but the way it leads the community to work together is also a very good thing.
I want to return to today’s issue, because I am aware of the time. Today’s issue is the uptake of novel oral anti-coagulants. Warfarin was my treatment and it was fine; it worked very well. However, there is a problem because of the number of occasions I have to visit a hospital. It was once or twice a week in the early stages. That is very difficult. In London, I happen to live next door to St Thomas’s and I could pop in as I was going to work in the morning, so it worked out quite well.
However, there is an issue with warfarin, for two reasons. One is that it is not as effective as the new anti-coagulants that have been approved by NICE and come on stream. Also, there is a negativity about warfarin because it is, in many people’s minds, a rat poison. I remember seeing a headline in a national newspaper, which could have been the Daily Mail, with a huge picture of rat poison—warfarin. The standard way of dealing with atrial fibrillation is still to ask people to take warfarin regularly, and there it was, being promoted as a rat poison. Nothing could be more damaging to the health of the nation than that campaign. I thought it was a disgrace.
I can understand in a way, because of short-termism—the way in which things are often done in Britain today—that there are financial reasons for the use of warfarin. Clearly, there is an extra cost associated with the new products. Warfarin is as cheap as chips. I dismiss aspirin because it does not have any effect anyway, and it is a bit of a disgrace that aspirin is still being recommended. As I said, warfarin is as cheap as chips, but of course it is not as effective. There may be a short-term gain, but there is a long-term cost. I understand the financial pressures. There are financial pressures on every organisation and service. I understand those, but I think that what is happening is wrong. However, the lack of understanding and knowledge of the new products—the lack of awareness—is what we really have to challenge.
There is a risk element. We know that there is a risk. There is a small risk, if one s thinning the blood, of an internal bleed, but there is a very large risk, in not doing it, of causing some heart-related illness. The balance of risk is just not clearly understood. We need a genuine campaign, with Government support and the NHS organisations’ full support, to move towards use of the novel oral anti-coagulants. There would be a long-term saving from that; I accept that it is not short term. It would remove the element of suspicion and of risk that is associated with the standard use of warfarin.
We have to deal with AF, because the numbers of people suffering from it and the implications of it are huge. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take from today’s debate, which is part of a campaign, the message that we need to move forward as quickly as possible on the best treatments for atrial fibrillation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second time, Mr Turner. It is also a pleasure to congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) on securing the debate, and to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) for his important contribution about his own experiences of atrial fibrillation and its consequences. Although he spoke about the cardioversion treatment he received for sudden onset AF, much of the debate today has been about those who have chronic AF, which is often undiagnosed. The debate provides a good opportunity to raise such issues and ensure that those who are listening—in particular, bodies such as the Royal College of General Practitioners —take away messages about what more they can do to support GPs in earlier detection and diagnosis, where that is possible, and to make sure that the right treatment pathways and proper medications are provided to patients.
It may be useful if I talk briefly about the condition. The heart is not my area of medical expertise, but as a junior doctor I looked after several patients with AF, some of whom came through the front door of the hospital in a similar condition to that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire, so I have seen it at first hand. AF is the most common sustained heart rhythm disturbance, and it occurs as a result of rapid, disorganised electrical activity in the heart’s upper chambers—known as the atria, hence atrial fibrillation—which results in an irregular heart rhythm. As we have heard, AF is a major predisposing factor for stroke and it accounts for approximately 14% of all strokes.
Mr Sheerman
On that point, would it not be a fine idea for the Minister or one of his colleagues to write to every Member of Parliament with the statistics? In the Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust in my constituency, liaison between hospitals and GPs is not as good as it should be. When someone such as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) comes out of hospital after having an episode, there is no linkage of treatment between the hospital and the GP. Would it not be a fine idea to send a letter to every Member of Parliament giving them the statistics and urging them to talk to their clinical commissioning groups and GPs about the matter?
Dr Poulter
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of raising awareness of AF. He is also right to point out that co-ordination between primary and secondary care is not always as strong as it could be, not only in this area but throughout the NHS. Part of the reason the Government are investing in the £3.8 billion integrated health fund is to ensure that health and social care are better joined up, to achieve a more co-ordinated and holistic approach that is about individuals’ needs.
If someone has been diagnosed in hospital, it is important that they are given the right support in general practice and in the community. There is a lot of good practice out there, and there are a lot of good and well informed GPs. NICE is producing new guidelines and new draft recommendations on treatment—it has been looking at issues such as the use of anti-coagulants—and it is important that that information is disseminated quickly and effectively. My commitment to the hon. Member for Huddersfield is that I am happy to write to NHS England, which oversees CCGs, to raise the matter and ask it to disseminate NICE guidelines to CCGs and ensure that they are mindful of them.
Mr Sheerman
That is excellent news, but as someone with medical training, is the Minister not shocked that 36% of those with AF are being prescribed nothing or aspirin? Was he shocked to find out that rather than the 20% that NICE expected, only 3.4% of sufferers were on the new anti-coagulants?
Dr Poulter
The statistics that I am aware of are slightly less positive than those that the hon. Gentleman has cited. It is not for us in this place to micromanage medical professionals or to do their jobs for them. However, it is our job to raise legitimate concerns about care for AF or any other health conditions. We must do our best, as stewards of the health system, to push for good local commissioning that is mindful of best practice. I have undertaken to write to NHS England about that, and I will be happy to share the reply that I receive with the hon. Member for Huddersfield and other hon. Members and hon. Friends.
The exact causes of AF are unclear, but it is important to get the diagnosis right and to diagnose the condition as quickly as possible. We believe that some 18% of cases of AF are undetected, so there is more work to be done. NHS England has recognised that, and has suggested that CCGs should work with local practices to target people who are at risk from AF. The issue is already on NHS England’s radar, but I will write to obtain further assurances that it is being taken as seriously as it should be; I am sure that that is the case.
Research is under way into the condition. The National Institute for Health Research is funding a study into automatic diagnosis of AF in primary care using a hand-held device, which may help identify more patients who have AF and reduce the number of related strokes. If someone does not know that they have the condition, they do not know that they need to see a GP to get help. We must do as much as we can to support people to recognise that they have a medical condition and that help and treatment are available. I hope that the research into that technology provides better early detection of AF, and that that comes forward in a rapid and timely manner.
Glyn Davies
I thank the Minister for giving way and allowing me to correct an omission in my contribution. Does he agree that the excellent work of the Atrial Fibrillation Association in promoting knowledge of the disease has had a hugely positive impact, which we should all appreciate?
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that work. When NICE draws up guidelines, it consults best practice and tries to engage with key stakeholders. In addition, the Royal College of Physicians has developed some national clinical guidelines for stroke with the objective of encouraging higher levels of anti-coagulation. That is directly linked to some of the things we have debated today.
It is a testament to the work of groups such as the Atrial Fibrillation Association that we are helping to raise the profile of the condition and to get early support and help for people. There is clearly more to do, and NICE must continue to develop strong guidelines to support understanding of the best care and pathways for people who have AF. NICE is updating guidelines at the moment and developing a quality standard on AF, which will set out what a high-quality AF service should look like and drive improvement locally by helping local commissioners and CCGs understand what good looks like in AF care.
Mr Sheerman
Before the Minister, who is uniquely qualified to have an opinion, sits down, does he agree that more people should be on the new generation of drugs that will keep them alive and prevent them from having strokes?
Dr Poulter
It is not my medical specialty, but if new medication is developed, we need to evaluate it. The priority must be to give treatment according to clinical need. I, as a doctor, the Government and hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that it is right to treat patients according to clinical need and clinical priority. It is for CCGs to work with national guidelines, and we look forward to seeing the NICE quality standard on AF, which I hope will put CCGs in a much better position. I have already committed to writing to NHS England to ensure that it puts the matter high on its priority list, and that it supports and encourages all clinical commissioning groups to take AF seriously and make it a priority across the country.
Planning Policy and Wind Turbines (South-West)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
It is an enormous pleasure and privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, as well as to introduce a debate that is important to many thousands of people throughout the south-west.
A hundred or so years ago, when the cry went up, “There be gold in them there hills,” I do not suppose that our ancestors all that time ago would have thought it possible to mine gold from wind. They might have thought that had they heard my speech, and they would certainly do so if they looked around the countryside in constituencies in Devon and Cornwall, because springing up throughout the landscape of those two exquisitely beautiful counties are more and more large industrial wind turbines, which are becoming a prominent and dominant feature in the landscape—indeed, in many areas, they already have.
There is usually an announcement in a newspaper, or a neighbour knocks at one’s door, when a new application has been made for a wind turbine. Whether it is one that is 300 or 400 feet tall, for a single turbine or a cluster of them, small rural communities are plunged into what can only be described as a miserable ordeal. There is immediately a cloud of uncertainty over people’s lives. If they recently bought a house in a village and the proposed turbine would be sufficiently proximate to their dwelling, they are immediately concerned about the price of their house. They are concerned about the quality of the landscape, and about reports of the deleterious health effects.
Above all, they are concerned when they learn that applications are often made by distant developers with shareholders seeking to make great profits, and when they learn that the potential profits are extraordinary.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on having secured such an important debate. In the previous Parliament, the town of North Tawton and the village of Spreyton, which are now part of my constituency, were in his constituency, so he will know the tortuous sequence of events in respect of the planning application for the Den Brook valley wind farm, which underwent two public inquiries and a judicial review. Those events occurred over several years, so my hon. and learned Friend’s points about the uncertainty, the impact on property prices and the general distress caused to the local population are well founded. I would be interested to hear his comments.
Mr Cox
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I did indeed represent those parts of what are now his constituency when the Den Brook application was first made. I vividly recall the disruption, dismay and distress caused to not only those who live in the area but those who run businesses there. I know very well a couple who run a bed and breakfast just a few hundred yards from the site. I know their feelings when they learned that some six or 10 wind turbines of several hundred feet in height were to be erected in full view of their establishment.
My hon. Friend reinforces the point I was making, which will be alive and real to and keenly felt by thousands of people who listen to or read this debate. The machines that we are installing throughout the countryside cause real disruption, dismay and distress to small rural communities. It is not enough to dismiss such concerns as subjective, partial or nimbyism. I dare say that any of us living within a few hundred metres of a 400-foot wind turbine would feel the same concern that my constituents feel when they hear of a new application.
It is striking that this year, for the first time, the amounts paid by energy consumers for onshore and offshore wind turbines has topped £1 billion. An annual amount of £1.2 billion is being paid by the energy consumer solely to subsidise the price of electricity created by onshore and offshore wind turbines. That is an astonishing figure when we consider that it falls, in many hundreds of thousands of cases, on those least able to afford the inflated energy price resulting from the renewables obligation. Many people in fuel poverty are having to sustain a price inflated by the £1.2 billion that is currently being added to the cost of electricity as a result of the extraordinary benefits received by wind turbine projects.
I specifically wish to address planning policy. One could speak about the economics of wind turbines, which have has received the frequent attention of the House and been criticised by the Public Accounts Committee for not adding up to real value for money for the country. One could speak about the unsatisfactory noise standards that do not attract public confidence. One could, of course, speak of wind turbines’ efficacy in contributing to cutting carbon emissions. However, I wish for the moment to concentrate on planning policy.
The main planning considerations for wind turbine applications can be found in two primary documents: first, the national planning policy framework; and secondly, the national policy statement on renewable energy infrastructure. There is now a third document, to which I shall come, but my case is that the planning framework for wind turbine applications is still affected by a substantial bias in favour of renewable energy. That is a disappointing concession to have to make, because only last year the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government announced in a written ministerial statement that he was intending to rectify the balance.
The publication of the third document of which I spoke, the planning practice guidance for renewable and low-carbon energy, was widely publicised last year. By means of that third document and the written ministerial statement, we understood—I speak certainly for myself, and I know for some other Government Members—that there would be a concerted effort to rebalance the planning system so that landscape and other local considerations played a greater role in planning decisions. It is a pleasure to see the Minister present, but I must report with considerable regret that I seek his clarification on the planning practice guidance, because it is apparent from the decisions of planning inspectors on applications in my constituency that it has made little difference. That is certainly the opinion of the planning departments responsible for applications in Torridge and West Devon.
Often, the real issue at stake in the consideration of a wind turbine application is whether the benefits of the scheme, including the production of electricity from a renewable source, outweigh any harmful effects. That is the central question. Do the benefits outweigh the harmful effects? The inspector is mandated to have particular regard to the effect on the character and appearance of the area, including any cumulative impact from other permitted turbines in the area. He will also look at the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residents. He will have particular regard to their outlook, the noise and the effect on nature conservation issues.
However, at the heart of the planning balance is this central equation: do the benefits of the scheme, particularly the production of electricity from a renewable source, outweigh its harmful impacts? The equation needs only to be stated for the listener to realise that if we are going to have a simple equation of that kind—whether the benefits outweigh the impacts—the answer is going to be influenced by the hierarchy of priorities on either side of the equation. Which is to take precedence? Is it the benefits—the production of renewable energy—or the impact on the landscape? Which, in the planning framework and the documents and policies that affect the decision, takes precedence?
The moment someone looks at the national planning policy framework, the answer starts to emerge. That document makes it clear that no overall demonstration of need for the development is required. In other words, the developer is not required to prove that his development is needed or to produce evidence that the proposed development will make any material or significant difference to the overall generating needs of the country in relation to renewable energy.
On the contrary, the NPPF, published in March 2012, makes it absolutely clear that there is a presumption that even small-scale developments make a valuable contribution to cutting emissions. Although the Government have stated that the onshore wind target of 15% has already been reached by applications that have already been granted, by wind turbines that have already been erected and by those that are pending, still there is no requirement on the developer to show that his development will make a significant or material contribution —indeed any contribution whatsoever—to cutting emissions.
Once we set up an equation that requires the planning inspector to question whether the benefits outweigh the impacts, and yet we excuse the developer from having to prove the benefits, we automatically have an unequal playing field. Regrettably, the issue goes beyond that, because the NPPF states that approval is to be mandated if the effects on the landscape are “acceptable”. Now, what does that word mean in the context? What it plainly means, and what it has been interpreted to mean by planning inspectors up and down the country, is that some damage to the landscape is assumed to be a consequence of a wind turbine development.
Again, when we look at whether the benefits outweigh the impacts, when we take into account the fact that the developer is exempted from proving the benefits and that the framework document requires a planning inspector to assume that some adverse impact on the landscape is implied in every such application, we can see that the equation is set up to make it far more difficult for the objector to succeed on the grounds of the intrinsic value and unique and precious nature of the landscape, and far easier for the developer to do so every time.
In case any of my hon. Friends listening to me doubts what I say, I shall cite a case study. In an appeal relating to three turbines of 100 metres in height at Dunsland Cross in Torridge, generating a proposed 7.5 MW, the inspector making the decision said that
“within a distance of about 1.5 km of the site the height of the wind turbines, anemometer mast and the movement of the turbine blades would contrast sharply with the form and scale of existing elements of the landscape and the largely unspoilt qualities of the surrounding countryside. This would entail a high magnitude of change to the character of the local landscape and result in a dominant and overtly man-made addition to this rural area…Between 1.5 km and 3 km of the site the form and height of the turbines and the mast, as well as the movement of the turbine blades, would entail a medium-to-high magnitude of change to the predominantly unspoilt rural character of the landscape…this change would be at odds with and harmful to the existing character of the local landscape… At these distances the proposal would be a prominent feature within this part of the countryside and would be very different to the landscape qualities of the local area.”
With so scathing an assessment of the damage to be caused to what the planning inspector described as a valuable landscape, one might assume that it played the decisive and tipping feature in that decision. However, I must report with dismay that the inspector allowed the turbines to be built. Regarding the despoliation of the countryside, he commented that as “some harm” to the character of the landscape is an “inevitable consequence” of renewable energy development, he attached only “moderate weight” to the harm he identified.
Let us examine what that means. The inspector acknowledged that, up to a radius of 5 km from the three 325-foot wind turbines, there would be serious harm to the quality, visual appearance and amenity of the landscape, yet it is said that that harm must be endured for the sake of renewable energy development, the need for which is unproven, and despite the fact that the Government’s target has already been reached. It is said that the harm would be contained within a 5 km envelope, but how many 300-foot turbines does one have to build, and how many envelopes of 5 km in which the damage on the landscape is serious and severe, before eventually, like blisters appearing on someone’s skin, an area of exquisite landscape is permanently and irredeemably harmed? How many pockets of 5 km of serious harm to the landscape does it take to have an overall cumulative impact that ineradicably alters the fundamental character of the landscape?
Torridge is facing dozens of such applications. The last time I consulted the district council, in Torridge alone there were 60 pending applications for wind turbines. How many of those need to be constructed before there are multiple pockets of harm to the countryside?
We need to pause—I urge the Minister to reflect. There are parts of the south-west whose intrinsic character has been severely harmed—on the inspectorate’s own analysis, in this particular case. Why are the applications still allowed? It is because there is an inherent bias in the planning system, which has still not been eradicated despite the good intentions of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. That bias is still active and it still influences planners. I urge the Minister to provide some assurance today so that we do not leave the problem untackled.
It is simply not enough to say, as the Secretary of State announced in July 2013, while introducing planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy, that
“it is important to be clear that…the need for renewable…energy does not automatically override environmental protections”.
I fully accept that he intended that that new document would have the effect of restoring the balance in favour of landscape, or that it would at least even that balance a little, but it does not work. The document explicitly says that
“the need for renewable…energy does not automatically override environmental protections”.
However, the answer that an experienced planner will give someone when confronted with that document is, “Well, it never did.” It was never automatic in any planning decision that the landscape value would be overridden by the need for renewable energy, but there was always an inherent bias in the system towards allowing wind turbine applications, and that inherent bias is not addressed by simply making it clear that the need for renewable energy does not “automatically override” landscape and local concerns, because the planner will simply say, “Well, it never has. We’ve always carried out balancing. It’s just that in that balancing, the hierarchy of values and priorities favours renewable energy.”
What the July 2013 document needed to say was something along the lines of, “The visual impact on valuable landscapes must be considered to be a priority at least equal to the need for renewable energy.” What the document actually said is entirely otiose; it does not address the fundamental problem. I do not wish to downplay the well-meaning and—I have no doubt—convinced opinion of the Secretary of State that what he did was intended and was in practical effect to make a change. The problem I have is that planning departments throughout the south-west do not interpret it as a change. I can tell this House that, for example, Torridge district council’s planning department does not regard the July 2013 document as effecting any significant or substantial change in the planning equation and—as I have sought to identify—there is already an inherent bias in that planning equation. I submit that we as a Government must attempt to do something about that bias.
I fully accept that the Secretary of State’s intention was to do that; I accept that the cutting of the tariff will make a difference; and I also accept that other measures, such as the Secretary of State’s recovering a number of planning appeals, might very well continue to reduce the number of applications. I regret, however, that although the initial effect of the July 2013 document may have been salutary, the number of applications, along with the number of applications that have been granted, continues to rise in Torridge and West Devon, and throughout the south-west, and it is that concern that I ask the Minister to address.
What is going to be done and what can be done to redress the balance in the planning equation? I say to the Minister that throughout the south-west, and I dare say wherever rural communities and others are affected by these applications, there is a genuine and growing sense of frustration. There is a sense of helplessness, as communities realise that, although applications may have been refused by their local planning committee, more often than not those decisions are overturned on appeal. In July 2013, the rhetoric surrounding the publication of the document on planning guidance was ramped up—I must say that to him—to suggest that a substantial departure from existing practice was about to occur, but people’s expectations that that would be the case have not been fulfilled. That is why I say that although what the Government have done is welcome, there is much more to do.
The feed-in tariffs are astonishingly generous. It was recently reported that the introduction of the carbon price floor last year would bring even greater benefits to those who construct wind turbines, and that it would certainly benefit those who had already constructed wind turbines, by 2017. The Minister may not be in a position to help me with that issue, but it is clear that the combination of the bias in the planning system and existing incentives and rewards has led to multiple applications throughout the countryside to build these kinds of wind turbines.
This issue concerns those I represent in Torridge and West Devon—from Dolton to Lifton, and from Brandis Corner to Bradworthy. Communities have come to me in desperation because of what they see as the alien invasion of their homes and their familiar landscapes, which are some of the most exquisite and beautiful in the country. Those communities include business owners who make their living from the tranquil and unspoiled fields and pastures of Devonshire. All the people in those communities feel that their interests are being harmed, and that they do not have a voice. They look to this Government—dare I say that they look to the Conservative party, which traditionally has had the closest affinity with the aim of preserving our countryside and landscape?—for redress. In responding to my speech today, I profoundly hope that the Minister will be able to give those people some comfort that it is the Government’s intention to move in a direction that will suppress at least some of the numbers of these machines that have come to disrupt their lives.
I conclude by saying that this issue is a real and serious one; it will have political ramifications in the south-west. I know that hundreds of people are listening to and following what the Minister will say this afternoon. I also know that they hope he will offer them some comfort, that he will at least acknowledge that this issue is regarded at the highest levels of Government as one that needs resolution and that he will say something to give them the hope for which they desperately yearn.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Before I call other colleagues to speak, may I tell them that an hon. Member approached the Chair and asked about the parameters of the debate? The debate is entitled, “Planning Policy and Wind Turbines in the South-West”. I hope that is helpful for colleagues. The debate is predominantly about the south-west, given that the Member who secured the debate is from the south-west. I call Neil Parish.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) for securing the debate, because it is very important that we discuss this issue. We have had changes to the planning policy, but I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. and learned Friend that it is still not strong enough.
People who come to Devon to live, and the vast majority of people in Devon who are indigenous, do not wish to have the whole of their countryside—all the rolling hills of Devon—covered with wind turbines. If both the residents of Devon and those coming to the county thought that wind turbines were the answer to our electricity and energy needs for the future, perhaps they would accept them a great deal more than they do.
One point that I want to make is that, even in one of the windiest spots, if such a spot can be found, very often wind turbines work only for some 30% or 35% of the time. Therefore, the intrusion into the countryside and the amount of energy that they produce just do not stack up. Also, on a very cold, frosty morning, when we all have our fires on and we need the maximum amount of energy, what will happen? Nothing will come from the turbines. On a very windy day, the turbines have to be stopped because they may rattle and come off the end of their—I do not know the technical term, so I will call it their “stalk”, for want of a better expression.
We also have to wake up to the fact that what is happening in Devon, Cornwall and across much of the west country is that, because wind turbines are so lucrative in the form of grant and subsidy, all sorts of companies are just using a scattergun approach. They say, “Let’s try this authority. Let’s try Mid Devon, let’s try Torridge and West Devon, let’s try East Devon. Let’s just see if we can get those applications through.” And because the planning system is not strong enough to protect our countryside, those applications are coming through.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting argument, saying that wind turbines are not effective at generating electricity, but are effective at accruing subsidy. Does he accept that it is only through generating electricity that the developers of wind turbines attract any subsidy and that it is because wind turbines in the south-west of England generated 20 TWh last year that any subsidy was paid to them at all?
Neil Parish
My argument is about whether such an amount in subsidy—basically, from those who pay energy bills—is warranted to produce that amount of electricity, and whether that electricity was produced during a valuable time of day or not. The thing is that that process can be controlled only when the wind is blowing.
Comparing wind with nuclear power, it is apparent that nuclear produces a base load all the time. Yes, I admit freely that that is quite highly subsidised, but there is a base load that can be used at all times of the day, when it is needed. Wind turbines do not achieve this. I assure hon. Members that I can be pretty certain that, if I did a straw poll in my constituency, the majority of people there would far rather have a nuclear power station than the rolling Devon hills covered in wind turbines.
It is interesting to note that Hinkley Point in Somerset will take up some 165 acres and will produce 7% of the UK’s energy needs. To achieve the same energy output, 6,000 wind turbines would need to be built on 250,000 acres of land. That is the difference and what we are up against. This is why people are so fed up with those turbines appearing everywhere.
I suspect that the planning Minister will reassure us that the Department is coming forward with tougher rules all the time. The rules have to be much tougher. Local authorities often turn down planning applications for wind turbines, but they are often granted on appeal. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon makes a good point; all the time this planning process is going on, there is a blight on people’s lives. That is apparent.
This is an opportune moment to look at wind turbines and the planning system. Let us look again at the economics of wind turbines. If I thought that this was a free market approach and the answer to our energy needs, that would be one thing, but it is not, is it? Without huge subsidy, the turbines would never, ever stack up. It was not rocket science to work out that subsidising green energy and piling that on to energy bills, driving them up between 8% and 12%, would put more people into fuel poverty, so I do not know why this was not thought of; it is fairly logical.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that it is obscene, looking at the Government’s own figures on renewables subsidy under the levy control framework, that, by 2020, 58% of all subsidy will be allocated to wind projects?
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend is right. If that figure of 58% by 2020 is correct—I have no reason to doubt him—it is a concern, because we are told so often that we need a basket of green energy that is not targeted just towards wind.
Another green energy that is much more acceptable to Devon is the biodigester, which uses waste from farms and food waste and creates energy all the time. It works not on the nuclear process, but generates gas and electricity throughout the whole day and, therefore, again contributes to a base load in electric supply.
One bone of contention with the whole system is that wind turbines do not produce electricity for a sufficient length of time to make them necessary in our most beautiful countryside.
In my constituency, we had an application at Bampton Down farm for 20 wind turbines, 22 metres high, in a prominent position on Bampton Down, above the Exe valley. This is the highest land south of Exmoor and east of Dartmoor in Devon and it goes down to semi-permanent pasture land. That application has, at the moment, been withdrawn and I hope it stays withdrawn and disappears. But is the planning policy in place strong enough to stop that coming back and will it be strong enough to stop the application being awarded on appeal?
At Blatchworthy farm, an application for nine wind turbines was withdrawn, but for how long? At Highlands farm, there was an application for one wind turbine, with a height of 34.2 metres; again, that was withdrawn, partly after local objections from Hemyock parish council. An application at Plainfield farm in Withleigh for one 100kW wind turbine with a maximum height of some metres was withdrawn. At Rifton farm there was an application, which is still going on, for a turbine with a maximum height of 77 metres. At Sydenham farm, one wind turbine has been rejected
Planning applications are happening all the time in my constituency. Planning policy needs to be so much stronger, so that people know that, under the process, there can be local objections and that they can, along with the local and district councils, put a case together and be certain that they will be able to reject large turbines in prominent positions. Turbines need to be in an area where there is maximum wind, even though they will still be working only some 30% or 35% of the time. They will always be in the most prominent spots. We are a Government who look to the countryside and to rural areas for support, but we are not providing protection for those areas as far as wind turbines are concerned.
Some people refer to wind turbines as windmills, but they certainly are not. Three or four turbines would probably require nearly half an acre to an acre of concrete in the ground. I can assure hon. Members that a mast some 180 metres high would need an awful lot of concrete to keep it in the ground. Infrastructure, including roads, is also needed to allow access to the turbines, to service them. They are not the fluffy wind turbines and windmills that they are sometimes portrayed to be.
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. On the visual impact of turbines, I do not want to get into a bragging war about who has the largest turbines, but those that he mentioned were probably no higher than 60 or 70 metres. Those that are likely to be built now in the Den Brook valley will be 120 metres high; that is almost the height of St Paul’s cathedral. Whether they are smaller turbines up on hill ridges, which are obviously visible, or turbines down in valleys, they are often of such a magnitude that they are visible for miles around.
My hon. Friend knows that Devon’s tourist industry is valued at about £1 billion a year. There will be huge, cumulative detrimental impact on that business if we continue to despoil our landscape in this way.
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend talks about a mast that is 120 metres high; in real money that is 400 feet, which is a huge height. People must remember that it will be seen for miles. Turbines will be put in prominent positions to catch the wind in the first place and they go 200, 300 or 400 feet up in the air, so they can be seen. They cause huge detriment to the visual aspect of the countryside, to the people living there and, as my hon. Friend says, to the people coming to visit Devon, Cornwall and the west country. Believe it or not, people do not come to the west country to see wind turbines; they come to the countryside to see the great landscapes and, dare I say it, the lambs, sheep and cattle in the fields, along with our beautiful rivers. People do not come to see massive wind turbines that are being built in the countryside not because of the economics but because they are over-subsidised.
The Minister cannot be held responsible for the over-subsidy of wind turbines, which is not in his Department’s portfolio, but the Government should consider the over-subsidy more closely because I am certain that if we killed the economics of wind turbines, we would kill the applications, irrespective of planning. The Minister might not be able to answer that today, but it needs to be passed down the line.
Nigel Adams
I support microgeneration: a single turbine in a farm or business that provides power to that business, with any spare capacity being sold to the grid. We are now seeing more and more single turbine applications that are not microgenerating; they are clearly just cash cows. Would my hon. Friend support a moratorium on single turbine applications that neither provide power locally nor microgenerate for a farm or business?
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point because speculative single turbine applications, especially for very large wind turbines of some 300 or 400 feet in height, are the ones that particularly need to be stopped. Some of the smaller wind turbines that generate for small businesses, farms or communities are acceptable. The other problem, and the Minister may be able to talk about this, is that such wind turbine applications are not linked to local communities. If a local community thinks it could benefit from a wind turbine, despite all my rhetoric this afternoon, people might find them a little more acceptable, but they are foisted upon communities that receive no benefit from them. All a community sees is a vast wind turbine restricting its view.
The flight paths of birds are also affected. One application in my constituency, for instance, is very close to a wood that has a lot of buzzards. Such applications can have a hugely detrimental effect. If I were a bird, I would not want to get caught in a wind turbine. We have to take all those things into consideration.
I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon for securing this debate, and I look forward to what the Minister has to tell us.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) on securing this debate. I anticipate that I will be a dissenting voice—[Hon. Members: “Lone voice.”] We shall see. I may find that the Minister agrees with me, but certainly among Beck-Bench Members, I anticipate being a dissenting voice in this debate.
I start by setting out some common ground in the interests of a cordial debate. I support renewable energy, and I welcome the contribution of onshore wind turbines. Members may agree that renewable energy developments, like all forms of development, should be judged on their individual merits by planning authorities and considered in the light of planning policy. There will be some development proposals that are suitable and some that are not. As I listened to the many skilfully deployed arguments earlier, it occurred to me that I might have been inclined to make those arguments against other sorts of developments, such as certain housing developments in some situations. Although we certainly need housing, and there are developments for which authorisation is right, there will be settings in which a development is simply not appropriate. We ought to have planning law and planning policy, and I believe we do, that enable local authorities to make individual decisions about individual applications.
As I listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I asked myself how on earth the Didcot power station ever got planning permission. I am sure hon. Members pass the power station on the train as often as I do. Our planning system has to consider the benefits that developments will bring, which will often be further afield than the development’s immediate locale. Although some hon. Members have considered the full breadth of this debate’s title, I came here intending specifically to address planning because of our experience in Wiltshire during the development of Wiltshire’s core strategy, with which I hope the Minister is familiar. If not, I am confident that his aide is familiar with it.
Policy 42 of Wiltshire’s core strategy is heavily based on Lord Reay’s private Member’s Bill, the Wind Turbines (Minimum Distances from Residential Premises) Bill. The core strategy has not yet been adopted. In fact, such was the controversy surrounding policy 42 that, when the planning inspector considered the strategy, he spent the best part of a day hearing evidence on the merits or otherwise of that policy. Although I cannot be sure of exactly why the core strategy has not yet been successfully adopted, policy 42 is one of the issues on which the planning inspector had to deliberate following his examination of the local plan.
Lord Reay’s private Member’s Bill did not become law. Members who have already spoken did not advocate the Bill’s proposals, and I do not know whether they support them, but the proposals are not law. Yet almost by the back door, and with changes proposed at the last minute in Wiltshire council’s deliberation on the local development plan, the council sought to take the Bill’s provisions, which do not have the authority of our democratic Parliament, and introduce them into our local plan. I recognise that there are certain locations in which development should be approved and other locations where development should not be approved, but a policy for minimum separation distances is a clumsy way of making that distinction.
Duncan Hames
The point I am making is that a separation distance, in itself, does not take into consideration all sorts of other factors, such as the quality of the landscape, that we would expect councillors to consider when making a planning decision. My understanding, and the Minister can correct me if I am wrong, is that it is not our coalition Government’s policy that minimum separation distances should apply to such developments in England.
The other argument that I wish to deploy this afternoon is that we ought to be making policy and planning decisions on the basis of evidence. We have heard many genuinely held concerns this afternoon. Some of the objections relate to how people genuinely feel, and I do not suggest that they are anything but a genuine reaction to the situation, but we are in a position to test some of the concerns that have been cited. It would be helpful to consider the evidence. I have heard concerns, but I have not heard evidence, and perhaps hon. Members can at least provide anecdotes. For example, it would be useful to understand how far away from the development of a wind turbine there is evidence of a fall in house prices, or whether there is evidence of the tourism economy in Devon or other parts of the south-west suffering in a different way from the rest of the country. We may want to consider international evidence: on a holiday to France not so long ago I saw plenty of onshore wind turbines, but the region I was visiting clearly had a vibrant tourism economy.
Neil Parish
Most of my constituents would not want to risk loads of turbines being put up just to work out the effect on tourism. Once they have been erected, it is difficult to take them down. I suggest we resist them before that happens.
Duncan Hames
I understand that the hon. Gentleman argues for the precautionary principle, which is not supported in many other areas of policy making. I am sure that he would like consistency about that.
We have heard about developments that have already happened. I am not suggesting that we embark on an experiment; I am suggesting that we consider the evidence of what has already happened. It may be reassuring to people to know that house prices have not fallen near other developments—although I am sure it will not greatly reassure those in some parts of the country who are yet to be able to afford housing. I make a plea to the Minister, who will respond to the genuine concerns that are being voiced in the debate, to ground his policy making firmly in evidence. It is not beyond the wit of man, or indeed of his colleagues in the Department, to stick to that principle.
I want to consider the question of benefit to the local area. I have been pressing another Department in relation to the Government’s long-awaited community energy strategy, which was finally published at the end of last year. I believe it is important that as we reform the energy sector, we empower many more stakeholders than the owners of the big six companies. Renewable energy gives an opportunity—it could slip through our hands but we could grasp it, with good policy—to democratise the relationship between consumers and producers in our energy system. An example would be Delabole in Cornwall, where a reduced energy tariff is available to people living near the wind farm. I should like more to be done to enable local people to benefit if their community contributes to decisions—we need those decisions to be taken somewhere in the country—to secure the energy supply. I look forward to that happening in my constituency, where a major solar project presents a substantial contribution to the local councils, to ensure that the community will be a beneficiary. I do not want to stretch the parameters of the debate, Mr Pritchard, but we have heard of at least one alternative source of energy this afternoon.
The recent rush—and there has been quite an increase—in applications for solar power projects in Wiltshire may not be unconnected with the effective blanket ban proposed under policy 42 of Wiltshire’s draft core strategy. The contribution to energy needs in Wiltshire is perhaps more likely to be provided by solar because of the blanket ban, which is not in the least pragmatic and which is effected by the minimum separation distances proposed in the local plan. There may be consequences, and I do not know how they would be received in sunny Devon, should its councillors go down the same route as those in Wiltshire.
Mr Cox
I wanted to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question about evidence of an effect on house prices. A study in Cornwall analysed 201 sales transactions of houses within half a mile of a 16-turbine wind farm and found a noticeable effect. It said that both the noise and the flicker from turbine blades could blight certain properties, and that the view of the countryside enjoyed by the occupier had some value, which might be affected by a wind farm. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors argues that there is evidence suggesting an effect on house prices. The matter is not evidence-free. There is growing evidence of an effect, certainly while there is uncertainty about whether a development will be built.
Duncan Hames
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that intervention, but I was rather hoping that in looking for evidence of the effect on house prices, we might examine prices rather than assertions about what might or might not influence them. I understand that house prices have continued to march well out of reach of affordability in Cornwall and other parts of the south-west of England.
I hope that Ministers will stick to an evidence-based policy to avoid the unwanted consequences of unnecessarily closing down one option for a clean and secure source of energy.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
The debate and the issue are hugely important. I live in Montgomeryshire, which is a long way from the south-west, and I did not intend to speak when I came to the debate. I came because I have a great love for the south-west. I spend much of my holiday time there. St Ives and Padstow are beautiful, and I find the Isles of Scilly irresistible. We spend a great deal of time in the south-west, so I travel through it. Inevitably one notices the impact of the development of onshore wind turbines while driving through Somerset and Cornwall. They are quite dominant. I was hugely impressed by the power of the speech made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox). Because the issue is so important to me, I felt an irresistible urge to speak in the debate.
My aim is to speak about planning policy. I would not want to incur your wrath in any circumstances, Mr Pritchard, and particularly not when you are in the Chair. I have a special interest arising from my constituency, but I shall make a passing reference to what makes this such a big issue for me: it is scale. My constituency has more than 240 turbines already, and we have a proposal for probably 35 miles of 400 kW cable, a 20-acre substation and about 500 extra turbines—it is a dedicated line—and about 100 miles of cables criss-crossing the constituency from the centre. The proposal would completely change a beautiful part of Britain, which shares a standard of beauty with the south-west. Anyone representing such an area is bound to be involved in the debate. It is a question of scale.
We have a general Government policy, supported by the Opposition and all parties, of seeking an energy mix. I think that that is right, and have never argued that wind should not play a part in it. The question is about the scale. The Government do not have a target, other than having 15% of energy coming from renewable sources by 2020. As for onshore wind, there is, I think, an expectation of what it would provide. That expectation is between 10 GW and 13 GW of power. Currently, we have 7 GW of power that is up and operating, 6.8 GW that has passed planning and another 6 GW that is in planning. We have achieved the target that the Government expected to achieve by 2020. Clearly, the level of support is so high that there would probably be an onshore wind farm on every hill in Britain if planning permission could be gained, but the case for a moratorium is strong. As manifestos are prepared, I hope that all parties seriously consider a moratorium to protect the most beautiful parts of Britain.
There is a real issue with local democracy and how people feel locally. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon referred to hopelessness, and that is exactly how people feel. A research project at Aberystwyth university looked at how wind farms impacted on mid-Wales. The research found a sense of hopelessness and helplessness throughout the area about being able to affect the implications of Government policy on where they lived. The council signed off on the development and gave up believing in local democracy. It is probably one of the poorest local authorities in Britain, yet it felt that it had to set aside £2 million to support its decisions and defend its policies at a public inquiry.
Mr Cox
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the other baleful effects of the proliferation of applications for out-of-scale wind turbines is that it tends to turn people against renewable energy as a whole? As they search for arguments to defend their communities, they immediately start to look at the whole case for cutting carbon emissions and do so from a hostile point of view. That cannot be a good thing for a cause that we would all support.
Glyn Davies
I absolutely agree with my hon. and learned Friend on that issue. In 2004, I was thought to be a strong supporter of renewable energy. I campaigned for the principle of renewable energy. When the project that impacted on my area came forward, I said that it would damage the view of renewable energy in a part of Britain that was the most supportive of it—the Centre for Alternative Technology is in the middle of my constituency—and, indeed, the opposite is now true. Some 2,000 people came to Cardiff to protest on the steps of the Assembly with me. The impression is that we are now anti-renewable energy, but that has been driven by this obsession with onshore wind. It seems crazy to me.
I have a few points to make before I finish. The first is on cumulative impact. How can cumulative impact not be a major part of planning? I was a planning committee chairman for seven years, and with every development the cumulative impact was a hugely important factor. Suddenly, as with everything else, there are special rules for onshore wind, and cumulative impact hardly matters. We are seeing huge proliferations close together. We must pay real attention to cumulative impact and take into account the new pylons that the National Grid has to build as part of that development.
The second point is about the individual turbines that are popping up everywhere. The local planning authority has to have a policy that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, accepts a certain number, where they support the community. We would support a farmer who wants to use the policy to develop their own energy production. Local planning authorities, however, do not have a policy and are approving those turbines on a hit and miss basis. I have seen them go through when the planning officer has recommended refusal, and we are destroying the most beautiful parts of our country.
Finally, we need to have an appreciation of landscape at the core of our planning policies. Before coming to this place, for three years I was the president of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales, which is the equivalent body to the Campaign to Protect Rural England. We worked together. It is heartbreaking to see policies being adopted that pay almost no regard to the value of landscape. The planning inspectors have got one view only, which is this mythical target. They say, “We have listened to what you have told us and we accept everything, but it is trumped by the target.” It is devastating for rural parts of Britain, it is devastating for the south-west and it is devastating for my constituency. It is time that the Government recognised that and came forward with a policy based on a moratorium.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and to respond to an interesting and thoughtful debate. First, as a constituency MP, I fully understand the concerns that our residents express from time to time about significant planning applications, and the strength and sincerity with which those concerns have been reflected by Members will be welcomed by their constituents. I am replying today on behalf of the Opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) usually leads on these issues for the shadow Government, but she is not able to be here.
Like all Members who have spoken today, I have a constituency interest in these issues. My constituents have a broad range of views. Most, to be frank, do not get exercised about wind energy. The issue does not come up regularly when I am out and about on the doorsteps in many parts of the constituency, although I find advocates for it as well as opponents. I can think of very few examples where those who are opposed to or concerned about wind farms are opposed to wind energy in principle. It is more often about planning applications that residents feel are inappropriate for one reason or another, such as proximity to existing homes or the impact on the landscape. Members have highlighted those issues, and that is where the planning process needs to take account of local views.
The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) spoke strongly about the concerns of his constituents. Similar concerns have been put to me regarding applications in my constituency, and I have tried to support my constituents. Many Members have said that local public opinion should be taken into account, and that must be right. I pay tribute to the local authorities in my constituency, which is unique in nature. I represent one very Conservative area that is covered by East Northamptonshire council, and one area that leans heavily to Labour in Corby borough council. Both councils are different in character, but they generally do a fair job of weighing up the representations they receive from the public on planning matters. As an MP, I recognise that I often amplify the concerns of the local public. I do not, however, have the same responsibility as a decision maker to weigh those concerns against other considerations of the wider needs of our communities.
Planning applications, whether they are for new housing, new industry or new energy supply, are inevitably not always popular with those who live close to them. At times, people are cynical about that, but we have to be honest. We would seek to protect our communities and what we love about them, and I am fully respectful when my constituents tell me that something is on their doorstep and is not welcome.
Nigel Adams
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the words of the Leader of the Opposition, who, when Energy Secretary, said that opponents of onshore wind farms were effectively guilty of antisocial behaviour?
Andy Sawford
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to comment on something that I would have to see in context. The voices of those concerned about planning applications should be heard in the planning process. I always endeavour, as an MP—I am absolutely sure from the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon that he does so, too—to ensure that they are heard. However, the voices of those who want the housing, jobs and energy supply should be heard as well, and that is why the debate about wind energy must be considered in context.
Like my constituents, I am sure that many people across the south-west, particularly in the light of recent events, are concerned about climate change, energy prices and energy security. Climate change is a security threat for families, businesses and the country as a whole, because it could destabilise entire regions of the world and cause the mass migration of millions of people and conflict over water and food supplies. The events of the last few weeks have shown that it is an issue in our own country, too, with people’s homes, businesses and livelihoods under attack from extreme weather, particularly in the region that most hon. Members present represent, and that is the focus of our debate.
Political division at Westminster, some of which has been reflected today, means that we are sleepwalking into a national security crisis on climate change. The science has not changed, and the terrible events of the last few weeks should serve as a wake-up call. The climate change consensus that once existed in this country has frayed. My party stands ready to work with people from all parties who are prepared to do what is necessary. The contribution from the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames), which was slightly different in character, helped the debate by rounding it somewhat. The need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel based energy sources is real. Over 160 Governments, including our own—although that seems to be a moveable feast—and the United Nations agree that the burning of fossil fuels is causing our climate to change dramatically.
The transition to a low-carbon economy is essential, but it also presents a huge opportunity for the UK, with the potential to be a major source of jobs and growth that we need now more than ever. The Government started out by promising to be the greenest Government ever, but the reality is that they have a terrible record on climate change. We see squabbling and inconsistent messages from Ministers and policy uncertainty on decarbonisation and support for renewables. The Prime Minister says that he has not changed his mind, but, in the face of pressure from his Back Benchers and the UK Independence party, he has ignored the issue or allowed it to become downgraded across Whitehall. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs apparently refuses to be briefed on climate change by his own civil servants.
Andy Sawford
I am very short of time.
Government Members have today described their own Government’s approach as “obscene”. As a direct result of the Government’s failure to get behind green businesses and to set a decarbonisation target, the UK is falling behind with investment in green growth, meaning that the jobs, growth and industry that should be coming to this country are now going overseas.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. Just to be helpful to the shadow Minister, given that he has three minutes left only, given the debate’s title and given the interest, I am sure that he will want to narrow his contribution down to wind farms in the context of climate change.
Andy Sawford
Mr Pritchard, you have anticipated my next remark, which is, “Let me turn specifically to wind energy.”
The UK is the windiest country in Europe. We are the world’s eighth largest producer of wind energy. It is our second-largest source of renewable energy—[Interruption.]
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. The shadow Minister is taking the time to respond. Let us have the courtesy to listen.
Andy Sawford
Government Members seemed keen a moment ago to hear my response, although they may of course not like it.
Wind energy is our second-largest source of renewable energy, with the capacity to power 3.3 million homes. The UK should be a world leader in wind energy, but since the coalition came to power, the UK has slipped from third to 13th in the world for investment in green growth, and investment in wind power has fallen by 40%. The wind industry alone employs more than 10,000 people in the UK, but it has the potential to employ thousands more. Foreign companies, such as Mitsubishi, Gamesa and Siemens, are lining up to invest hundreds of millions of pounds, to create new industries and to bring new jobs to the UK, but they will not commit until the Government get behind green British businesses. Evidence from all over the world suggests that wind power is cheap and is the most developed form of clean energy. It has the potential to create thousands of badly needed new jobs in Britain, but Government splits are undermining this key growth industry and putting Britain’s energy security at risk.
Offshore wind has the potential to be a vital part of decarbonising the UK’s energy supply, too. This debate has focused on onshore, but offshore must be part of our consideration of how we take forward a wind energy strategy.
The Government’s lack of policy is damaging not only to renewable commitments and tackling climate change but to localism, because it creates an uncertain, ever-shifting context in which local authorities must determine planning applications. My party has made it clear that local communities should be able to shape their local areas, and we want to provide local authorities with the tools to do so. I am unsurprised, however, that communities are sceptical of the Government’s evolving changes over the past year around the extent to which local communities will be consulted. Will the Minister assure us that the statutory instrument introduced in December, which introduced pre-application consultations for all onshore wind developments of two turbines or more, is more than a tick-box exercise?
The Government’s own figures show that more than a third of applications are refused. There will be examples of where hon. Members have disagreed with applications in their constituencies, some of which we have heard about today, but the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) acknowledged the need for a new energy mix. The way forward is to consider a national strategic plan that sets out clearly how we will manage the need for renewable energy in the future. We cannot simply say that we do not want wind farms anywhere. We need to say how we will meet the nation’s energy needs and how we will ensure that the public’s views are more properly considered when determining where wind farms are sited. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) on securing this debate and commend his excellent work on representing his constituency’s interests.
I want to set my response in context. I have a constituency. It is a constituency with some beautiful landscape, and it is a constituency where some individuals have sought to place certain applications before planning committees, and I have views on that. I am also aware that another Department has discussed, contemplated and brought forward this Government’s policy on renewable energy and it is for that Department to address that matter. Members have mentioned the costs and merits of mitigating our carbon figures, but I will leave that to those individuals. Although I am tempted to participate in some political knockabout with the shadow Minister, my role is quasi-judicial and I will discuss the matter strictly in that context.
Mr Cox
Will my hon. Friend address three specific points? First, does he agree that the document of July 2013 has not had the effect that was desired or intended? In other words, does he agree that there is an inherent bias in the system, which was intended to be addressed by automatic overriding? Planning departments are telling my hon. Friends and me that it does not do what the Minister thought it would. Secondly, can we get some improvement in the planning framework so that landscape value is accorded the weight and priority that the Secretary of State said last year that it should have? Finally, will the Minister consider giving further guidance to planning departments as to how decisions should be taken in the planning system? More specifically, can he say anything about the recovered appeals that the Secretary of State is currently considering and the purpose and intent behind that consideration?
Kris Hopkins
I have 12 minutes. I heard all those points when they were made in my hon. and learned Friend’s initial speech, and I want to address them, so I would appreciate the opportunity to respond. The issues are important and we can provide people with some confidence as to where we are.
It is quite right to challenge the Government on how our planning policy for wind turbines and our recently published planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy are impacting on particular local areas. I hope that I can provide some clarity. I recognise that wind farms have created a lot of interest and debate among local communities in the south-west and right across the country, and people are often concerned about the cumulative and visual effect of wind farms on landscapes and local amenity. We understand that there are concerns over the development of onshore wind, but such issues are addressed by the policies and, in particular, the new planning practice guidance that the Government have put in place.
There is, however, no excuse for putting wind farms in the wrong places. The national planning policy framework is clear that applications for renewable energy developments, such as wind farms, should be approved only if the impact, including landscape, visual and cumulative impact, is or can be made acceptable. We are committed to safeguarding the natural and local environment and we are clear in the framework that planning should take account of the different roles and character of different areas, protect the green belt, recognise the character and beauty of the countryside and support thriving rural communities within it. National parks, the broads and areas of outstanding natural beauty have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The framework is clear that great weight should be given to conserving that.
The framework is clear that local councils should design their policies to ensure that any adverse effects from wind farms are addressed satisfactorily. To ensure that decisions reflect the environmental balance expected by the framework and that the views of local people are listened to, we published new planning guidance for renewable and low-carbon energy last summer. Those were integrated into a new web-based resource, which has been accessible since 6 March.
The new planning guidance resource is a key part of the reforms that the coalition Government have introduced. We are committed to making the planning system simpler, clearer and easier for people to use. The new practice guidance is designed to assist local councils and planning inspectors in their consideration of local plans and individual applications.
Mel Stride
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) raised the fundamental question of whether the new planning guidelines have provided the rebalancing, which the Minister has argued for, of the planning decisions more in favour of the environment and less in favour of renewable energy. A test of that would be the number of applications that have come through and been successful since that new guidance came into effect. Will the Minister tell us whether applications are coming through at the same sort of level, or are there more or less than before the planning guidance came into force?
Kris Hopkins
I reassure Members that I will answer every question that they have asked, but I have just had another minute knocked off my ability to answer. Please give me the opportunity to get through these—[Interruption.] I will come to the points made, which were valid.
In particular, we are clear that the need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections and the planning concerns of local authorities. The guidance is clear that cumulative and visual impacts require particular attention and it sets out criteria on how to assess them. It also sets out the importance of protecting local amenity, including concerns about noise, and such consideration should be given proper weight in planning decisions. We have made it crystal clear in the guidance that great care should be taken to ensure that heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance.
Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, local planning authorities have a statutory responsibility to consider planning applications for renewable energy developments of 50 MW or less. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the statutory development plan for that area unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Those material considerations include national planning policy and guidance.
Local authorities will take into account relevant representations from the local community on the planning merits of a proposal. The Government aim is that every area should have a clear local plan, consistent with the national planning policy framework, which sets out local people’s views about how they wish their community to develop, against which planning applications and planning appeals will be judged.
I am aware that West Devon borough council put its core strategy in place in 2011, before the publication of the NPPF, and that North Devon and Torridge district councils are working together to prepare a new plan to cover north Devon. It is important that local councils get up-to-date plans in place as soon as possible and use those to set out their plans for the development of renewable energy, and clearly indicate where developments should or should not take place take place in line with the framework. Where councils have identified areas suitable for renewable energy, they should not feel that they have to give permission for speculative applications outside those areas when they judge the impact to be unacceptable.
Bearing in mind the fact that time is running short, I will leave decisions on a site-by-site basis to one side. Planning inspectors’ decisions and recovered appeals are something on which Members wanted clarity. If applications are refused locally and taken to appeal, they will be judged by an independent planning inspector. As is the case with local councils, planning inspectors determine planning appeals in accordance with the development plan for their area unless material considerations indicate otherwise, as I said. In reaching a decision, the inspector would take account of all the relevant material in such planning considerations, including local community views and the national planning policy framework.
I understand the frustration that local communities can feel when a planning inspector gives the go-ahead to a proposal that they opposed. I will give some reassurance, however, that since the publication of the guidance last summer, appeals for “more significant” wind turbines have been turned down in greater numbers than the numbers approved: 68 were turned down and 56 approved. In the 12 months before that, 85 were approved and 77 were refused. We therefore see a clear turnaround in the numbers compared with the previous 12 months. I am happy to give Members more details if they so require.
Applications can be recovered so that Ministers can check that an application or process meets the published criteria. Instead of an inspector making the decision, he or she will write a report that will make a recommendation on how the appeal should be determined. That will be passed to the Secretary of State to make the final decision.
We are determined to give communities a greater say over the proposals that affect them. On 17 December, the planning regulations were changed to make pre-application consultation with local communities compulsory. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon mentioned his concern that applications were appearing without an opportunity for people to contribute. We now have a pre-application consultation period, which is really important as it will ensure that nothing is sprung on communities; they will have an opportunity to voice their concerns clearly. That will also allow the developer to understand the level of support, or lack thereof, for an individual application. That consultation is required in a development with more than two wind turbines, or if the height of a turbine exceeds 15 metres.
We are clear that communities must be properly engaged with and see real benefits from hosting wind farms. Last year, the Department of Energy and Climate Change announced a fivefold increase in the value of community benefit packages that wind farms developers fund for local communities. That is an important part of the package. I will not comment on individual applications, but if Members believe that a particular planning application has not been processed appropriately, I encourage them to write to me. I will consider the recovery of such applications.
Mitochondrial Transfer (Three-Parent Children)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I am grateful that the debate has been granted and for the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) will reply, because she is one of the most highly regarded Ministers in Her Majesty’s Government. I would also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for all her help in preparing for the debate, as well as Dan Boucher, Helen Watt and Luke Gormally.
It is important to begin the discussion by explaining what is at stake with three-parent babies and mitochondria. Mitochondria are the organelles within every cell responsible for the generation of cellular adenosine triphosphate energy. That passes entirely in the maternal line and can carry serious diseases.
There are two means of replacing the mitochondria. Maternal spindle transfer, or MST, takes place before in vitro fertilisation. The spindle, which carries the genes in the nucleus of the egg, is removed from the healthy donor egg and replaced by a spindle taken from the egg of the commissioning mother—that is, the woman at risk of passing on mitochondrial disease. All other parts of the donor egg, including the healthy mitochondria, are left in place. The combined egg is then fertilised by the father’s sperm, and the embryo has three parents: the spindle mother, the egg donor mother and the father. Genetic parenthood is complete in the case of the father but fragmented in the case of the two mothers.
In pronuclear transfer, or PNT, two embryos are created by IVF. One, the embryo of the commissioning women, will have its mother’s affected mitochondrial genes. The other is the healthy embryo of an egg donor. The embryos are combined using a technique somewhat similar to that in the cloning of Dolly the sheep. Interestingly, the licence for the experiment was adapted from the licence originally given for Dolly-style cloning.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Given that this is obviously an incredibly important matter, akin to cloning, with a child having several parents—I know of no other country in the world that has done this—does my hon. Friend think it should be the subject of a full debate on the Floor of the House?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I certainly think that this matter ought to come to the Floor of the House. I understand from an earlier debate that the Government are committed to full parliamentary scrutiny, but no doubt the Minister will confirm that.
To continue on PNT, at the one-cell stage the donor embryo pronuclei containing the nuclear genes are removed, killing that embryo. The partially gutted donor embryo with its healthy mitochondria is then used to form a new embryo when the pronuclei harvested from the commissioning woman’s embryo are inserted. Harvesting the pronuclei from the commissioning woman’s embryo kills that embryo.
It is important to understand that the techniques are non-therapeutic. They are in no sense a cure for children who are already born, nor do they pretend to be. Rather, the techniques create new people with altered genetic composition—genetically designed individuals who will not inherit mitochondrial disease. Although the mitochondrial DNA is around only 0.1% of a person’s total DNA, a little leaven leavens all the bread, and a different person is thereby created.
The proposed techniques all promote germ-line genetic modification. That is an infinite change that will lead to all the descendants of someone treated in this way being changed, the consequence of which cannot be known.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this critical subject. Techniques for mitochondrial transfer deliberately create a child who has three genetic ancestors, or, in the case of PNT, four. Is that not extremely concerning, raising as it does serious issues of personal identity for those born through the technique, particularly since Government guidelines propose that such individuals will not be allowed to know the identity of their third or forth parent? Will that not then transfer into future generations, too?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I was going to come on to that. As an aside, the reason we were able to determine that Richard III’s body was his was through the female line, and because we could establish the continuity of the DNA. I do not believe Government promises of secrecy. They promised that to sperm donors historically. Governments cannot be relied upon, because society becomes more open and so demands greater openness. I have no doubt that if the technique is ultimately used the donors will be identified and people with three or potentially four parents will find out.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
On that point, the worry that occurs immediately to me as I listen to my hon. Friend is that if someone does not know who the third or fourth person who created them is, through sheer chance they may well find themselves marrying their brother or sister.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
That is a risk, and there are others. Already in the United States a different price is charged depending on the educational qualifications of the donor. There are worries about eugenics, a point I was going to come on to.
Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/Co- op)
The head of the United States Food and Drug Administration advisory committee on this matter, Evan Snyder, has said that there are not enough clinical data to suggest that mitochondrial transfer is safe. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the present UK regulator and the UK Government should be cautious in approaching this technique?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. That is at the heart of the issue.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Another issue occurs to me with regard to knowing who the third or, indeed, fourth parent is or was. Let us suppose that, in subsequent generations, further scientific research finds that another fault is being passed down generations. Without knowing whether the third or fourth parent several generations back carried some other gene that has come to the fore only after 150 years, someone would not know whether they were affected. There is a Pandora’s box of problems.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
That must be right. It ends up being a multi-generational experiment with the lives of people.
To return to the PNT technique, it is effectively cloning. As I said, it is telling that the licence for the experiment was adapted from the licence given to create Dolly the sheep. Cloning is widely regarded as a dangerous technique. Essentially what is being done is eugenic.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
The company that developed Dolly the sheep received funding from an organisation of which I was chairman. I remember visiting it and expressing a concern that it was one step from cloning sheep to cloning humans. I was reassured that no such thing could possibly ever happen, as the human race was far too sensible. This issue challenges that, big time.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
As so often, my hon. Friend is right.
The dictionary definition of “eugenic” is:
“Of or bringing about the improvement of the type of offspring produced”.
The 1922 Eugenics Congress called it
“the self direction of human evolution”.
There is grave question mark about eugenics. It frightens almost every sensible person. It is not only people who share my views who think that. In a letter to The Guardian dated 15 March 2013, that fear was made explicit by a number of medical experts. It is interesting that they chose The Guardian, which is not a bastion of right-wing reaction, to make that point. In a country nervous about genetically modified crops we are making the foolhardy move to genetically modified babies.
There are three categories of risks and dangers that have not been fully considered. The first is the category raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), namely practical risks relating to the long-term efficacy of the therapy. An article published in Nature in October 2012 said:
“Pioneering work in nonhuman primates is critical for the development, and safety and efficacy evaluations, of new treatments.”
That view has been discounted by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority without any good reason being given. Current research using PNT in macaques has yet to be shown to be successful. Macaque zygotes do not survive the PNT process well, even though their oocytes are less prone to abnormal activation and fertilisation than human ones. If that is the case, surely we should continue with such experiments first, rather than relying on the fact that four monkeys have reached the age of three.
Robert Flello
On that point, the research that has been done talks about generations of mice or of monkeys, but that does not address the fact that until there have been three, four, five or 10 generations, we will not know what the long-term effects are.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I also think that mankind is of a different order of magnitude from other animals. I do not view myself merely as a senior ape—nor indeed do I view Opposition Members as merely being senior apes or monkeys. I think much more highly of them than that. [Interruption.] I will gloss over that point. In their article in Nature, Mitalipov et al showed that they had discovered that 52% of human embryos created through MST had chromosomal abnormalities. If there is a high failure rate early on, how can we be certain that there will not be a similar failure rate later, potentially when people are in their 30s or 40s? It is a life-long, generational experiment.
There are also difficulties with the experiments on fruit flies.
An article in Science on 20 September 2013 states:
“MR in fruit flies had little effect on nuclear gene expression in females but changed the expression of roughly 10% of genes in adult males. The mitochondrial haplotypes responsible for these male-specific effects were naturally occurring, putatively healthy variants. Hundreds of mitochondrial-sensitive nuclear genes identified in that study had a core role in male fertility. For example, one of the five combinations in which mitochondrial-nucleus interactions were disrupted by mismatching was completely male-sterile but female-fertile. In other fly studies MR resulted in male-biased modifications to components of ageing”—
that is very important because we do not know what the effects will be as people get older—
“and affected the outcomes of in vivo male fertility. Together, these results suggest that core components of male health depend on fine-tuned coordination between mitochondrial and nuclear gene complexes and thus the HFEA conclusion that ‘there is no evidence for any mismatch between the nucleus and any mtDNA haplogroup at least within a species’ is incomplete and unsubstantiated.”
It has also been discovered from research in mice and invertebrates that deleterious effects on mitochondrial replacement would not be discovered until adulthood, which goes back to the point that we would have to wait decades.
The second category of risk is moral and ethical. I make no bones about the fact that my thinking on this matter is strongly influenced by the Catholic Church concerning the dignity of the human person. Equally, the Minister and the Government should respond to non-theological, non-religious concerns. I will set out briefly the religious concerns.
Thomas Aquinas wrote in his “Summa Theologica” that
“the soul is in the embryo”.
I certainly believe that to be the case. It means that tampering with embryos is tampering with human souls—tampering with what sets us apart from animals. As Benedict XVI in the Instruction “Dignitas Personae” said,
“the body of a human being, from the very first stages of its existence, can never be reduced merely to a group of cells. The embryonic human body develops progressively according to a well defined programme with its proper finality, as is apparent in the birth of every baby.”
That, too, is absolutely correct. No human, whatever their stage of development, is merely a group of cells.
We must be concerned about the unknown consequences of tampering with the genes of an embryo, and for the unreligious there will be mental issues to be faced by those who find out later life that they have three or even four parents. The gravity of the change is such that it should not be made without the most careful thought and properly tested research. [Interruption.]
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Will whoever has their phone on please turn it off, or put it on silent or vibrate? This is an important debate and it needs to be heard with respect.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Thank you, Mr Prichard. Silence is golden.
The third risk is legal, and I am slightly reluctant to raise it because it concerns the European Union charter of fundamental rights. It is not a document I often quote in support of an argument, but there is a question about its applicability in the United Kingdom. It is not directly applicable in UK law except when it coincides with EU law. There is considerable debate about how far the overlap between UK and EU law goes. Article 3(2) refers to the
“prohibition of eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at the selection of persons”.
I have established that this is eugenics, so it would be in contravention of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I do not believe that the Government would want to contravene that accidentally.
Essentially, the Government have started too early and are putting the cart before the horse, which makes travel difficult, by consulting on regulatory approval before sufficient research has been done into the safety of the therapy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I apologise for not being here earlier. The Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill was being discussed in the House and I had to be there.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept my concerns on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland who are very worried by what was suggested the other day—that the Department of Health is pressing forward with regulations without full consultation and without the impact being fully known? I hope that the Minister will assure us that that will not happen.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
It is essential with such a fundamental change in our understanding of humanity that it is made with the fullest consultation and parliamentary approval. I believe that the Government are sympathetic to that.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend explain what evidence he has seen of any preparatory work on the ethical considerations that would be necessary? Is it not the case that many of the regulatory approval processes have commenced, but no proper work has been done with respect to public opinion on the ethics involved?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
There is consultation, but it worries me that it has been done before the prior research has been completed, so we cannot be certain about safety.
I am glad that my hon. Friend raises the issue of public opinion, which is unpersuaded. A ComRes poll for Care will be released tomorrow, and I can exclusively reveal some of the results to the House. It found that 34% are opposed and 35% are in support, so there is no strong balance of support but, crucially, 44% agree that as it is currently illegal to grow most genetically modified crops for commercial purposes on the ground of safety, it ought to be illegal to create genetically modified children.
I return to the point that change of even 0.1% leads to genetically modified children. It is not sufficient to say that that is a tiny modification so it does not matter. It is the essence of the line of inheritance that we all have from our mothers through successive generations and centuries.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is worrying that the assumption is that this will happen and that the consultation is more about how it will happen? Would it not be better for the Minister to say today that the Government will stop the consultation and continue with the research until they are satisfied that the procedure is safe?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. If the Minister would say that, her standing in North East Somerset would rise even higher, although it is hard to believe that is possible.
The Government’s own consultation—this is crucial—says:
“It is estimated that 1 in 200 children born every year in the UK have some kind of mitochondrial DNA disorder.”
The number of serious disorders is much lower, but one in 200 has some kind of mitochondrial disorder. It is worrying that that is in the consultation because the premise is that 0.5% of the population are born imperfect and that in future only perfect people should be born. Many of us have imperfections, but they make up humanity, and the mixed variety of interest, thoughtfulness and development that is humanity often comes from our faults, as well as our abilities. It is a fundamentally dangerous road to start down because, although the technique cannot at this stage affect eye colour, some clever scientist will eventually work out how to ensure that babies have blue eyes and blonde hair, or whatever people want. Every time something like this happens, we go to the next stage and the argument becomes, “Well, we’ve done this, so it is logical to continue.” When that line has been crossed, the argument against going further is merely a matter of degree; it is not absolute.
Robert Flello
I fear that we have already had the push to having perfect babies. Abortion on ground E of disability means that babies with even slight imperfections do not see the light of day.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
One aspect of political correctness that I like is calling disabled people “differently able”. People with disabilities have different abilities and skills, and contribute to the benefit of society in a different way from those of us who have the use of all our limbs, and so on.
Although the current aim is small, 10 children every year, who might have been born, will be replaced by 10 different babies. That is not a major problem crying out for an urgent solution, but the solution that is being proposed is a fundamental change in our understanding of our own humanity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. With the limited time available to me, I will set out some of the process by which we got to this point, but it goes without saying that these are extremely serious issues. I listened respectfully to colleagues’ concerns. There were some technical interventions and I will get back to colleagues about any concerns that I cannot answer now.
This is exactly why we are having consultation, and why I can confirm that the matter will be debated on the Floor of the House. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure and there will be every chance to return to the issue and to debate it in full. I give that assurance. I know that I will not have time to respond to some points that are technical and scientific and I do not want to get them wrong, so I will write to hon. Members after the debate.
Robert Flello
When the debate does come before the House, right hon. and hon. Members will look at things such as Library briefing notes and Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology notes, which normally I commend in the highest terms. My concern about the POSTnote entitled “Preventing Mitochondrial Disease”, which is Number 431 from March 2013, is that it talks about people who oppose this as simply being in a pro-life camp. That sort of language is very unhelpful, because the opposition is far wider than that.
Jane Ellison
I did not write that brief. I have never used that language and I would not. I accept—indeed, it is right—that this will be a subject of parliamentary debate, because it involves important issues. Just as Parliament has previously debated advances in science, such as IVF, and considered and weighed in the balance the concerns and the potential benefits, so that will happen again. I am certain that people will come to their own conclusion. These matters are normally decided by votes of conscience. I would be very surprised if this matter was not decided in the same way; in fact, I am sure that it will be.
Let me try to respond to some of the points and at least go through the process by which we have got to this point. I should say, though, in response to the intervention that was picked up by colleagues that we will arrange parliamentary briefings with, for example, some of the scientists involved and with the chief medical officer. I hope to be able to give hon. Members the opportunity to put questions directly to some of the people involved. There will be opportunities at all stages along the way, I hope, for colleagues to ask questions and get answers. What they think of the answers will obviously be down to them, but we will try to make it possible for people to come to a very informed view.
I am grateful for this opportunity. I am grateful that hon. Members have had a chance to put some of their concerns on the record, because that helps us in preparing for debates ahead. It gives us a heads-up on some of the areas of particular concern. Obviously, I have also been receiving correspondence about the matter.
The chief medical officer for England announced last year that the Government would go ahead with the development of draft regulations to allow mitochondrial donation in treatment. The consultation began on 27 February and will run until 21 May. I have already recognised the deep sensitivity of these issues. Since we were first approached in 2010 to make the regulations, we have been comprehensively collecting expert opinion and public views, and I will explain how that has been done. However, I understand that for many hon. Members and for many members of the public, this will ultimately be an ethical question. There will be strong views on both sides of the House, as we have seen today.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) touched on what mitochondrial disease is. It is a genetic condition of mitochondria—the part of the body’s cells that produces the energy that they need to function. It tends to be described, for the benefit of the general public, as the “battery pack” that powers a cell.
A person’s mitochondria come from their mother’s egg. Therefore, if a woman has mitochondrial disease, it is likely that she will pass it on to any children she may have. Mitochondrial DNA is separate from an individual’s genomic DNA, which is in the nucleus of the body’s cells. Mitochondrial DNA disease can be devastating, but the disease affects everyone differently. The range of different effects can include heart disease, liver disease, poor growth, loss of muscle co-ordination, visual and hearing problems and mental disorders. Rare conditions caused by faulty mitochondria include forms of Leigh’s syndrome, which can cause multiple symptoms in infancy, such as muscle weakness, heart and kidney failure and nervous system dysfunctions.
Some affected children live short and painful lives. They are constantly in and out of hospital. The quality of life for them and their families is seriously diminished. I have been contacted by a family in that position in my constituency and I suspect that other hon. Members will be as we continue to engage in this debate in the coming weeks and months.
The condition affects approximately one in 5,000 adults, although one in 6,500 babies are born with a severe form of the disease that can lead to death in early infancy. It is estimated that about 12,000 people live with a mitochondrial disease in the UK, and there is no cure. However, research has been ongoing at the Newcastle centre for life, among other places, for many years. In anticipation of significant advances in this field, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act was amended in 2008 to introduce a regulation-making power to allow mitochondrial donation to treat serious mitochondrial DNA disease. At the time that amendment was made, Parliament was made aware that there was the potential for these techniques to be developed. The Act was thus amended and that was included.
The mitochondrial donation techniques involve removing the nuclear genetic material from an egg or embryo with unhealthy mitochondria and transferring it to a donor egg or embryo with healthy mitochondria, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset said.
Jane Ellison
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not. I have been left with very little time to respond. I doubt that I will even get through the remarks that I have prepared. However, I would be very happy to talk to him after the debate, and of course we will have much lengthier opportunities to debate the issue, so I do not think that I am cutting off debate.
Allowing the new treatments would give women who carry mitochondrial DNA mutations the choice to have genetically related children without the risk of serious disease. Recent estimates from the scientists leading the UK research in this area are that about 10 to 20 families a year could be helped initially. The scientists and clinicians at Newcastle university believe that allowing these techniques will also advance their understanding of mitochondrial function and mitochondrial diseases. It will enable them to gain a greater understanding of the way in which mitochondrial DNA mutations are passed from mother to child. It could also provide them with a better understanding of how mutations vary in different cells, which may lead to the development of new treatments for those currently suffering from mitochondrial conditions.
The use of the techniques would also keep the UK at the forefront of scientific development in this area and demonstrate that the UK remains a world leader in facilitating cutting-edge scientific breakthroughs. I know that that might be an uncomfortable point for some hon. Members, but other hon. Members have expressed great support for that. There are different sides to the argument. I completely accept that.
I understand that some hon. Members—this has been touched on today—are concerned about a slippery slope. Let me be very clear. Parliament has only provided a power to allow
“a prescribed process designed to prevent the transmission of serious mitochondrial disease”.
That is all that is prescribed in relation to the regulation-making power. We are proposing only to allow the donation of mitochondrial DNA, not nuclear DNA, so that is a further strengthening in terms of the regulation-making power. There is no intention or legal mechanism to go any further.
The draft regulations that are now out for consultation set out how the techniques would be allowed in treatment, the regulatory tests that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority would have to use to give approval to a clinic on a case-by-case basis and how the mitochondrial donor would be treated in terms of information available to any children conceived through the new techniques.
In 2010, the Newcastle researchers approached the Department and requested that, in the light of their progress, we give consideration to the introduction of regulations. Recognising the complexity and sensitivity of this subject, we asked the HFEA to arrange public consultations and oversee a number of independent scientific reviews. An expert advisory group was established and a report passed to the Department in spring 2011. It found that the techniques were not unsafe, but recommended that some further research be undertaken.
After careful consideration of the report, the Department of Health and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills commissioned the HFEA in autumn 2011 to undertake a comprehensive public dialogue and set of consultations in order to understand the public’s views on and understanding of this issue. The HFEA consultation was held between July and December 2012. It looked at the social and ethical issues raised by mitochondria replacement, as well as addressing a range of practical regulatory issues. Sciencewise, which plays a key role in helping the public to understand complex scientific issues, commended that public dialogue and the HFEA as an exemplar in its approach to gathering public views on a complex issue. As I am sure colleagues can understand, it is never enough, on an issue as complicated as this, to do a press release-style consultation. A simple “for and against” does not suffice to explore the complexity of the issue and ensure that when people express an opinion, they are doing so with a slightly wider understanding of it.
The HFEA gave a full set of advice to the Government in March 2013 based on the findings of the public dialogue and including further advice from the expert panel that it had reconvened. That concluded that although there continues to be nothing to indicate that the techniques are unsafe, further research on some specific aspects should be undertaken. Overall, the advice from the HFEA, informed by the balance of views from the public and stakeholders, was that the new treatment techniques should be allowed so long as they are safe and carefully regulated.
We have also taken account of other published reviews—for example, the 2012 report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics entitled “Novel techniques for the prevention of mitochondrial DNA disorders: an ethical review”.
Some press headlines have suggested that a child born as a result of the new techniques would have three parents. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset also alluded to that. I do not have time now to go into the detail of why we do not believe that that is the right characterisation. It is important to understand that mitochondrial DNA comprises a very small proportion—0.1%—of total DNA. However, these are issues that we can explore further. I have heard the concerns that have been put on the record today. It is also the Department’s view that this process does not constitute a form of human cloning. The techniques are not equivalent to reproductive cloning, because any children resulting from the use of the techniques would have arisen from fertilisation and be genetically unique.
However, there is clearly a great deal more for us to explore. Today’s debate has been a very helpful chance to hear the concerns of hon. Members expressed on the record. It gives me time to go away, look at the issue with officials and with the experts and ensure that we put in place the right advice and the right level of consultation as we go through the parliamentary process, in terms of—
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. We now come to the final debate of the day.
Neath-Port Talbot Magistrates Court
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
Thank you for chairing the debate, Mr Pritchard. I look forward to your presiding over it. I ask the Government to reverse their decision to close Neath magistrates court, which has served the town for generations. Written records show that from the early 18th century, and probably much earlier when they were situated in the castle from which the town gets its name—in Welsh, Castell Nedd—magistrates in Neath were so busy that they sat almost continuously, not just four times a year as they did in other places. The current facility has been open since 1977.
Although I am grateful to the Secretary of State for meeting me on two occasions, I totally refute what he said in his letter to me of 5 February confirming his decision to close Neath magistrates court and move it to Swansea. I challenge the costing that he presented to justify the closure, which will have a seriously damaging impact on the quality of local justice for local people. I also challenge some of his basic facts, such as those on the usage of the Neath court, which are simply wrong.
I presented an incredible low-cost alternative that would have delivered savings, namely to transfer the magistrates court to the nearby county court facility, which is underused and might easily be modified for that purpose. That suggestion was rejected, seemingly arbitrarily, which caused deep local anger. More than 1,800 signatures were collected in a matter of weeks on a petition that circulated in the town.
Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I congratulate him warmly on his success in securing the debate. His point about local feeling is a strong one. Does he agree that alongside trial by jury and the appointment of local magistrates, one of the central tenets of our common-law system, which has been developed over centuries and of which we are very proud, is the importance of the local delivery of local justice? My constituents share his concerns, because Neath magistrates court also serves Port Talbot.
Mr Hain
Indeed, and I am happy to be corrected by my hon. Friend from the neighbouring constituency. Having examined the Secretary of State’s argument, the proposal document and the consultation response from Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, I am convinced that the transfer of the magistrates court service from Neath to Swansea will severely and detrimentally affect the town and its citizens, and will erode the provision of local justice for local people, as my hon. Friend has eloquently pointed out.
The decision to merge has been driven purely by cost reduction, as part of an exercise across England and Wales in which 130 courts have been closed since 2010. In recent years, the Neath and Port Talbot area has lost two magistrates courts in Pontardawe and Port Talbot. The loss of the third and final magistrates court in the county borough will leave nearly 140,000 people— a population bigger than that of Middlesbrough or Cambridge—without a magistrates court. Instead, the Swansea court will serve a population of 380,000 people. Local topography, transport and economic issues have been completely disregarded.
The timing of the consultation was perhaps no coincidence, coming as it did alongside the start of work on Neath Port Talbot county borough council’s long-awaited regeneration of the town. The implication in the executive summary of the consultation document and the impact assessment of August 2013 that there was no other option because the county borough council required the land seems to have been designed to lay the blame firmly at the door of the local authority. However, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service had known about the county borough council’s intention since 2008, when alternative venues, including a new courtroom nearby, were being explored. At that time, my suggestion to the then Secretary of State to move the magistrates court to the county court only 300 metres away was being examined, and Neath Port Talbot county borough council had even budgeted for its contribution to the estimated cost of £1.4 million to facilitate the move. Had that been pursued and any problems overcome, which I believe could easily have happened, not only would the Government have made their savings, but Neath would have retained its magistrates.
The costs associated with the proposed merger of Neath and Swansea magistrates courts are far greater than those involved in the conversion of Neath and Port Talbot county court to a new Neath Port Talbot magistrates court. That new facility would have minimal additional operating costs, because the crown court is already fully functioning. There would be no additional travel costs for magistrates or staff. The county court has free car parking, so there would be no additional car parking fees. There would be a net saving of operating facilities costs, estimated to be between £100,000 and £110,000 per annum, which includes utility costs, cleaning, waste disposal, security and maintenance, because those are already in place at the county court.
The projected enabling cost of the Swansea merger is £165,000, but the true figure will be significantly greater. I give notice to the Secretary of State that should he continue to disregard our representations and the case I am making to the Minister today, I will carefully monitor what those costs actually are and report them. Court 6 in Swansea, for example, has no retiring room. Court 5 has neither a secure dock nor secure access and egress for magistrates, so it cannot be used for criminal cases. Even if it is physically feasible to correct those deficiencies, major alterations will be required. Only criminal cases would be heard in Swansea magistrates court after a merger, with all family work being transferred to the Swansea civil justice building. Travel costs after a merger would increase by £55,000 a year.
Had those figures been objectively analysed, not only would the Government have made their savings but Neath would have retained its magistrates court, albeit in a new location. There is a suspicion that the Government decided to merge Neath and Swansea magistrates courts with little or no investigation of the real costs and savings involved. Consequently, they appear to have undertaken the consultation exercise without intending to take much notice if the facts demonstrated that it would be far less costly to convert the county court than to merge Neath and Swansea magistrates courts.
The option of converting Neath and Port Talbot county court and connecting it by secure walkways to the adjacent cells in the police station is supported by local magistrates, local politicians, the local police and local court users. The police in Neath no longer require the cells, but they wish to retain a presence in Neath. Because there is a low-cost option for a new court in Neath, there is absolutely no justification for merging the court with Swansea. The conversion of the county court is a viable alternative that can deliver savings in addition to the £300,000 that will be obtained from selling the existing building to Neath Port Talbot county borough council. That is more than enough for a careful remodelling of the county court.
Conversely, if the Government press ahead with the merger of Neath and Swansea magistrates courts, they will incur transition costs estimated to be at least £150,000 and additional annual travel costs of at least £55,000, in addition to the cost of establishing a new digital service proposed by the Secretary of State, which would have to be housed in the county court in Neath anyway. That facility would have to be staffed by relevant personnel, a legal adviser and an usher, duplicating the staffing in Swansea magistrates court. Only one video link can operate at any given time, and the Swansea courts will grind to a halt if solicitors and defendants have to liaise via a video link rather than face to face. Few witnesses will choose to attend Swansea magistrates court for a trial if video link facilities exist locally in Neath, thus denying magistrates the opportunity to assess witnesses’ countenances when they give evidence, which can be a crucial or even determining factor in their assessment.
Even the original, deeply flawed impact assessment produced by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service was not clear on the extent of savings from the proposed closure. It did not adequately take into account the increased travel and parking charges that would accrue in Swansea. As the Neath county court is fully functioning and has adequate security, there would be no increase in total running costs if the county court were to become the magistrates court—indeed, there would be savings to both court services through the merging of overheads.
To accommodate the magistrates, the family and civil work currently undertaken at the county court could easily be transferred to the justice centre in Port Talbot, which cost £3 million some five years ago but currently averages just 13% usage. There are no cells in the Port Talbot building, so criminal cases cannot be heard there, but the transfer of civil work would increase its utilisation. Thus, the county court could become the new Neath magistrates court and the justice centre in Port Talbot could become the new family and civil justice centre. It is just 8 miles from Neath to Port Talbot, so the journey time would be considerably less than the proposed increased journey time to Swansea from the many towns and valley villages.
The times and distances quoted in the consultation document are deeply inaccurate and ignore the difficulties of travelling from valley communities such as Banwen, Glynneath and Onllwyn. A simple journey to Swansea can involve two or three buses, and it could take well over an hour to complete a journey. Getting to Swansea court involves negotiating Fabian way, which is notorious for long delays owing to the volume of traffic—especially at peak times—which can add half an hour to a journey. That is on a good day when the bus services run well, whereas often the tricky topography and poor weather mean longer and more convoluted journeys. In a county borough where 30% of households do not have a car, the difficulties of public transport should surely have been recognised instead of simply ignored by the Government.
Even if, as he indicated to me, the Secretary of State is less concerned about inconvenience to defendants, surely he should concerned about witnesses, victims and court staff who will have to make the same trek to attend at Swansea court, incurring additional running costs. We must also remember that magistrates are unpaid volunteers; they are the bedrock of the justice system in this country. In Neath, we have notably dedicated and able magistrates serving in a well-respected team. To suppose that they will just move wherever Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service decides, adding gratuitously to their precious volunteering time, is to presuppose and expect an awful lot.
Many living in Neath will be thinking long and hard about whether they wish to relocate, and prospective magistrates will certainly think twice if that means not being able to deliver local justice locally and continue to serve the local community they cherish, and, in Neath’s case, are proud of. With such uncertainty over their future, the staff, to whom I pay tribute, have acted with great resilience over the past few weeks, as they did during the recent storms, which saw a huge upheaval for the work force when the Neath court roof blew off—but I will come on to that later.
Despite assurances to the contrary, I am concerned that the closure of Neath magistrates court will result in possible redundancies for staff who live locally and cannot commit to a longer commute. The suggestion in the consultation document that
“some staff and judiciary may experience slightly higher costs having to travel further to the receiving court”
is disingenuous, given that increased costs are almost certain because of the much longer distance to travel and the high cost of parking in Swansea. The loss of that local knowledge will be a huge blow to local justice.
Local solicitors representing defendants in Neath will inevitably relocate to Swansea in order to be closer to Swansea magistrates court. A number of solicitors firms are key employers in Neath town and provide well-paid, skilled jobs. If they relocate, it will leave a gaping hole in the economy.
Access to the probation services based in Neath courthouse will be affected, and probation service staff will also have to be redeployed. There will be upheaval and a cost effect on the youth offending service, the victim support service, and the witness service, all of which often work with the most vulnerable in our communities. Relocating all such professional and support jobs will also significantly damage the local economy.
It is wrongly asserted that Neath court rooms are currently 55.3% used. That figure is calculated on the assumption that there are three courts available for criminal work, whereas in fact only two courts are suitable for criminal work, with a secure dock and secure access to the cells. The correct calculation would be 75% usage in Neath court building; Swansea has 74% usage and Cardiff 59%. Of the 16 magistrates courts in Wales, 10 have utilisation figures well below those of Neath.
On efficiency, Neath court staff and magistrates have an exemplary record. Cases are dealt with swiftly and efficiently, fines are collected, and court utilisation is often among the highest in Wales. Neath compares very well with Swansea, Merthyr and Cardiff in all areas. There is no justification for the closure of Neath court on the grounds of efficiency, and detailed and up-to-date figures are available to substantiate that statement. It is also the case that, unlike other areas of the UK, crime in south Wales is increasing, and the number of cases being heard in magistrates courts is going to increase as a result of the Lord Chancellor’s review of out-of-court disposals, which was instigated in 2013.
Recent damage to the roof of Neath magistrates court caused by bad weather caused all work to be transferred to Swansea court. The damage has since been repaired, but the staff and magistrates from Neath coped brilliantly. They were welcomed by the staff and magistrates in Swansea, who did everything they could to make them comfortable. Nevertheless, the key point that I want to make is that there is no avoiding the fact that justice suffered, particularly as Swansea’s court rooms 5 and 6 are not fit for criminal court work. All the evidence shows that if Neath is merged with Swansea, the same will happen, except permanently.
One example case illustrates the point. There was a joint alleged assault, and the defendants were in a relationship. They received the letter reminding them of the new venue for their trial—Swansea—but the accused woman, a drug addict, had to get her methadone prescription from her chemist at 9 am, then try to get a bus to Swansea. Receiving the methadone and taking it in the chemist, as addicts must in order to prevent them selling the methadone on the street to buy heroin, she missed the 9.15 am bus, but caught one at 9.45 am. Her partner had given her the fare, leaving him with no money. He eventually found a friend and borrowed the fare.
Meanwhile, the court began hearing the case and, as the defendants were not present, there was considerable delay while options were considered. The woman then arrived, so the trial began again, and an arrest warrant was issued for the co-defendant. Just as it seemed that the trial was concluding, the man arrived. The arrest warrant was cancelled and the trial concluded. One and a half hours of precious court time was totally wasted. Had the trial been in Neath, both defendants would have arrived before 10 am and the trial have been concluded by 10.45 am. That may seem trivial compared with work in our Crown courts, but if there is to be justice for all, courts must be available to deal with the less high-profile cases as well.
The temporary arrangements demonstrated that, despite the best efforts of Neath staff and Swansea staff, Swansea magistrates court was ill-equipped to handle the additional work and the delivery of local justice—indeed, it was pushed to the tipping point of being unworkable. Although I have described extraordinary circumstances, the proposal to move services from Neath to Swansea will make such events the norm.
To conclude, the situation I have described highlights the fact that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has no contingency plans for such scenarios, and has major problems of organisation and viability, making both the decision about Neath and the refusal to countenance the alternative of moving Neath magistrates into the county court very short-sighted and damaging indeed. If Neath and Port Talbot court is merged with Swansea magistrates court, public money will be wasted. That is unacceptable at a time of Government cuts everywhere. I therefore urge the Secretary of State to reverse his decision—I hope that the Minister will take this message back to him—and transfer Neath and Port Talbot magistrates court to the local county court.
Local justice should be carried out by local people in a local venue. That is a fundamental principle of our justice system. Should the Secretary of State push ahead regardless, he will be responsible for the erosion of local justice. I put it to the Minister and to the Secretary of State that Neath is an exception in the list of countrywide magistrates court closures because there is an alternative solution that will save money for the overall court service. I strongly urge the Government to change their mind and allow common sense to prevail.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Pritchard. I thank the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) for securing this debate and for his continued interest in the subject. As is clear from his comments and from the record in Hansard, he has taken a huge amount of interest in the subject.
I appreciate that the Lord Chancellor’s decision to proceed with the closure of Neath magistrates court is a deep disappointment to the right hon. Gentleman, who has already met the Secretary of State for Justice twice, as he mentioned. I know that on one occasion he met the Secretary of State with others, who presented a petition opposing the closure.
At those meetings and throughout the consultation process, we have listened carefully to the points made against the proposal to close the court. The consultation on the future of Neath magistrates court was published on 26 September 2013. It proposed that the court should close and that the work should move to Swansea magistrates court nine miles away. The consultation document set out that Neath Port Talbot borough council wished to purchase the site of Neath magistrates court and to demolish the building to enable development of the site as part of its plans to regenerate the town centre.
The impact assessment of the consultation concluded that the closure of Neath magistrates court would save £220,000 a year, whereas retaining and undertaking the required maintenance to the court would cost a minimum of £1.3 million.
Mr Vara
The right hon. Gentleman made it abundantly clear from his speech that he has looked into all the figures. Clearly, he will not be satisfied with whatever figures I give. I have a limited amount of time, because he used more time than is customary for the person opening the debate, and I am keen to put the Government’s view on record. Therefore he will forgive me if I do not repeat the figures, but I will state them as I see them. I will deal with the county court shortly, but as far as figures are concerned, the maintenance work for the current magistrates court would cost £1.3 million.
Several factors were taken into consideration before developing the consultation proposals, including work load, current and projected future utilisation, and whether there was a suitable alternative location where the work could be accommodated without a detrimental impact on service levels.
When the consultation was published, local stakeholders, partners and elected officials were directly engaged to ensure that they were aware of the proposals and could provide a considered response before the consultation closed. The consultation was conducted in line with the process set out by my predecessor’s written ministerial statement on 17 July 2013, which set out that future consultations on courts and tribunals would be locally focused, run for six weeks, and reduce parliamentary and administrative bureaucracy. Any proposals on the future of a court would be considered with emphasis on the local area and how justice would be most efficiently delivered there.
Some 63 responses were received to the consultation. I am happy to put on the record that most respondents supported the closure of the court house on its current site to enable the regeneration of Neath town centre. However, I am also happy to put on the record that most responses argued for the retention of a magistrates court within the town’s boundaries. That view is clearly shared by the right hon. Gentleman and, I understand, many local magistrates. I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman discussed that during meetings with the Secretary of State. In particular, he suggested that Neath and Port Talbot county court could be converted to conduct magistrates court hearings.
Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has been aware of the council’s regeneration plans for several years. There have been a number of informal discussions with the council about potential options to relocate the magistrates court in Neath. However, the alternative sites suggested by the council were all in unsuitable shared facilities. A site was identified for a new building, but estimated costs at the time were between £6 million and £11 million and simply not affordable.
HMCTS officials have considered in detail the option to relocate to Neath county court. It would have required the use of a custody facility in the adjacent police station. Costs for a custodial facility were estimated at £1.46 million. While there were some preliminary discussions with the council regarding funding, no formal agreement was reached. There would, in any case, have been additional costs, including an estimated £285,000 to transfer the work of the county court to Port Talbot justice centre.
I accept that there will be an impact on court users, justices and staff. Many will have to travel to attend court in Swansea, including some who will have to use public transport. However, I do not believe that that prevents access to the courts system or compromises the quality of the service provided. HMCTS will seek to make arrangements for customers who are unable to attend court at a particular time and will continue to explore ways to reduce the impact of the closure on court users.
I take on board what the right hon. Gentleman said about the number of people in his area who do not have cars. In any case, travelling to Swansea by car will be within an hour. For those using public transport, 65% will have travel times of less than an hour. Travel times will be reduced for people living nearer to Swansea. For those who use trains—there is a train service—the extra travel time is 15 minutes each way, with trains running every half an hour.
Discussions are currently under way with South Wales police to consider whether it is possible to establish a facility for vulnerable witnesses to give evidence in criminal proceedings via a live video link from a location in the Neath area. That would provide a safe and secure environment and avoid the need for victims and witnesses to travel to court, improving their experience when giving evidence at trial. Contrary to the concern expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, HMCTS does not intend to locate any video link facility to Swansea magistrates court from Neath county court.
Since the decision to close Neath magistrates court was announced, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the court suffered extensive storm damage in February 2014. During that time, court business and staff were transferred to Swansea magistrates court for 10 days to minimise disruption to hearings. That proved to be a successful contingency arrangement, during which no significant issues were raised. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman would disagree, but from our point of view, that worked well. That Swansea magistrates court was able to accommodate that work at short notice is a reassurance that it will be able to absorb successfully the work of Neath magistrates court when it closes.
I am pleased to say that, following safety inspections and a new fire certificate being issued, hearings resumed at Neath on 3 March 2014. Officials are finalising plans for the smooth transfer of work, justices and staff to Swansea, and an announcement of the closure date for the court will be made locally.
As is the case with any publicly funded body, HMCTS has a duty to ensure that its estate is utilised as cost-effectively as possible. We must ensure that we provide value for money for the taxpayer.
Let me emphasise that the Lord Chancellor’s decision to close the court was not taken lightly. It was made after a detailed analysis of the work load of the Neath and Swansea courts, and in consideration of all the points raised in the consultation responses. While it was clear to the Lord Chancellor that many people in Neath, including the right hon. Gentleman, had sincere concerns about the closure, on balance, they did not outweigh the benefits of the proposals or suggest that access to court services would be genuinely compromised.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Export Guarantee Advisory Council
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
My noble Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment, Lord Livingston, has today made the following statement:
A triennial review of the Export Guarantees Advisory Council (EGAC), a statutory non-departmental public body of the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD, operating as UK Export Finance), was announced on 9 October 2013, Official Report, column WS31. The review has now been completed and accepted by the Government.
EGAC is a statutory body which provides independent and expert advice to Ministers, principally on the application of UK Export Finance’s ethical policies. The review concluded that the functions performed by EGAC are still required and that it should be retained as an advisory non-departmental public body (NDPB). The review also considered the EGAC’s governance arrangements in line with Cabinet Office guidance on good corporate governance and made recommendations in this respect.
Copies of the report of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on the UK Export Finance website.
National Minimum Wage
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
The Low Pay Commission’s 2014 report and recommendations to the Government are being published in full today, alongside the Government’s response.
The Low Pay Commission’s 2014 report
The main recommendations put forward by the Low Pay Commission concern the rates of the national minimum wage.
The commission has recommended that the adult hourly rate of the national minimum wage should increase from £6.31 to £6.50. The commission has recommended increasing the development rate, which covers workers aged 18 to 20-years-old, from £5.03 to £5.13 and increasing the rate for 16 to 17-year-olds from £3.72 to £3.79. It recommends that the apprentice rate should increase from £2.68 to £2.73. It is recommended that these changes take place in October 2014.
The commission has also recommended that the accommodation offset increases from the current £4.91 to £5.08 in October 2014.
The Government accept all of the rate recommendations.
Government’s response to individual recommendations in the Low Pay Commission’s 2014 report
National Minimum Wage Rate Recommendations
We recommend that the adult rate of the national minimum wage be increased by 3%, or 19p, to £6.50 an hour, from 1 October 2014.
We recommend an increase of 2% in the youth development rate to £5.13 an hour, in the 16 to 17-year-old rate to £3.79 an hour and in the apprenticeship rate to £2.73 from 1 October 2014.
Government Response
The Government accept the national minimum wage rate recommendations.
Accommodation Offset
We recommend that the accommodation offset be increased by 3.5%, to £5.08 a day, from 1 October 2014.
Government Response
The Government accept the accommodation offset recommendation.
Other Recommendations
Migrant Domestic Workers
We recommend that the Government should review the law, and take the next available opportunity to legislate and clarify the entitlement of migrant domestic workers to the national minimum wage.
Government Response
The Government fully agree that non-compliance in this area needs to be reduced. As suggested by the Low Pay Commission, the Government will look at this area of national minimum wage legislation and consider the full range of options to reduce non-compliance.
The Low Pay Commission’s report has been presented to Parliament today (Command Paper Number 8816). Copies will be available in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office. In addition, copies of the Government response have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Ministerial Pensions
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
In the spending review 2010, the Government announced their intention to increase employee contributions in public service pension schemes. This followed on from Lord Hutton’s interim report on public service pensions which concluded that there was a clear rationale for public servants to make a greater contribution if their pensions were to remain fair to taxpayers and employees and affordable for the country.
The ministerial pension scheme was not covered by Lord Hutton’s recommendations, but I consider it appropriate that its members face similar changes.
In 2012-13 pension contributions were increased in a similar way as applied to other public service pension schemes, and increases for 2013-14 were also applied from 1 April 2013. Further increases from 1 April 2014 will mean that:
Secretaries of State, the Leader of the Opposition in the Commons and Speaker in the House of Lords will pay an additional 1.2 percentage points of pay, and a total of 6.0 percentage points higher than 2011-12;
Ministers of State, the Government Chief Whip, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lords, the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords will pay an additional 0.8 percentage points of pay and a total of 4.0 percentage points higher than 2011-12; and
Parliamentary Under-Secretaries, the Government Whips and Opposition Whips will pay an additional 0.5 percentage points of pay and a total of 2.5 percentage points higher than 2011-12.
Ministers in the House of Commons make separate contributions towards their pensions as Members of Parliament. Responsibility for the setting of pension provision for MPs is the responsibility of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
The amendment scheme will also make provision that members who are part of a same sex marriage will be treated in the same way as members who are part of civil partnerships, in line with the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the arrangements for same sex marriage recognition in other public service pension schemes.
The amendments do not make any provision in relation to an accrued right which puts (or might put) a person in a worse position than the person would have been in apart from the provision.
The details of the new scheme have been laid in the Libraries of both Houses, along with a copy of the response to the consultation from the Chairman of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund Trustees.
Parish Council Payments
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
Yesterday, I made the Legislative Reform (Payments by Parish Councils, Community Councils and Charter Trustees) Order 2014. In accordance with article 1 of the order it comes into force today. This follows findings in favour of the order by the relevant parliamentary committees and agreement to its making by the National Assembly for Wales.
The order removes the rule that cheques and other orders for the payment of money by a parish council must be signed by two members of the council. It makes the same change for community councils in Wales and for charter trustees in England. This rule has put a significant barrier in the way of these bodies adopting modern electronic methods of payment. Its removal will allow them to make payments more quickly and efficiently, with benefits and savings both to them and to the local businesses and other organisations with which they have dealings.
The Government place the highest importance on the maintenance of effective financial controls in these bodies. We therefore welcome, as an essential part of the reform, the publication of new guidance on payments by the local council sector. This guidance takes a more comprehensive approach to payment control than the concentration on the single point of cheque signature implicit in the two-signature rule. Compliance with the guidance will be an item covered in the annual audit returns required from the councils.
I am arranging for a copy of the guidance to be placed in the Library of the House.
City Deal
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)
Following the successful completion of the first wave of city deals 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 area covered by Brighton and Hove city council, Lewes district council, Adur district council, Worthing district council and Mid Sussex district council have reached agreement on a Greater Brighton city deal.
The Greater Brighton city deal will accelerate the growth of Brighton’s tech cluster, by expanding its base at New England House into a major centre for creative and digital businesses. This investment will provide space for many of Brighton’s 1,500 tech companies to grow, will help to nurture new businesses and ideas, and will provide access to faster broadband for local tech companies.
The deal will also provide greater certainty over future flood defence funding at Shoreham and Newhaven, helping to protect homes and enable vital employment land to be developed at key points across the area.
Greater Brighton and Coast to Capital local enterprise partnership will also launch a business support and innovation programme, providing small firms with better access to support and advice, and helping them work better with local universities and business organisations.
Business and civic leaders in Greater Brighton have estimated that the deal will deliver 8,500 new jobs and enable over £170 million of investment over the next decade.
Government Diamond Office
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
I wish to inform the House that the Government Diamond Office is shortly to launch a public consultation on a review of its charging structure, with a view to bringing it more into line with the UK Government’s best practice on fee charging.
The Government believe that a review is timely in order to continue to maintain an effective service for the rest of the UK rough diamond industry following the transfer of De Beers London-based rough diamond sales to Botswana.
We are therefore launching a consultation looking at charging principles which will begin on 13 March and will last for two weeks.
We will be seeking views from stakeholders who have an interest in the way fees are set, and in how the Government and UK industry meet their commitments under the Kimberley process certification scheme.
A copy of the terms of reference of the consultation will be placed in the Library of the House and on the gov.uk website.
G4S and Serco (Contracts Update)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
Further to my previous statements to Parliament on contracts my Department holds with G4S and Serco, I want to provide the House with an update on the situation concerning G4S’s repayment of money owed to the Government.
On 19 December 2013, Official Report, column 128WS, I announced that Serco had agreed to repay £70.5 million plus VAT to reimburse the Government for money owed on the electronic monitoring and prisoner escort contracts, and for other costs incurred.
Discussions with G4S on repayment have continued and I am now in a position to inform the House of the financial settlement we have reached. G4S has agreed to repay £108.9 million plus VAT to reimburse the Government for overpayments made by my Department under the electronic monitoring contract and to cover direct costs to Government arising from these issues. This sum also includes £4.5 million to cover the cost of overpayments made on two contracts held by G4S for facilities management in the courts, both of which were referred to the Serious Fraud Office in December.
I am satisfied on the basis of PwC’s forensic audit, and having taken appropriate advice, that this represents a good deal for the taxpayer. In the event of criminal charges being brought we would consider whether further sums are due from G4S.
This is a welcome step, which recovers in full the money owed to the taxpayer. Discussions between the Cabinet Office and G4S on corporate renewal continue. This process is not complete and the Minister for the Cabinet Office will make a further statement on corporate renewal in due course.
House of Lords
BBC World Service
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Rawlings
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent discussions they have had with the BBC regarding future funding for the BBC World Service.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)
My Lords, the FCO has regular discussions with the World Service about its future. On 1 April the World Service transfers from FCO grant in aid to licence fee funding. Future funding will be decided by the BBC Trust. DCMS is now in discussion with the BBC about additional external funding proposals. The Government remain fully committed to the global role and work of the World Service.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Through the BBC World Service many listeners have a faith in the UK’s image, our influence and our beliefs. These qualities should not be lost at any price. Many of your Lordships are not only admirers of the BBC World Service but concerned citizens, despite the warm words that we hear from the noble Lords, Lord Patten and Lord Hall. When will the Government produce the plans and figures with the BBC Trust for future funding for the following three years—that is, before the end of the charter? The BBC World Service has only one year’s guarantee of £245 million, and that is within all the BBC’s budget, with no mechanism to protect the World Service. Can the Minister say whether she will continue to be responsible after 1 April, as the Foreign Secretary will still approve the objectives?
Baroness Warsi
My noble friend asks an incredibly important question. She may be aware that we have funding of about £238 million allocated for the current financial year. In the financial year starting in April the BBC World Service licence fee funding will increase to £245 million, an increase on the current year’s funding of about £6 million, and thereafter it will be for the BBC to decide what it feels the appropriate level of funding should be. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will continue to have overall responsibility for remitting the licence fee money to the BBC under the new arrangements. As my noble friend said, the current charter runs until December 2016. The Government have yet to announce the scope, timing and process for the review of the charter. In terms of Foreign Office involvement, the Foreign Secretary will continue to approve the opening and closing of the World Service language services, as he does at present, based on recommendations put to him by the World Service.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, since S4C has also been partially funded in recent years by the BBC, in the same way as the World Service is, what consideration has been given to the future funding of S4C?
Baroness Warsi
I will have to write to the noble and learned Lord on that one.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, did the Minister see the comments in yesterday’s edition of the Independent by Justice Michael Kirby, who chaired the recent commission of inquiry established by the United Nations to investigate human rights abuses in North Korea? He said that the extension of BBC World Service transmissions to North Korea—
“a country that has been largely cut off from the rest of the world”—
would make a considerable difference in fighting against those abuses of human rights. Given our Article 19 obligations and the BBC’s historic role in promoting democratic values above the heads of dictators, is this not a moment for the Government to urge the BBC World Service to play its part?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord has asked me this question on a number of occasions; indeed I have answered it here from the Dispatch Box and also written to him. As he and other noble Lords may be aware, in 2013 the World Service reviewed the possible options for a Korean language service and concluded after a fact-finding mission that questions of likely audience reach, cost and technical feasibility meant that such a service was not appropriate at this stage. I am aware of the UN commissioner’s report. The noble Lord will be aware that that contained two quite specific approaches to how engagement could happen: the first was through the broadcasting route and the second through encouraging people-to-people contact. We are one of the few countries that has extensive people-to-people contract because of our embassy in North Korea. The UN report also recognised that that is one of the ways in which we can engage in dialogue.
Lord Kinnock (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that the BBC World Service, together with the British Council, constitutes the most effective expression of so-called soft power available to the United Kingdom and, indeed, excels beyond any comparable services in the rest of the world? In light of that reality, does she agree that there are no circumstances in this dangerous, confused and, in too many places, oppressed world for a reduction in the scope or service of the BBC World Service? If any reductions were to take place it would not just contradict the interests of our country but diminish the efforts for freedom being made in so many other countries.
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord makes an important point: we have indeed been referred to as a soft power superpower because of our organisations and the work that we do. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Howell has been leading discussions on this issue with other colleagues. However, I stress to the noble Lord that the BBC World Service is, of course, operationally, editorially and managerially independent and has to make these decisions in accordance with those headings.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Does the noble Baroness agree that, after listening to her first and subsequent replies, one might say that the Government are flying on a wing and a prayer in this matter? Does she not recognise that it is high time that there was a structured solution to the future funding of the World Service within the BBC and not just one that relies on the vague network of bureaucratic lines that she mentioned?
Baroness Warsi
The sense was that long-term financial stability will come from licence fee funding as opposed to the way in which the BBC World Service has been funded in the past. Indeed, the BBC World Service is in contact with DCMS to consider how alternative forms of funding could come on tap in due course.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My noble friend clearly agrees about the importance of a healthy and vibrant World Service. In February, Peter Horrocks, the director of the service, told the Foreign Affairs Committee of ambitious plans to extend the service it offers. He said:
“We are launching and creating many new digital and TV services”,
including a Burmese TV service. Does my noble friend think that, from a practical perspective, this very important long-term planning must be extremely hard for a corporation that does not know what its funding is going to be in 14 months’ time? How can the FCO help the charter review process ensure that the BBC World Service does not face a diminished future?
Baroness Warsi
Perhaps I may refer my noble friend to the way that I answered this question before. This matter was dealt with as part of the spending review in 2010. It was felt that the licence fee funding footing on which the BBC was placed was the appropriate way forward. The noble Baroness is right to refer to the opening of services such as the Burmese television service at the beginning of 2014—and services have been closed in the years preceding that. These are the managerial and editorial decisions that the BBC has to take.
Banks: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
Lord Sharkey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage banks to refer small and medium-sized enterprises which apply unsuccessfully for credit to other sources of credit.
Lord Popat (Con)
My Lords, banks are focal points for small businesses seeking finance and the Government want to see them do more in response to client applications. In December 2013, we published Small Business: GREAT Ambition, in which we committed to work with the banks and the BBA to improve the referral by the end of this year. The Government are determined to make real progress on this matter and are considering all possible options.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
Only yesterday the OFT raised a concern that the big banks were hindering access to alternative forms of financing such as peer-to-peer lending. For existing and new referral schemes, we need to know exactly what the banks are up to and what they are doing. Can the Minister assure the House that all referral schemes will require the banks to publish meaningful data, as they do now for lending?
Lord Popat
The noble Lord makes an important point and I pay tribute to the work he has done on driving greater transparency in local lending. An effective referral system needs to be transparent to build trust among businesses and alternative finance providers. I welcome the recent comments made to the Treasury Select Committee by the independent external reviewer of the banking appeals process, Professor Russel Griggs. He agreed that more could usefully be done to integrate banks in terms of the outcome of referrals and on signposting processes.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, why do the Government not do more to use the leverage that they have over Lloyds Bank and RBS to require the management of those two banks, at any rate, to focus more on the interests of the economy and society and less on feathering their own nests?
Lord Popat
My Lords, the taxpayer had to bail out both RBS and Lloyds Bank under the previous Government and we continue to pay for the mistakes of the past. Both banks are now becoming smaller and safer, but there is a long way to go. Since the launch of the Funding for Lending scheme, RBS and Lloyds Bank are now both lending more money to our SMEs.
Lord Mitchell (Lab)
My Lords, despite what the Minister says, the latest Funding for Lending figures are yet again down on what they were previously, and the high street banks are just not playing their part. Does the Minister agree that peer-to-peer lenders are in many cases much better able to serve small businesses and should receive even greater government assistance?
Lord Popat
My Lords, gross lending has gone up by 16% over the past 12 months. We intend to lend £4 billion per month compared with around £3.1 billion this time last year. We encourage peer-to-peer lending and more is happening in the area. One of the reasons that net lending might have dropped, which is probably the gist of the noble Lord’s question, is that a large number of businesses are either repaying or going for alternative financing, including factoring, leasing and hire purchase. There are also a number of schemes from the British Business Bank.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, debt is not always the safest way for small firms to finance their expansion. Does my noble friend agree that encouraging smaller firms to look at equity financing may be the sensible way forward?
Lord Popat
I agree with my noble friend. We now have three different schemes for equity financing within the British Business Bank.
Lord Cotter (LD)
My noble friend has just said that, following the consultation, the Government will look at all options. Does this include the previous commitment to producing legislation to address this very serious issue of funding for small businesses and others?
Lord Popat
My Lords, as I said, we are looking at all the options. If the need arises because we are not successful by the end of 2014, I am sure that the department will look at maybe coming up with some sort of legislation to see what we can do to make the banks more transparent.
Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)
My Lords, the consistent lament for the past eight years from both the political and business communities has been that banks are not lending to SMEs and that there is less competition and innovation today in the banking sector. The OFT stated yesterday that there are competition concerns in this vital driver for the economy. Can the Minister ensure that the new competition authority will undertake a full investigation forthwith into this issue, which has been an impediment to the economic progress of this country for the past eight to 10 years?
Lord Popat
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very important point. One way to solve the problem we have with SME lending is to bring in more competition. We are spinning out Williams and Glyn’s from the Royal Bank of Scotland and TSB from Lloyds Bank. The regulators have relaxed the regulations to issue new banking licences, and I am pleased to say that we have 21 applications in place. We have launched the British Business Bank. More competition will solve some of the problems, and of course more lending to our businesses will help the economy.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, along with equity funding, the hedge funds and equity funds are doing the work of the banks to some extent. Is the Minister satisfied that they are being properly regulated in doing this work?
Lord Popat
My Lords, equity funding is within the government department and is currently being consolidated with the British Business Bank, which will obviously be regulated in its equity funding. So will the FCA.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the growing volume of funds being raised under the EIS scheme, which roughly doubled in 2011-12 and look as if they will double again when the figures come through for 2012-13? The Government made improvements to the scheme on coming into office, but it has prospered through both Labour and Conservative Administrations and is now a key source of equity money for small businesses.
Lord Popat
My noble friend makes another very important point. The scheme is a key source for equity lending. We also now have what we call the business growth fund, which was launched very recently by the five clearing banks to help mid-sized businesses in the UK by lending money in return for equity.
Scottish Independence: Currency Union
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have made any assessment of the constitutional, political, financial and economic implications if there were to be a currency union between an independent Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom; and, if so, whether they intend to publish it.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government assessed these issues in the recent paper Scotland Analysis: Assessment of a Sterling Currency Union. This is the analytical basis on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he could not recommend that the other parts of the UK share the pound with an independent Scottish state, because it would not be in the economic interests of either the continuing UK or of Scotland.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that the sure way for Scotland to keep the pound is to vote to stay in the UK, which I hope it will? If it were to vote to leave the UK and any future Westminster Government were ever to be minded to enter a currency union with Scotland—or, for that matter, with the eurozone—would that not require a referendum so that the people could decide?
Lord Newby
My Lords, before you got to that point, it would require the rest of the UK Government to wish to recommend such an outcome. It is worth quoting the conclusion of the official Treasury study, which says:
“On the basis of the scale of the challenges, and the Scottish Government’s proposals for addressing them, HM Treasury would advise the UK Government against entering into a currency union. There is no evidence that adequate proposals or policy changes to enable the formation of a durable currency union could be devised, agreed and implemented by both governments”.
As a result, I do not think we will get to that point.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that, in the event of there being a yes vote for independence, it is in the interests of business not only in Scotland but in the rest of the United Kingdom that there is a parity and stability of currency? How would the Government provide that?
Lord Newby
It is always in the interests of all Governments to have a stable currency. The question for the Scottish Government is how they think they would provide that. If they opted to keep the pound outside a currency union, they would face very serious problems in managing their budget and the economy of Scotland.
Lord Stephen (LD)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the position of the UK Government on this issue is now crystal clear, as indeed are the positions of the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats, and it is now for the Scottish Government and the SNP to do the explaining, as their policy position looks increasingly incredible, unclear and completely unconvincing?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I completely agree with my noble friend. It is highly irresponsible of the Scottish Government to have no plan B, when it has been made absolutely clear that the kind of currency union that they want is simply not on the cards. They have other interesting questions to answer in this respect. As the Governor of the Bank of England pointed out yesterday, Scotland, as a new EU applicant, would have to agree at some point to join the euro. I think at one point Mr Salmond was in favour of that; I am not so sure what his policy is on it now.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend not think it extraordinary that Alex Salmond has had 40 years to think about how to answer this question and is unable to do so? Furthermore, does my noble friend not think that this is the height of irresponsibility, given that we are not discussing some abstract economic concept here, we are talking about the amount that people will have to pay on their mortgages and the future of Scotland’s families? What advice would he give to the leader of the Scottish separatists at this point?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I have many burdens in your Lordships’ House but, fortunately, advising the leader of the Scottish National Party is not one of them. I will point out, however, that on all the available analysis, the likelihood is that were Scotland to adopt the pound, the interest rates that would be payable in Scotland would be significantly higher than they are here—possibly up to 1.65% higher. For an average Scottish mortgage holder, that works out as an extra £1,700 to pay.
Lord Martin of Springburn (CB)
My Lords, many people in Scotland, including myself, appreciate the fact that UK Ministers have come forward and explained the difficulties of separation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is one of them. It is a nonsense for the First Minister to say that whenever a UK Minister comes forward to talk about the difficulties, that is bullying and bluffing. I say to the noble Lord from Plaid Cymru that the worst thing that could happen is to say to the Scottish people, “Vote yes and the following morning we will do a deal with the Chancellor of the Exchequer because he is only bluffing”. That is absolute nonsense and it shows the type of irresponsibility that exists within the Scottish Government.
Lord Newby
My Lords, one thing I find slightly surprising, at a bit of a distance from this debate, is that any aspect of independence that is tricky seems to be met by the response from the Scottish First Minister that, “No, it’s not tricky. Don’t worry, it’ll be fine”—often with zero evidence to back it up. I hope that colleagues in my party and other parties in Scotland will carry on pointing out to the Scottish people the hollowness of many of his assertions.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, the establishment of a single currency between a separate Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom would require negotiations with a trusted partner. There would be great difficulty in trusting Mr Salmond, the First Minister, who only last year described the pound as a millstone around Scotland’s neck. Where is the trusted partner there?
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, at what point will Her Majesty’s Government assess the amount of trade in goods and services from the rest of the United Kingdom into Scotland? Will they also look at the trade between Scotland and the rest of the UK?
Lord Newby
Yes, my Lords. Proportionately, the amount of trade from Scotland to the rest of the UK is much greater than it is from the rest of the UK to Scotland. About 70% of Scotland’s trade is to the rest of the UK and only about 10% of the rest of the UK’s trade is to Scotland. There is therefore a big imbalance in the importance to the two parties of the trade between them.
Justice: Academic Research on Jury Decision-making
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blair of Boughton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to reconsider the ban on academic research into the process of decision-making by juries in criminal trials under Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. At the same time, I should make clear to the House that this Question is not topical, as would be normal for a fourth Question on a Wednesday, and it is not connected to any verdict in any recent trial.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, it is the Government’s general position that juror deliberations should be confidential. The noble Lord will know that the Law Commission’s recent report, published in December last year, Contempt of Court (1): Juror Misconduct and Internet Publications, recommends a limited exception to the general prohibition to allow for academic research. The Government are considering that recommendation and will respond in due course.
Lord Blair of Boughton
I am grateful to the Minister for that considered reply. However, it is a fact that this provision in the Contempt of Court Act 1981 was not aimed at academic research but has had the effect of stifling it. We simply do not know how juries work. We have no objective or academic window into these rooms. Lord Devlin described juries as,
“the lamp that shows that freedom lives”.
If so, it is a lamp which is certainly being kept under a bushel. Is the Minister aware of any other area of public policy and expenditure in relation to which objective and academic-based research is illegal? If he is not, does he agree with me that, more than 30 years on from that Act, it must be possible in the internet age to design research that anonymises individual jurors and verdicts, and that it is now time to reconsider this legislation fully?
Lord Faulks
My Lords, at the present time, any researcher into this area has to obtain authorisation sponsorship from HM Courts & Tribunals Service and then apply to the data access panel, whereafter various safeguards, including anonymity and safeguards to ensure that the conviction or the innocence of a particular defendant is not called into question, will be made part of that condition. There is research. For example, Professor Cheryl Thomas has provided valuable research on this issue.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
The Minister has referred to Professor Cheryl Thomas of UCL, who produced a report for the MoJ in 2010, Are Juries Fair? One of her findings through talking to 797 jurors was that only 31% of them understood the directions in law that the judge was giving to them at the end of the trial. She recommended that, in every case, written direction should be given by the judge to the jury. Has that been carried out?
Lord Faulks
Directions to the jury are a matter for the judge in the individual case. Judges are making ever more use of written directions, particularly in difficult cases. Very often, they will provide a direction having heard submissions from both prosecution and defence counsel so that they can arrive at an agreed direction. They will give the direction orally and then again in writing. In simple cases, that may not be necessary, but in other cases it is clearly desirable.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that academic research of this kind has been permitted in New Zealand for at least 20 years and the product of that research is in the public domain? Its system of justice is very similar to ours. Does the Minister think that we might have something to learn from its experience?
Lord Faulks
In answer to the first Question, I indicated that the Ministry of Justice is considering the Law Commission’s recommendation and will of course bear in mind what is said there. The safeguards identified in that report are the same safeguards as exist at the moment. We remain open to persuasion. A Bill will in due course be coming to your Lordships’ House containing various provisions about juries. It is possible that there may be some amendment to that effect.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, in addition to the recommendations about research, the Law Commission has proposed the creation of some new offences that apply to juries in the light of current developments, particularly in technology, and that better guidance be given, not merely in the form referred to in the question of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. Are the Government in a position to respond to them, and to the recent suggestion by the Lord Chief Justice that in serious fraud cases, for example, a different method might be instituted which would mean that juries would not try such cases?
Lord Faulks
As to the latter question, as the noble Lord will know, that is no new suggestion. It dates back as long ago as when the Roskill commission made suggestions to that effect. There are no current plans to remove trial by jury. As to other changes in the jury system and legislating to that effect, the noble Lord may be aware that there are provisions in Part 3 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill dealing with, among other things, questions of electronic communication devices and the restriction on them and the restriction on jurors using the internet to obtain information during the course of the trial, which can of course compromise a fair trial, which is in no one’s interest.
Lord Taverne (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that the legal profession has traditionally been very conservative about certain changes? When, in the 1960s, I was a Home Office Minister and we introduced majority verdicts, the general view of the Bar was that the sky would fall and that that would be the end of justice as we knew it. More recently, it has been accepted that that is one of the most important changes that has taken place. Is it not highly desirable that we should know how juries proceed and work, based not on anecdotal evidence but on solid evidence of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Blair, described? That is obviously in the interests of justice.
Lord Faulks
I have considerable sympathy with what my noble friend says. He will probably be familiar with Professor Cheryl Thomas’s work in which, despite certain doubts about the ability of some jurors to reach reasoned decisions, she remains a considerable enthusiast for the jury system. I accept that no system of trial should be beyond research or examination.
Pensions Bill
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Pensions Bill, has consented to place her interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Clause 23: Amendments
Amendment 1
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“( ) Before the provisions contained in paragraphs 88 to 91 of Schedule 12 come into effect the Secretary of State shall report to Parliament on alternative arrangements for access to the Cold Weather Payments programme and the Warm Home Discount Scheme currently available to recipients of pension credit.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Freud, for facilitating discussion on this amendment at Third Reading. It should normally have been dispatched earlier in our proceedings.
The amendment is very straightforward and calls for a report to Parliament on alternative arrangements for accessing cold weather payments and the warm home discount scheme currently available to recipients of pension credit. I seek an explanation of what is to happen to those who reach state pension age on or after 6 April 2016 because, for such individuals, the savings credit is abolished and some will see the substitution of a single-tier pension for an income which is currently topped up by the guaranteed credit.
Receipt of one or both of those elements is currently a passport to cold weather payments. There is of course a range of other benefits to which pension credit is currently the passport, but there are generally other routes to those benefits, typically on low-income grounds. This raises issues for those of working age of how low income is to be determined under universal credit, but these are matters for another day. This amendment deals in the first part only with cold weather payments.
At present, cold weather payments are payable when the temperature in an area is recorded or forecast to be at or below zero degrees for seven consecutive days—one hopes, behind us for this year. It depends on temperatures recorded at individual weather stations. The current level of payment for eligible recipients is £25 per week. Payments are part of the regulated Social Fund. Eligibility for working-age claimants is dependent on them being subject to income-related income support, JSA and ESA where there is a disability component or where such a claimant is responsible for a young child or getting child tax credit that includes a disability element. Obviously, the position of working-age claimants is not generally affected by the Bill, although the Minister could just take the opportunity to say how eligibility will work for those in receipt of universal credit.
As I have said, the Bill affects those reaching state pension age on or after 6 April 2016. It does so because the savings credit is removed from that date, and for some the single-tier pension will be sufficient to obviate the need to access the guarantee credit. Our briefing note suggests that by 2021 the pension credit caseload will be some 80,000 fewer than would have been the position under the current system, with 20,000 of these previously entitled to guarantee credit and 60,000 entitled only to the savings credit. Over time, these numbers will increase.
Of course that does not necessarily mean that all these would be missing out on cold weather payments. It depends on where they live and the incidence of cold weather. Our briefing note suggests that initially the Government’s saving would be around £2 million per year if those notionally missing out in this way were not to be somehow brought back into the system, but this saving would increase in nominal terms over time as more and more individuals retired into the new system. In the scheme of things these are modest amounts, but nevertheless they are literally a lifeline to some.
The impact assessment of the Bill says:
“Under the single tier, eligibility for Pension Credit is halved compared to the current system in the first few years following implementation, and ultimately falls to around five per cent by 2060 … Ending Savings Credit for single-tier pensioners is the main driver of the reduction in the number of people qualifying for Pension Credit, although there is also a reduction in the proportion of pensioners eligible for Guarantee Credit. The reduction in the numbers within scope of the Guarantee Credit is the result of most single-tier pensioners under the single tier having a state pension above the level of the Standard Minimum Guarantee”.
I invite the Government to say whether, and if so how, they propose to retain access to cold weather payments for those who notionally miss out in this manner.
In similar vein, the amendment calls on the Government to report on future access to the warm home discount scheme. This is a rebate scheme, worth £135 per annum, given by suppliers to vulnerable and low-income households as a deduction from their electricity bills. It is available to two groups: the core group and a broader group. The qualifications for the core group are statutory obligations and suppliers must provide the rebate to all who qualify. Suppliers have more flexibility about who qualifies for assistance under the broader group. For the core group, eligibility is dependent on receipt of the guarantee credit.
It is accepted that the current regulations for this programme cease in April 2015, although the Government have rightly signalled their intention to extend the scheme. I acknowledge receipt of a letter on Monday from the Minister’s colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, following some amendment regulations that were discussed in the Moses Room last week. This signals an intent to consult in the spring on an extended scheme, taking account of the changes to the welfare system.
Lord German (LD)
I shall say a few words about the two issues raised by this amendment. They are important issues, albeit for a small number of beneficiaries, although that number will increase over time, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has just said. It strikes me that because of the loss of one part of pension credit, the part that gives this passported benefit for cold weather payments, the Government presumably have to have something in place to ensure that people are in receipt of that payment. Will my noble friend reassure the House that it is not the intention that eligibility for cold weather payments will be reduced so that only a few will be able to receive them for the very important purpose for which they are drawn? Can he tell us about the fuel poverty strategy which I understand the Government are consulting on and whether these issues are rightfully the sorts of issues which could be debated and discussed during the consultation? If that is the case, there is clearly a route forward, but I seek reassurance from my noble friend that both these schemes are intended to continue and that their purpose and scope will not be diminished.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendment 1 which is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton. My noble friend has been like a terrier chasing the Minister on the subject of passported benefits and payments. The Minister may have thought he had shaken him off as he left the Moses Room at the end of the Committee stage, but I am sure he knew better. Indeed, it is to the Minister’s credit that he was content to return to this subject at Third Reading, knowing that he would face the onslaught of yet more gentle but expert and determined questioning from my noble friend Lord McKenzie.
I express my appreciation to the Minister for allowing his officials to brief us and to his officials for giving us for the first time a detailed list of all the benefits that are being passported from pension credit. However, that left some clear question marks about the future strategy for passported benefits. If the Minister is in a position to tell us where the Government’s forward plans are taking them, not just on these two, but on any of the other benefits that are not clearly passported from pension credit, I think the House would appreciate that.
My noble friend has set out the case characteristically clearly, and I need add little to it, but the House and the country will want to hear the Minister answer the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord German. We want to be satisfied that people will not lose out and that there is an alternative plan for arrangements to replace the passporting of cold weather payments and access to the warm home discount scheme.
The point made by my noble friend Lord McKenzie about the role of rising energy prices in the cost of living crisis is visible to all noble Lords at the moment. This is a particular issue in relation to these two benefits in parts of the country that obviously suffer from lower temperatures. I should perhaps declare an interest as a resident of Durham where, despite the fact that we have a world heritage site and much to commend us, with lower rainfall on average, even I have to confess that our temperatures are on average perhaps a whisker below those on the tropical Riviera of Cornwall. On the other hand, this will not affect me until I reach state pension age and that is receding ahead of me at some rate, so perhaps no declaration of interest is needed.
The Government have indicated that they propose to introduce the new single-tier pension above the current level of the guarantee credit in pension credit. But it is clear that that could come in at just a shade above. If Ministers want to carry on asserting that reducing means-testing is an important part of these pension reforms, then they have to have a strategy on passporting—otherwise they will end up with the kind of cliff-edges which anyone who worries about means-testing will know can really be a trap for the unwary.
Maybe the Government have had the opportunity since Report stage to think through how this will be taken forward and can give the House the kind of assurances that have been sought by both noble Lords who have spoken. If they have not, which I will understand, I very much hope that the Minister can accept the amendment. Parliament has a right to know what will happen to these payments, and by the time we get regulations it will be too late. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss the amendment, which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was understandably unable to move on Report. I hope that I will be able to offer him some reassurance about the current arrangements and the further work that we are planning.
As noble Lords will be aware, pension credit acts as a passport to a number of other benefits, most of which are linked to an individual being in receipt of the guarantee credit element. That element will continue to be available for the poorest, whether they reach state pension age before or after the introduction of the single-tier pension, and will continue to act as a passport to cold weather payments.
I also remind noble Lords that the single-tier pension itself promotes savings, removing the need for savings credit. The full single tier will be set above the level of the basic means test, removing the current problem whereby the state pension has not kept pace with the means test and therefore the need for a complex reward system. Together with other reforms to the pension system over time, the poorest pensioners are also the most likely to have higher incomes than they would have done if the current system had been rolled forward.
While I understand concerns about knock-on effects for vulnerable pensioners, there is actually relatively little in the pensioner welfare system that depends entirely on receipt of pension credit. For example, housing benefit and council tax reductions can already be claimed on low-income grounds, regardless of receipt of pension credit, and this will continue. Other benefits such as free television licences and travel concessions can be claimed on the grounds of age. The only significant benefits that are truly passported from pension credit are cold weather payments and the warm home discount scheme.
Cold weather payments, as noble Lords are of course aware, provide help with the additional costs of heating during periods of severe weather. The scheme runs from 1 November to 31 March each winter. A payment of £25 is made to someone when the average temperature has been recorded as, or is forecast to be, zero degrees or below over seven consecutive days at the weather station linked to their postcode. In some winters there are relatively few triggers, in some years there are many triggers; in fact, there have been very few indeed this year.
Cold weather payments are made to people who receive certain income-related benefits and satisfy the eligibility conditions set out in the Social Fund Cold Weather Payments (General) Regulations 1988. All those who receive pension credit are eligible, whether they receive the guarantee credit or the savings credit element, or both.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about universal credit. Those eligible for cold weather payments are those who are not employed or self-employed and they or their partner receive either a limited capability for work element or a limited capability for work element with a work-related activity element, or who receive a disabled child element within their assessment, or who have a child under the age of five years in the family. Universal credit recipients who are employed or self-employed will be eligible for cold weather payments only if they have a disabled child in the family.
Our predicted expenditure on cold weather payments is based on the average number of payments over the past 10 years. On that basis, while we cannot predict the actual impacts, we might expect around £2 million to have been spent in 2020 on cold weather payments for people who would have received pension credit under the current system, but who would not under the single -tier system. That is based on our calculation of 20,000 single-tier pensioners being raised above the standard minimum guarantee, and 60,000 who would have been entitled to a savings credit under the pre-single tier system.
That expenditure is of course by no means certain, which is why we have not assumed any savings from cold weather payments as a result of the Bill. However, we are not complacent about that issue and that group of people. That is why we are already considering ways in which it might be possible to identify, for cold weather payment purposes, single-tier pensioners whose income will be above but close to the level of the standard minimum guarantee.
In response to the question from my noble friend Lord German, I can reassure the House that it is not our intention to reduce eligibility.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, also asked about the warm home discount scheme. That is a rebate on electricity bills for pensioners aged 75 or over who receive the guarantee credit in pension credit, and for pensioners under 75 who receive the guarantee credit without a savings credit. From 2014-15 it will be extended to all pensioners receiving the guarantee credit. Rebates may also be available for a broader group including those in receipt of the savings credit as well as certain other groups below pension age, but those broader group rebates are subject to a cash limit and to the policies of individual suppliers, as agreed with Ofgem. We have committed to extending the warm home discount scheme into 2015-16, but we have not made plans for 2016-17 and beyond.
On the question asked by the noble Lord about discussions with electricity suppliers, that will be part of the consultation in the spring on extending support for the core group. Access to cold weather payments and the future of the warm home discount scheme are part of a broader set of issues around targeting spending to combat fuel poverty among older people. As I said, we will consult later in the spring on a new fuel poverty strategy, which will include the question of reducing fuel costs for those pensioners in the second income quintile, which is where savings credit recipients are clustered.
For single-tier cohorts, it will not be possible to identify exactly which household might have been entitled to a savings credit without retaining the savings credit assessment itself. We are assessing the cost and capacity issues of doing that, as well as the trade-off for intrusion into pensioner households. However, the department’s initial assessment is that there are likely to be better and more cost-effective ways of reducing fuel costs for that group, especially by using recently developed datasets that allow us to identify poorly insulated homes and the characteristics of the households living there, with a view to making infrastructural as well as cash interventions.
I can reassure noble Lords that cold weather payments and the warm home discount scheme are an important part of our fuel poverty strategy, and major components of our work to improve the well-being of older people. However, that is a separate issue from promoting savings through pension reform, and we are not wedded to particular ways of meshing the two together.
On the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on our passporting strategy, we will continue to use a mixture of age, low-income and passporting from means-tested benefits to target different benefits and services to different groups. I understand the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and I hope that I have been able to provide him with reassurances.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
I am slightly puzzled, but I think that the Minister is saying that if you could devise a way in which to find out that those who are on the new state single pension were in the very bottom decile, that or a similar group would be an appropriate one to be eligible for a cold weather payment, because it would be the group that under the previous regime would have got pension credit. I would have thought that anyone getting the new single state pension without any other supplementary income coming their way, whether through savings or an occupational pension, would, in the past, have automatically qualified for pension credit—in which case, he already has his population.
Lord Freud
I am always grateful to the noble Baroness when she comes up with solutions for us, and I can see her yearning to be on this side—perhaps not in this particular coalition but in this particular ministry—sorting out these issues. She has gone to the issue of what the best way might be in which to help this group, which, clearly, we will look at precisely when we consider that matter. I shall pass on her thoughts to the consultation in the hope that it will speed it up.
As I say, we will consult on our strategy, and that will cover the two schemes referred to in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, as well as broader approaches to combating and preventing fuel poverty, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, indicated. On that basis, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I certainly intend to withdraw the amendment. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Sherlock for her support and for raising the wider issue of the impact of the new pension arrangements on passporting. I am grateful, too, to the noble Lord, Lord German, for probing the same points in seeking reassurance on the continuation of the cold weather payment scheme and the warm homes discount scheme. I am grateful, as ever, to my noble friend Lady Hollis for providing a solution to the Minister.
I took comfort from what the Minister said, but I would like to read the record on precisely where he has ended up in looking at some sort of definition of low income—whether it is somebody just on the basic single -tier pension—and at a broader review of fuel poverty strategy. I am confident that there will be an opportunity going forward to address and, I hope, influence those issues. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Freud
Lord Freud
My Lords, in moving Amendment 2, I shall speak also to government Amendments 3, 4 and 5.
As I have said in previous debates, the Government are committed to ensuring that costs and charges in defined contribution workplace pension schemes are made as transparent as possible. This is one part of the programme to ensure that consumers, especially those who are automatically enrolled, receive value for money from their pension savings. The full programme of measures will be published soon.
These amendments build on those made on Report to require regulations to be made providing for the disclosure of transaction costs. Following the points raised by my noble friend Lord Lawson during that discussion, I agreed to consider how to make explicit the Government’s commitment to publishing the information on transaction costs. I am pleased to say that these amendments would require the information about costs and charges to be made publicly available. We will have further work to do to establish the best way to enable this publication, not least to ensure that we do so in a way that allows for meaningful and helpful comparisons. However, I can confirm that we will work to achieve publication in a way that enables scrutiny and comparison by any interested member of the public.
As noble Lords have said in previous debates, it is clear that for disclosure of information on costs and charges to be meaningful the full range of costs and charges that may be borne by members must be made transparent, and that this must be done in a way that enables scrutiny of the total amount that may be deducted from an individual’s pension pot. It is particularly vital that those with a fiduciary duty—namely, the trustees and independent governance committees who will have a role in representing members’ interests—can see both itemised and total costs and charges borne by members.
As I assured the House in our previous discussion on this matter, the “some or all” formulation in the drafting of this provision has been used to future-proof the legislation and provide flexibility to amend it as new types of cost and charge become apparent over time. This flexibility, and our existing powers to require disclosure of information, will enable us to provide for full transparency of all pension scheme costs and charges.
These amendments also make a technical change to this provision since the issue was last considered by noble Lords. The amendments now place a corresponding duty on the Financial Conduct Authority to that which we have placed on the Secretary of State. In this way, it provides a better fit with the shared approach to regulation of pensions that exists between the Pensions Regulator and the Financial Conduct Authority. It provides for regulations and rules to be made that apply in a consistent way across both trust and contract-based provision. The duty on the Financial Conduct Authority mirrors the duty on the Secretary of State requiring both disclosure and publication of information about costs.
These duties apply only to defined contribution schemes. As I touched on in our latest discussion on this subject, this is narrower than the provision of our existing power. This focus reflects the Government’s concerns about the failures in the defined contribution workplace pensions market that have been identified by the Office of Fair Trading. The nature of defined benefit schemes means that members are effectively shielded from the impact of costs and charges. As for employers and trustees, both have a keen interest and ability to achieve value for money in the administration and governance of their schemes.
However, as I said during our debate on Report, the Government do have the power to require transparency of costs and charges in defined benefit as well as defined contribution schemes, and I indicated that we would continue to consider whether this is necessary. Having begun to consider the question, we think that it merits further examination and consultation with a range of interested parties. It may be that such a measure would enable trustees of defined benefit schemes to better discharge their fiduciary duties.
We will formally consult before making regulations for disclosure of information about costs and charges in defined contribution schemes. When we carry out that consultation, we will also examine whether some form of disclosure requirements should be extended to defined benefit schemes.
As I have said previously, this Government are committed to ensuring that consumers receive value for money from their pension savings and we will publish our full programme of measures soon. I am pleased that these amendments build on the commitments made on Report and will ensure there is full transparency and publication of costs and charges. I beg to move Amendment 2.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, I need not detain the House long because, I am glad to say, my noble friend the Minister has met pretty well in full the points that we made at earlier stages of the Bill. I am extremely grateful to him for that. There is a real mischief in the huge range of costs which bear no relation whatever to investment performance incurred in different pension schemes. It has always been known, but it was documented fully by the Pensions Commission some time back. That we have been able to improve the Bill in this way is a tribute to this House, but particularly to my noble friend the Minister, who has listened carefully, accepted the need to deal with that mischief, and put forward a practical and sensible way of doing it.
There is only one loose end, and although the Minister dealt with it I would like to spend a minute or two on it. The amendment says “some or all” costs, but that is purely a legal technicality and in fact it means all costs, itemised. That is the firm intention. They will be published generally, not just given to the members of the schemes, so that all can see. However, as the Minister said, the provision deals exclusively with defined contribution schemes and not with defined benefit schemes. I understand his reason for that—because it is only in the defined contribution schemes that pensioners are, in effect, from time to time ripped off by investment managers who charge far too much in the way of costs. There are five times as many people in defined benefit schemes as in defined contribution schemes, however, and the money in defined benefit schemes is well over £1 trillion.
Of course, if the same kind of ripping off goes on—obviously it does; there is no difference in the investment manager’s behaviour from one to the other—it is not a victimless crime. The pensioners may not be the victims, but the shareholders in the companies certainly are. The Government cannot desire to see shareholders ripped off when it can so easily be prevented by extending to defined benefit schemes the disclosure and transparency requirements that the Minister will put in place for defined contribution schemes. He says that he will consult on that. I am delighted to hear it, but I very much hope that the result of the consultation will be to require the same disclosure and transparency for defined benefit schemes as for defined contribution schemes.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the area: I am a trustee of the Santander and Telefónica pension schemes, and a member of the NAPF Pension Quality Mark board. As no doubt other noble Lords here today are, I am concerned to understand the extent to which Amendments 2 to 5 provide for full transparency on transaction costs and deliver on the assurances that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, gave on Report. I would therefore like to ask the Minister several questions.
The Minister confirmed that the Secretary of State would be divested of the power to set the requirements for securing transparency of transaction costs in relation to money purchase personal pension schemes, by giving that responsibility to the FCA. As he said, the amendment does not extend the existing powers of the FCA but imposes a duty on it to make rules on the disclosure of information, following consultation with the Secretary of State and the Treasury, to ensure consistency between FCA rules and the regulations made by the Secretary of State. If the FCA response to that consultation is not considered adequate in achieving such consistency, which Minister will be responsible for ensuring that the FCA fulfils its duty in that regard, and with which powers?
There will no doubt be much consultation and lobbying prior to regulations and rules being set, and no doubt various interests will be brought to bear in those considerations. However, does the Minister agree that the draft statement of recommended practice put forward by the Investment Management Association to the FCA does not provide a sufficient set of requirements for full reporting on transaction costs by investment managers?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of my registered interest as a non-executive director of the Financial Ombudsman Service.
I thank the Minister for explaining his amendments and all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate for their insights. On Report the Government were understandably worried by the alliance building up between the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, and my noble friend Lord Browne, who regrets that he is unable to be here as a result of the date of Third Reading being moved. In order to head off a possible defeat, the Minister made a speech offering strong reassurances. It is against those reassurances that the House should judge the amendments that the Government have brought forward today. Let us remind ourselves what those reassurances were.
The Government were keen to assure the House that whatever their amendment said, their intention was that all costs would be covered by their proposals. On 26 February, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, told the House:
“We are looking for transparency on all charges. We are looking to ensure that that is published”.
He reinforced that point today. I think that I heard him say that there will be full transparency on all costs and charges.
My noble friend Lord Browne then intervened on Report to seek clarification on how transparency would be handled in relation to transaction costs, since it seemed that the Government were proposing to exempt areas where there were existing FCA rules in relation to transparency. The existing FCA rules on transparency exempt transaction costs, he noted, so how would the transaction costs in such cases be dealt with? The Minister replied:
“I am putting it on the record that we will aim to capture all costs, including all transaction costs”.
A little later, he went on to say:
“It is not to do with the EU”.—[Official Report, 26/2/14; cols. 967-68.]
What could be clearer? However, the current government amendments give the Secretary of State the responsibility for regulating disclosure of charges only for occupational schemes, leaving it to the FCA to do so for money purchase schemes.
Therefore, the first and most obvious question to the Minister, touched on by my noble friend Lady Drake, is: why is the Secretary of State divesting himself of the power to set the requirements for securing transparency of transaction costs in relation to money purchase personal pension schemes by giving the responsibility for the requirements on disclosure of information to the FCA?
Secondly, Amendment 3 has the effect of explicitly excluding defined benefit schemes from the regulations on the publication of costs and charges, and the Minister gave some indication of the Government’s thinking on that. However, I was very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, raised the questions that he did, supported by my noble friend Lady Drake, because this is indeed not a victimless area. Not only are there costs to the companies that are the employers but there are potential risks to the sustainability of the pension schemes if employers find themselves carrying unreasonable and unnecessary levels of cost. It must be remembered that there are employers who may be well equipped to understand and challenge the nature of the charging structure but there are many others who are not, and they deserve protection as well. Perhaps the Government could explain some more about that. In particular, can the Minister tell the House what the timescale will be for this consultation and, if the Government decide to bring forward regulations, when the House may expect to hear more about that?
My noble friend Lady Drake then raised a series of important questions regarding what this dual regulatory regime will mean in practice, given that the FCA currently does not require transaction costs to be published for DC pensions. Amendment 4 makes it clear that the FCA must consult the Treasury and the Secretary of State before making rules about the disclosure of costs. The supplementary memorandum from the DWP to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the Bill reminds us that Section 138(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, known as FiSMA, requires the FCA also to consult the Prudential Regulation Authority before making rules and then to publish those rules in draft, to seek representations and not to make rules without having regard to those representations.
Therefore, the Minister is left with the crucial question from my noble friend Lady Drake as to the extent to which the PRA’s concern for the sustainability of financial services companies may constrain the Government’s apparent desire for the FCA to make rules to ensure disclosure of all transaction costs, as again promised by the Minister today. What happens if the Secretary of State believes that the decisions that the FCA takes in this respect are not properly aligned with his or her own decisions on transparency in relation to occupational schemes? As my noble friend asked: what happens then?
Finally, there is the interesting question of the role of the EU. The Minister has said clearly that this is not a matter for the EU but my noble friend has sought clarification. I certainly understand that the publication of transaction costs with respect to retail products is covered by EU rules but that the publication of transaction costs with respect to workplace pensions is not, and I look forward to the Minister confirming that. However, one hears that EU rules may or may not lead to increased transparency of all transaction costs some time after 2016. I should like to test the Minister. Does he think that it would be acceptable if the FCA decided not to do anything about transaction costs but simply to await the decision of the EU? One assumes not, as not only would that not seem to chime with the Government’s general rhetoric about ceding powers to Europe but it is hard to see that the Minister’s words to the House on Report would imply that level of uncertainty, since he made it clear that it was nothing to do with the EU.
In the end, it is up to this House to decide whether it believes that the government amendments brought forward today have the ability to honour the cheque that they wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, on Report. The Opposition are not, as yet, persuaded. However, it is for the Minister to tell the House how precisely he can guarantee to deliver on the assurance that the Government will capture all costs and charges and, crucially, by what date that will happen.
Finally, and even more importantly, there remains the unresolved issue of a cap on charges. In his extremely impressive speech when we debated these matters on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Turner, put the matter succinctly when he said:
“I do not think that transparency is an alternative to a charge cap”.—[Official Report, 26/2/14; col. 966.]
Nor do I. If the Government really have the interests of consumers at heart, they will take much stronger action right now.
Lord Freud
My Lords, let me start by dealing with the question raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Sherlock, on the way in which the regulation works between two groups. The Pensions Regulator and the FCA work closely together to ensure that the regulatory frameworks for trust-based pensions under the regulator and contract-based pensions under the FCA are aligned and provide for a robust system of governance and fair treatment for members. The Government are not looking to change the current regulatory structure, as was confirmed in the DWP’s Triennial Review of Pensions Bodies, which was published in December 2013. Structuring the duties in this way is necessary to reflect the dual regulation structure and the fact that the FCA is an independent body in statute. Without this approach, there would be no duty on the FCA to make these rules.
In addition to their existing duties to consult, the amendments mean that both the Secretary of State and the FCA will be under statutory duties to consult one another in making regulations and rules, enabling us as far as possible to ensure consistency of approach with the rules following the regulations. There is absolute commitment from the Government and from the FCA to aim for consistency. The FCA would not propose to deviate from government regulations. The aim of a separate duty is not to provide room for inconsistency—far from it; it is about giving the FCA the flexibility that it needs to use its powers and expertise to respond as an independent regulator.
The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, raised a question on hybrid schemes. The regulations will be able to extend the disclosure rules to the DC element of hybrid schemes. The duty is in addition to the existing power in Section 113 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993.
The noble Baroness also raised a question on the relative position of the PRA—the prudential regulator—and the FCA. The FCA, as per its rules, will be consulting on the development of disclosure and requirements and will work closely with both Her Majesty’s Treasury and the PRA. Treasury Ministers are committed to strong disclosure of member-borne costs and believe that the FCA is best placed to make those rules.
On the question of the SORP code, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, the Government recognise industry initiatives to improve transparency of pension costs and charges, but as the OFT noted, such measures are voluntary and can be piecemeal. That is why the Government believe that transparency measures should be compulsory and standardised.
Baroness Drake
The Minister’s response on the SORP is helpful to a point. The Minister is making a distinction between a compulsory and a voluntary regime. My more detailed point was about the proposals as to what there should be transparency on, and the costs involved. I was asking whether the Minister could give an assurance that he accepts that the range of costs proposed in SORP would not be sufficient to meet a full transparency criterion.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I have not carried out a detailed analysis of the SORP code. I can assure the noble Baroness that, under the regulations and rules that we will now develop, we will capture all costs. To the extent that those are not in the SORP code, that would be a wider requirement.
On what will happen if the FCA rules are not found to be adequate, the Secretary of State retains the power in Section 113 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 to make regulations about both occupational and personal pension schemes disclosure.
On the timescale issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, assuming that this Bill receives Royal Assent, I believe that regulations will be brought forward later this year. The Government will consult on these regulations before they are laid. The Government’s proposals on charges, transparency and governance will be published soon. I have not changed the position on that after our rather enjoyable debate on the matter on Report.
Baroness Sherlock
Is the Minister saying that the Government propose to consult on whether DB schemes should be included and then publish a single set of regulations, or will they go ahead on the basis he has outlined and subsequently consult on DB?
Lord Freud
The DB element will be part of the consultation. Depending on that consultation, we will have to decide how to treat that particular aspect.
On the questions around the EU, clearly right now we are free to write these regulations and rules and there are no EU rules to hinder that. However, that might change in the future. One of the attractions of pulling the FCA into this process is that it has technical expertise in this area and is the body negotiating in Europe on relevant EU legislation. It is therefore best placed to work with DWP on determining how costs and charges can be defined, captured, measured and disclosed. By using its own rule-making power, the FCA may be able to respond quicker than the parliamentary process to changes in the market or from the EU.
I think I have dealt with all the issues.
Baroness Drake
I hope the Minister does not think I am being pushy, but this is probably the last chance we will have to question him on this before we complete this stage of the Bill. On the issue of EU regulations, the Minister has confirmed that at the moment there are no EU rules constraining the Government from pushing for full transparency on transaction costs. Hopefully, any product from the EU in favour of transparency would work to the Government’s remit. However, one of the underlying concerns is that the earliest there could be any impact from any change that comes out of the European Parliament and from the EU would be 2016, maybe later. People are looking for an assurance—I certainly was asking for one—that the FCA would fulfil its duty without being constrained to await the outcome of any EU discussions and would push ahead to an early timetable consistent with the spirit of the point the Minister made on Report.
Lord Freud
I am pleased to be able to confirm that it is not tied to the EU in any way. We will be pushing ahead with this at the speed I indicated, which is—
Lord Freud
I thank noble Lords for helping me with my vocabulary.
I should finish by thanking my noble friend Lord Lawson, whose help I found immensely useful in thinking through these issues and working out responses in what is actually quite a complicated environment, as I suspect noble Lords fully appreciate.
Lord Freud
“(6) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring the publication of information about—
(a) some or all of the transaction costs of a relevant scheme, and(b) some or all of the administration charges imposed on members of a relevant scheme.(7) Regulations under subsection (6) may require other relevant information to be published along with information about transaction costs or administration charges in relation to a scheme.
(8) “Other relevant information” means other information which would or may assist in making comparisons between those costs or charges and costs or charges in relation to other schemes.
(9) Before making regulations by virtue of subsection (5) or (6), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Financial Conduct Authority, and(b) the Treasury;(in addition to any other persons consulted in accordance with section 185(1)).(10) In this section—
“administration charge” has the meaning given by paragraph 1(5) of Schedule 18 to the Pensions Act 2014;
“relevant scheme” means a money purchase scheme that is an occupational pension scheme.””
“( ) In the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, after section 137F insert—
“137FA FCA general rules: disclosure of information about pension scheme transaction costs etc
(1) The FCA must make general rules requiring information about some or all of the transaction costs of a relevant scheme to be given to some or all of the persons mentioned in subsection (2).
(2) Those persons are—
(a) members of the scheme,(b) spouses or civil partners of members, and(c) persons within the application of the scheme and qualifying or prospectively qualifying for its benefits.(3) The FCA must make general rules requiring the publication of information about—
(a) some or all of the transaction costs of a relevant scheme, and(b) some or all of the administration charges imposed on members of a relevant scheme.(4) Rules made by virtue of subsection (3) may require other relevant information to be published along with information about transaction costs or administration charges in relation to a scheme.
(5) “Other relevant information” means other information which would or may assist in making comparisons between those costs or charges and costs or charges in relation to other schemes.
(6) Before the FCA publishes a draft of any rules to be made by virtue of this section, it must consult—
(a) the Secretary of State, and(b) the Treasury.(7) In determining what provision to include in the rules, the FCA must have regard to any regulations about the disclosure or publication of transaction costs or administration charges that are for the time being in force under section 113 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993.
(8) In this section—
“administration charge” has the meaning given by paragraph 1(5) of Schedule 18 to the Pensions Act 2014;
“money purchase scheme” has the meaning given by section 181(1) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993;
“personal pension scheme” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993;
“relevant scheme” means a money purchase scheme that is—
(a) a personal pension scheme where direct payment arrangements (within the meaning of section 111A of the Pension Schemes Act 1993) exist in respect of one or more members of the scheme who are workers, or(b) a personal pension scheme which is or has been registered under section 2 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (stakeholder pension schemes);“worker” means a person—
(a) who is a worker for the purposes of Part 1 of the Pensions Act 2008, or (b) to whom a provision of Part 1 of that Act applies as if the person were a worker because of a provision of Chapter 8 of that Part;but for the purposes of paragraph (b), ignore section 92 of that Act.””
Lord Freud
Lord Freud
My Lords, on Report I regrettably said that we had completed the legislation required to cover the change to the Pension Protection Fund compensation cap. Clearly, that was tempting fate because we have noticed that the wording in a particular place is not as clear as it could be, and this amendment addresses that. We made an amendment on Report to the PPF compensation cap measures setting out how the length of pensionable service should be determined for an individual who was a member of connected schemes; that is, for someone who was a member of a multi-employer scheme and who had worked for two or more of the companies attached to that scheme. That amendment allowed for the discrete periods of pensionable service to be added together. Crucially, if the person had worked for two employers at the same time—that is, the periods of employment overlapped—the amendment sought to prevent the overlapping period from being counted twice. Unfortunately, the wording of the amendment could be read as meaning that the period of overlap should not be counted at all. This would clearly not be right. This amendment therefore clarifies the wording to ensure it cannot be read in that manner. As a result, overlapping periods of employment will be counted correctly—in other words, once.
This is the final amendment to which I will speak and so before I sit down, I would like to take a moment to thank all those who have worked so hard on this Bill. Many colleagues across the House have contributed their time and substantial expertise to understanding and improving these landmark reforms. In particular, I am delighted that the Bill now contains measures that will help improve the retirement income of the spouses of service personnel. Preparing a Bill and supporting its passage through both Houses is a significant undertaking. This Bill contains a wide range of measures relating to state pensions, private pensions and bereavement benefits, and so has involved a large number of different policy teams. I estimate that close to 200 policy officials, analysts and lawyers have been involved. Many of them have been directly involved in attending briefing meetings or providing materials that have contributed to the excellent level of debate we have seen.
It has been especially gratifying to hear so many noble Lords mention the assistance of DWP officials in their speeches both in this Chamber and during Committee stage. It is a fitting tribute that their work is recognised in this way. I am grateful to them and to the excellent draftsmen in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel who have worked so hard on this Bill. The Bill team deserves a special mention and so I would like to take this opportunity to thank Rez Mossavat, Jo Foakes, Megan Rooney, Helen Kelly and the Bill manager, Michael Cordy, for all their work and support. With that, I beg to move.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on having spotted the error before Royal Assent and the Opposition have no problem with the amendment.
I, too, would like to take this opportunity to say a few words of thanks to my colleagues for all their wisdom and support. I thank especially my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton for doing so much work on this Bill and for being such a constant source of support. I would also very much like to thank the Minister for the way he has handled the Bill—for his openness and his willingness to engage with appeals from all parties and to share the information and knowledge of his department. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for adopting a similar style and for his engagement. I thank the officials, too, for their helpfulness and their willingness to answer so many questions—in my case, often very stupid ones, which they have answered with graciousness and lots of information. We have all very much appreciated that.
The Bill has benefited from scrutiny in this House and leaves this place a better Bill than when it arrived, as is so often the case. It is the first Bill I have taken all the way through from the Front Bench and I have learnt a great deal from noble Lords on all sides. I have been grateful for the kindness and indulgence of the House as I have learnt on the job—a sort of apprenticeship, as one might have it. As the Minister said, the Bill has now benefited not only from the one victory that the House scored on mini-jobs—we hope very much that the other end will see the wisdom of that but, if not, we stand by our beds awaiting its return should that prove necessary—but from concessions around things such as service wives, auto-enrolment and categories of employer, and in other ways as we have gone through it. I pass my thanks to all noble Lords who have contributed at any point in the process. We all share a common objective of getting people in Britain saving for their retirement and I hope this Bill will help contribute to that objective.
Lord German
My Lords, I add thanks from these Benches to my noble friend and to the staff who have been behind all the detailed benefits we have received from having such a deep level of understanding and knowledge of the Bill throughout. I want to mention two particular things. One is the recognition during the Bill’s passage through this House that my noble friend will look very carefully at the needs of children who are in distress. I look forward to seeing that coming forward again in future months as we come to a response to whatever my noble friend is able to deduce from that investigation.
The second piece of thanks that I have to give to my noble friend is for his ability to bring Her Majesty’s Treasury to a meeting with officials of the DWP. That way, there was a coalition not only of Members of your Lordships’ House but of my noble friend’s staff. That ensured that we got a recognition that where pensions in the public sector would be affected by some of the matters in the Bill, they would put an architecture in place for whenever some new money might become available.
While using this opportunity to put this on the record, I want to thank my noble friend for all the support that he has given. The quantity of literature and number of pages that we have received is something that we will weigh with great pleasure during the years to come, because of course the measures which this House is taking in this Bill will affect the population of this country for many generations in the future. It has been very significant to see the Bill pass through the House.
Immigration Bill
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“(3A) The third condition is that the building is covered by a code of practice for the management of student accommodation recognised under section 233 of the Housing Act 2004 (approval of codes of practice with regards to the management of HMOs etc).”
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, we return to residential tenancies and come to a group of 12 amendments, of which the first nine are in my name, beginning with Amendment 54ZZA. I apologise for the number of amendments, but I will be brief in setting them out this afternoon. I am helped in speeding up the process by the very helpful points made by the Minister in our Committee session on Monday.
All these amendments are concerned with the practicalities of requiring landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants. We are past the stage of arguing whether the whole idea of imposing this new burden on landlords is a good one; rather, these amendments attempt to make the concept more workable and reduce the unfortunate consequences for tenants that it could create.
Amendment 54ZZA is about letting to students. The Minister made two welcome announcements on Monday. The first heralded the Government’s plans for an initial stage—I hope I am allowed to call it a pilot—in a single place to test the practicalities of the new scheme. The second announcement was that student lettings that are controlled, owned, managed or arranged by a registered educational institution will face no further need for immigration checking by landlords. This is obviously right since the student has been thoroughly vetted already by the higher education establishment.
Capturing the wider definition of what comprises a student letting will need a new form of words. The new clause to come before us on Report may go beyond the scope of my amendment, and the Minister may tell me that Amendment 54ZZA is now quite redundant. But perhaps the Government’s revised measure, which I think will pick up student digs that are lettings in ordinary street properties, may also benefit from the formula in my amendment, which comes from the experts at the British Property Federation.
I will explain Amendment 54ZZA. Sensibly, paragraph 11 of Schedule 3 already excludes specialist lettings to students in higher education, since they have been thoroughly checked by the university or the higher education provider. The Bill exempts traditional halls of residence using the definition that is used for council tax purposes. That definition dates back to 1991, since when there has been extensive private sector provision of purpose-built student accommodation. Amendment 54ZZA extends the exemption from the traditional university halls of residence to embrace privately provided purpose-built student halls—the smart new blocks of student flats now appearing in many university towns and cities.
To avoid going too wide, the amendment specifies that the provider must be a body covered by a code of practice officially approved under Section 233 of the Housing Act 2004. This confines the extension to private sector providers that are properly recognised as managing bona fide student accommodation in partnership with higher education bodies. The amendment avoids the bureaucracy, hassle and duplication of effort for student accommodation providers, who would otherwise have to recheck the status of the students they house when this has been done already by a higher education establishment.
Now that the Minister is willing to extend the exemption for student lettings—I know colleagues will be very pleased with that—I hope that the definition in my amendment covers at least some of the ground. To cover more of that ground, will the Minister comment on the idea put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on Monday? She suggested that the perfect solution to this problem might be to allow the letter that universities issue to students to exempt them from council tax to also be proof of their exemption from immigration checks. Such an approach would exempt the great majority of students and their landlords, bringing comfort to the many Members of your Lordships’ House who are very keen to ensure that the new measure does not deter overseas students from choosing the UK for their studies.
Let me go swiftly through the rest of my amendments in this group. Amendment 54A would add to the list of exclusions from the Bill’s obligations on landlords, under the list of “excluded residential tenancy agreements”. I know that Crisis has been pleased with some helpful changes already made to the Bill, but tenancies organised for people who are or will be homeless and are placed in the private sector by a responsible body need to go on the list of exclusions in Schedule 3. Organisations such as Crisis are funded by the Department for Communities and Local Government to persuade landlords to take on homeless or potentially homeless people—indeed, the DCLG last week announced extra resources for this valuable work—but, at present, the landlord will still have responsibility for checking the immigration status of these nominees, even though they have been vetted already by the local authority, a charity or a regulated housing association.
The amendment would excuse the landlord from the potential threat that someone whose papers are not in order and who turns out to be here illegally renders the landlord subject to a fine. The arrangements for placing homeless households in the rented sector are extremely important in giving confidence to landlords to take in vulnerable tenants, including those leaving prison, who are perceived to be a high risk. It is not easy to negotiate with landlords who are understandably hesitant to take in people on the edge of homelessness. Telling landlords that they will ultimately carry the can if a household is found later to be here illegally sets up a new barrier. I hope that it is not contentious to exclude placements of this kind from the rigours of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond sympathetically.
Amendments 55B, 55D and 55E attempt to head off a major problem with the proposed arrangements: namely, the requirement on the landlord to check the credentials not just of the tenant but of other people who come into the accommodation with the tenant, usually family members. These people are not named in the tenancy agreement and the landlord has no direct relationship with them. Here, the Bill introduces a duty for landlords that goes well beyond the comparable duty for employers. Employers are not required to make inquiries about a potential employee’s family or friends, but landlords will be expected to make thorough checks in relation to other people over the age of 18 who live with the tenant. This is fraught with difficulty and, of all the many reasons that a landlord may avoid getting involved with a particular household and risking a £3,000 fine, this scenario is about the most off-putting. The amendments would remove this extra and unreasonable duty on the landlord and confine the obligation to checking the status of the tenant or tenants who are on the tenancy agreement.
Amendment 55H would remove the obligation on the landlord to notify the Secretary of State of a change to the status of a tenant whom they have already housed. It would take away the need to recheck their immigration status after a tenancy has started. Instead, the landlord would have to reconsider the tenant’s status only when the tenancy ends and the tenant wants to renew it. Once a tenancy has been signed, the landlord clearly would not wish to engage further in these checks, and it seems a step too far to require landlords to look out for and report so-called post-grant contraventions, except when the tenancy comes up for renewal.
Amendment 55R would enable the Secretary of State to give extra time for a landlord who has received a penalty notice to bring forward an appeal if the prescribed 28 days appears in the circumstances to be too short a time. With the complexities involved in these matters, the Secretary of State might well be glad of some flexibility here in the future.
Amendment 56F addresses the tricky issue of the landlord’s obligation to establish whether a person is over 18 years old. We all know that supermarkets find it very difficult to verify a customer’s age when a young person wants to buy alcohol or tobacco. My previous amendments would remove the onerous obligation on landlords to account for the immigration status of people who are not on the tenancy agreement and with whom they have no direct dealings. This amendment is a safety net if the duty to check up on others in a household finds its way on to the statute book. It puts the onus on the Secretary of State to set out an order which makes clear that as long as the landlord or their agent takes specified steps to establish the age of the occupiers, they will not be in danger of being penalised later. Without the amendment, landlords will go in fear of a transgression, despite their best efforts, and the presence of teenage children in a household will present another reason for a landlord not to house a family for fear of breaking the new law.
Amendment 56H is my final amendment. I think it could be helpful in tackling the central problem here: namely, that respectable landlords will henceforth be extremely wary about accepting anyone for a tenancy who just possibly might be a migrant without the correct papers. The amendment shifts the burden of checking out tenants’ credentials to one or more bodies which take on that responsibility and are approved by the Secretary of State for that purpose. Those verifying bodies would no doubt charge for the service, but could make the cost quite modest through economies of scale, dealing with many hundreds or thousands of cases, and would become absolute experts in ascertaining who was and was not an illegal immigrant. As long as the landlord had received the all-clear from the approved body, which might be part of a trade association or a credit referencing agency, the landlord would not need to worry about the new liabilities that they face.
The concept of a body approved by government taking responsibility for a key aspect of the affairs of private landlords is the model used for handling tenants’ deposits. Initially three and now four agencies have been cleared to provide tenancy deposit schemes to deal with all the tricky aspects of collecting and returning deposits. Similarly, the Secretary of State approves bodies to provide ombudsman services to the sector. A similar approval mechanism could lift the burden on landlords struggling to undertake accurate immigration checks and would, I think, reduce the cost to landlords, which may get passed on to tenants if agents are involved, from about £50 a shot to, perhaps, £25.
That measure would be particularly helpful to the Home Office inquiries team, removing a lot of the pressure of fielding queries from amateur landlords up and down the country who would no longer need to bother the Home Office. That arrangement would, I hope, achieve everything that the Government want from this part of the Bill, while reducing a significant financial and administrative burden for the Home Office and greatly reassuring good landlords that they need not turn away people who might just be here illegally, because the checking has been done for them.
I hope that that idea appeals to the Minister, and I am grateful to Richard Jones of the Residential Landlords’ Association for devising it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the amendments.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I have three amendments in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Best, has raised a lot of important issues—in some cases as to principle and in some as to workability, with which all of us have been concerned.
On his Amendment 56H, allowing for verifying bodies, it speaks volumes about the views of the Home Office, which we have heard in this Chamber and outside it, that such a suggestion has been brought forward. One sees the comments about the current standards of the Home Office and one looks forward to much improvement, but one can see how such a proposal has come about. I suspect that some such agencies might well grow up outside the statute if we do not provide for them. I can imagine what the Minister may say in response to the amendment—that no third party can be authoritative on this—but I can envisage small landlords casting around for an organisation that can help them with this work.
The first of my amendments, Amendment 56J, is much the same as the noble Lord’s amendment with regard to a person that a landlord thinks is under 18 but in fact turns out to be an adult, for the reasons that the noble Lord has given. Amendments 56K and 56L are to Clause 32. The first would ensure that the Secretary of State could increase only the range of agreements not treated as falling within the scheme—in other words, could increase the range of exemptions but could not bring in through this mechanism agreements that would otherwise fall outside the scheme—while the second would ensure, similarly with regard to occupants, that the Secretary of State could increase only the range of people treated as not occupying premises but could not bring in agreements that would otherwise fall outside the scheme.
I understand that a degree of modification needs to be provided for in the light of experience if the pilot—I shall continue to call it a pilot—proves to be unsuccessful. However, we should understand to whom the scheme is intended to apply at the outset—to whom and to what, I suppose. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising such a range of issues. He is expressing the concern that we have heard already from all around the House.
Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)
My Lords, I share the view of my noble friend Lady Hamwee about the useful contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Some of us know what a tremendous contribution he has made over the years, both to the whole position of immigrants to this country and, not least, to the position of people seeking to study at our universities.
I want to ask two questions. The first is about the desperate pressures on the housing market, not least in London, which remains a magnet for many overseas students. This was exemplified again to me this morning when in one post I received no fewer than two letters from distinguished estate agents in London begging me kindly to sell my rather humble single-bed flat, in a rather seedy part of Victoria, on the grounds that I would make thousands of pounds of profit if I did so. Such lettings or sales almost certainly do not go to students in any situation. Given that there is a huge pressure of demand on the market, not least from people working in this country, often in a fairly short-term capacity, let alone from the literally thousands of houses in London that are now being let or sold to overseas investors who have no intention of living in them or inhabiting them—as anyone can see who takes a good look at Highgate or some other fashionable areas of London, many of those properties remain empty for several years on end—it really is something of a scandal that that is the way that the housing market has played out. It is becoming close to impossible for many overseas students of modest means to find anywhere to live at all, which is why we see increasing numbers of people packed into overcrowded rooms, flats or basements in a desperate attempt to find somewhere to live.
We have been helped by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who gave specific and concrete suggestions about ways in which this situation might to some extent be eased. In the end, it can be seriously eased only by a deliberate attempt to create more student accommodation, but that is not going to happen in the very short run, and therefore anything that exempts accommodation specifically directed to and planned for students is of great benefit in this desperate situation.
Secondly, I want to draw attention to a group who are not assisted by being specifically registered by their university and helped by student unions and the like. I reiterate what I said in an earlier session of this Committee when I pointed out that no less than 33% of academics currently serving in Russell group universities come from overseas. The figure is about 28% for universities as a whole. These men and women are here because they are outstanding in their line of study or profession. They bring to that study their knowledge of another part of the world and the ways in which in different cultures different answers are found. They do not have the benefit we have given to overseas undergraduate students who are registered at their university. They are mostly out there looking for accommodation for themselves, and many of them have no knowledge of this country or its housing market and are quite easily persuaded to make not very sensible arrangements.
Yet let us be quite clear that, without those academics, the quality of first-class higher education would deeply suffer because it is increasingly a global situation and a global statement about the quality of a university. Anybody who knows the Russell group and some of the outstanding new universities will know that it is that huge input of talent and ability from other countries that makes a university not just a good place but a great place. What the noble Lord, Lord Best, has proposed, not least in his final amendment, could be very helpful to people who are without the kind of expert advice that undergraduates can at least hope to get. It is essential that we recognise the importance of tackling this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to children. Many academics will be married with children and will want to bring their dependants with them. The noble Lord, Lord Best, pointed out the problem of trying to sort out the migrant status of family members who have come with the head of household who is taking up an academic position, particularly children over the age of 18 who still live with their parents, as many do abroad. How big an obstacle are we placing in the way of such men and women unless we adapt and attract the kinds of solutions that he and my noble friend have tried to put forward this afternoon?
I shall not continue at greater length. Members of this House will know of my huge concern about one of the greatest and most effective exports of this country. Incidentally, it is one of its sources of innovation and enterprise with no less than one in seven new firms and 14% of new jobs being created by migrants, and those figures are higher than the proportion for their British-born equivalents. They make such a huge contribution to this country’s ability to maintain and improve its economic position that it takes my breath away that we should have this kind of legislation before us. I shall not pursue that matter, but I hope the Minister, for whom I have great respect, as we all do, will look very seriously at the proposals in this area of the Bill to deal with the dangers that could arise from the insistence on tenants being, effectively, monitored and overseen by landlords with all the rather frightening consequences of that concept.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
When the noble Lord, Lord Best, with his experience and expertise on housing, speaks on issues such as this, we all do well to listen. I am sure the Minister has taken on board his comments. On the issue he raised about students, the Minister has made clear that the Government will bring forward an amendment to address this issue, and I welcome that. I hope he will listen, take on board and incorporate the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, which are very helpful indeed. I welcome the fact that the Minister has listened and intends to table an amendment. I also welcome this recognition by the Government of how clumsy this provision in the Bill is, and the consequences of that. I will not speak at length today, because I spoke at length on earlier amendments covering the same issues.
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, address, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the principle, practicality and workability of the provisions on landlords. Notwithstanding the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, the provisions do not just affect students, as I know she has acknowledged. These provisions on landlords will impact on many people to the detriment of many UK-born and British citizens and those who have a legal right to be here. I welcome the opportunity to look at some of the practicalities.
I notice that the impact assessment for the Bill comes straight to one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Under the heading, “What is the problem under consideration? Why is government intervention necessary?”, the impact assessment comments:
“Housing is a key enabler of illegal migration. … Government intervention is necessary to deter illegal immigration”.
I disagree with that. The problem here—the concerns that have been raised in the amendments—is about whether it is the landlord’s role to take action to deter illegal immigration in the way that the Government suggest.
What I am concerned about is highlighted by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Best. It is becoming increasingly clear what limitations, pressures, problems and responsibilities these provisions are going to have and what impact they will have on those entitled to live and work in the UK, including UK citizens. The noble Lord, Lord Best, and the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have highlighted concerns regarding the impact on landlords.
The Government estimate in their impact assessment that they will take fines of £6.8 million from landlords over the next 10 years. The point has been made to the Minister that that could be seen as, and could well become, a disincentive to those who currently rent out. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether, given that this also includes rooms which have been rented to lodgers, any assessment has been made on the impact of availability of homes or rooms to rent in the private rented sector. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, mentioned the letters that she has received from estate agents wanting to rent or buy her property. Anybody who has lived in London will have regularly received such letters from companies offering vast amounts of money to rent a room. Can the Minister tell us whether any assessment has been undertaken of the impact that these proposals could have on the availability of properties or rooms to rent?
I will not go through each amendment—I raised a number of questions which I had on Monday—but the amendments would bring some clarity to the issue. If we take the questions raised by these amendments, those that will be raised in the next group of amendments, those that were raised in yesterday’s discussion on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, and proposals for a pilot—I welcome the Minister’s letter and look forward to discussing the Government’s proposals for a pilot—it is increasingly clear that there is little to commend these clauses. I hope that, in his response today, the Minister is able to address the concerns that have been raised by noble Lords here today and some of those still outstanding from our previous debates.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I will make two brief points. First, I welcome the broadening of the exemption for students which my noble friend outlined late in the debate on Monday. That seems to be relevant to Amendment 54ZZA, and we all look forward to seeing the new wording on Report, recognising the importance of our student population.
Secondly, I will comment on the idea outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Best, for an approved agency arrangement. This may be a good idea, but it will of course come at a cost. I would prefer a simple system that would allow landlords to do the checking themselves by having proper guidance for small landlords, both through the normal trade associations and guidance and on gov.uk. In that way enforcement can be minimised, fines avoided, and compliance maximised. The trial run that all noble Lords seemed to be agreed on in the earlier discussion in Committee should be used to test the workability of these important proposals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
I am delighted that we now have another name for the rollout and the trial run; we are accumulating quite a vocabulary of descriptions for this important part of the development of this legislation. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. We have moved down to some detail, which it is important that we use Committee to tackle. I am grateful in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for tabling his very thoughtful amendments, and to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for hers. They are clearly intended to improve this part of the Bill. I welcome the opportunity I had to meet with the noble Lord, Lord Best, as I explained already, and with a number of interested bodies to discuss these provisions. My door remains open to the noble Lord; some of the suggestions he has made today require further exploration jointly between government and their advocates, so I hope that this will be a beginning.
This group of amendments includes some interesting suggestions, which I will reflect on further, as is right and proper. However, some of them would represent a retrograde step. We can take things in a different direction and further forward than perhaps the amendments aim to take them. I remind noble Lords that the aim of the legislation is to require landlords to conduct immigration checks on all adults who it is intended will occupy the property when the tenancy is created. It does not require all such adults to be named on the tenancy, although that may become common practice in future, and the Bill allows landlords to delegate the task of performing checks to a letting agent. The checking requirement applies only where the property is occupied for rent or lodging as the person’s main or only home.
That is an important measure, and the Government are right to identify housing as one of those facilities which, if controlled by measures as provided for in the Bill, will serve as a deterrent to illegal immigration. I am sure that the noble Baroness will share that view, just as both parties agreed that employers’ checks on people seeking work have been effective in that regard.
The Bill does not require the landlord to monitor who is living at the property once the tenancy has been created. While some landlords already require their tenants to inform them of changes to the composition of the household, some do not, and we recognise that. Where a tenant sublets the property or accepts a lodger without the landlord’s knowledge, that tenant effectively becomes the landlord under the scheme, so to a degree the landlord’s responsibility applies to the person who occupies the house as a principal home.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
Can the Minister clarify whether that is the case only if the tenant accepts payment by the lodger? Presumably, if they accept someone to stay in the property as a guest, nobody will be liable to check their immigration status.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It is not a question of payment, but of whether that is their principal or main home. If it is not, and they are just a guest for the weekend or for a month, or whatever, that would be a different matter, but if it is the person’s main home, whether there is payment is not relevant to their status. I hope that that is clear.
Baroness Hamwee
On the same point, it is common in leases and tenancy agreements to provide a prohibition against subletting or having a subtenancy. In some of the less formal arrangements that the noble Baroness and I are aware of—I am thinking now about the head landlord and tenant—it may not be normal to provide for that, even though a mortgage company that has lent on property would expect it. I hope that landlords, as we understand them in the normal way, would not be penalised if they had a fairly informal arrangement with a tenant of the sort that would fall within this that did not preclude a subtenancy or sublicence. I hope that I am being clear about that. I can see that there may be more calls on what the landlord should do by precluding the possibility of somebody coming in and lodging or having a sublicence without the landlord himself knowing—and I would not like a landlord to be penalised because of that. It is an allied point; I am seeking for there not to be more requirements on the landlord.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am sorry because, as my noble friend Lord Attlee whispered to me, “You’re wrong”. He is so delicate in these matters. But I am wrong. This transfer of responsibility occurs when rent is paid; when no rent is paid, that is not an arrangement under this scheme. I hope that that is understood, and that it helps to clarify the border as to where the reporting happens.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the Minister and thank him for clarifying that—we all make mistakes. Does that not seem some kind of a massive loophole in the law—the landlord will have to undertake all these checks to ensure that the landlord’s tenant is a legal citizen of this country and entitled to stay, but the person who is renting the property could then allow guests to stay permanently, with it as their main home and with no payment? It would be possible for a rogue landlord to charge exorbitant rent to one person and for the others to stay for free. There seem to be complications around that, allowing a significant loophole in this legislation, if I am correct—but I may be wrong.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I might add to the complications by pointing to the provision that, although the residential tenancy agreement of rent must provide for payment of rent, it need not be a market rent.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes, a further elaboration of the point is that the restriction applies only when the person is under an agreement, formal or informal, where the tenant pays rent. The immediate landlord is responsible; if the tenant sublets without the superior landlord’s knowledge, the tenant is responsible for the subtenant. This is quite convoluted language, if I may say so, and it might help noble Lords if I wrote to clarify that point. I see the importance of making it clear where the responsibility lies in these matters; I thank the noble Baroness for raising the issue in the first place and my noble friend Lady Hamwee for her comments.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful—that is very helpful. But perhaps the Minister could address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and myself about a loophole. It does not have to be the market rent; it could be an exorbitant rent to one tenant to allow others to stay there for free. If he could address in the letter whether that is a loophole, that would be very helpful.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes, I will do it in the letter. I feel that if I try to do so here today, I might get into even deeper water than I am already swimming in.
Home Office immigration enforcement will enforce the scheme in the normal course of its activities. Where illegal immigrants are detected during illegal working operations, when arrested for criminal offences, or as a result of intelligence, immigration enforcement will investigate where the person is living. This will include establishing whether the new duty on landlords has been breached, who owns or controls access to the property, and who is collecting the rent. That ties up with the consideration that the noble Baroness asked me to look at earlier.
The checking requirement will apply only to adults, and the person’s age as a matter of fact will be apparent from the documents presented. The system of document checks has been adjusted, following consultation with landlords, to reflect closely existing check practice by landlords. Where these simple checks are completed, the Bill makes it clear that the landlord will have an excuse, and therefore will not be culpable under the provisions of the Bill. Only original documents can be accepted in view of the obvious risk of forgeries, as noble Lords will understand.
Earlier in the Committee’s deliberations—I am grateful for the comments of my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Williams of Crosby—I announced the Government’s intention to bring forward on Report an amendment to broaden the exemption for student accommodation owned, managed or arranged by higher education institutions in all parts of the UK. Obviously, we await the full detail of the amendment, but I think this very much meets the point that noble Lords have made. This is an important area for two reasons: first, because it reinforces the message that I am trying to get over that we want to make it clear that we are supportive of the university sector in this country; and, secondly, because it introduces the concept that there can be no need for double checking in this area given that the university has already satisfied itself that its students are properly entitled to be in this country. I note the suggestion about the engagement of Section 233 in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and I have already noted my noble friend’s contribution on the council tax exemption point.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, has raised concerns about people who are in need of support at a time of homelessness or the threat of homelessness. The exemptions in Schedule 3 already deal directly with the work of hostels and refuges and the work of local authorities, where they are providing assistance to comply with their duties, or are providing assistance on a discretionary basis to a person who is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Therefore, we have made this clear in the Bill.
The noble Lord makes a very interesting suggestion in advocating, and elaborating on, a role for a verifying body to support small landlords in performing the required checks. I say, in the modest way that Ministers do, that I undertake to reflect further on the merits of this suggestion. This is an interesting matter for us and the noble Lord to discuss. The Government want these arrangements to be workable in practice. I think my replies have shown that the Government see this as an important aspect of policy but it must be practical and work for landlords and people who want housing. We also want these arrangements to be successful in achieving the policy objective of deterring illegal migration.
I think I have made it plain that I want to engage with noble Lords. I hope that, in the light of the reassurance I have given, and, indeed, my promise to write in detail specifically on the division of responsibility—that is essentially what we are talking about in relation to the definition of a tenancy and landlords’ responsibilities—the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that this part of the Bill applies equally to agricultural landlords as to the more urban and residential landlords that most of the Committee would think of in the first instance?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes, I can confirm that. An agricultural tenancy or a house occupied in connection with any employment would clearly be covered. However, it should not be forgotten that the owner of that property, as an employer, would have already checked the person’s entitlement to be in occupation.
Lord Best
My Lords, I am grateful for support for the amendments in differing degrees from all around the House, including the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, who makes the point that it is already incredibly difficult for overseas students to find anywhere to live that they can afford in London—and in other cities. We must not make life more difficult by putting up a new barrier that puts landlords off; that is such an important and fundamental point.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, who raised a couple of significant points. The Rent a Room scheme that we already have is getting a bit tired; this is the opportunity to let a room in your house and pay no tax—indeed, fill in no forms and just get on with the letting on your own. It will make a difference to the individual who owns that property if having to check the immigration status of anyone whom they take in is added to the requirements on them. We need to look at the Rent a Room scheme again. The tax threshold—the amount you can receive in rent from someone in your own home—has not been changed for something like 11 years; we have to revise that. This is an important moment to look at that. The case is similar for lodgers and guests—these look like awfully murky waters. The Minister said that he would respond in writing, which will be helpful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, picked up on having approved verifying bodies that take all the hassle away from landlords—indeed, that take it away from the Home Office. However, she felt that it would be better to produce guidance and let landlords do their own thing. A voluntary scheme means that landlords who want to use it would just get on with doing so. Some 60% of private renting is through local agents. Rather than agents having their own mini-schemes—how many agents will become expert enough at this?—a central approved body that can verify people’s status would cut the cost to the landlord, and that might be passed on to the tenant. It would give landlords greater reassurance. I declare an interest: I chair the Property Ombudsman, which looks after letting agents and estate agents and the complaints about them. In the world of property ombudsman-ery, there is a system of the Secretary of State approving certain bodies as ombudsmen. That works well: it means that people can join a scheme knowing that it is properly approved, so people can stand behind it. Applying that technique in this field could be a clever move to help everybody to get this right.
The Minister made some important points. He underlined that the student lettings amendment that will be brought forward on Report will be a really good one. We will look at it with care, but it sounds as though it will do a great deal of what we hope that it will. On people being placed with a private landlord by an agency such as Crisis, a charity that takes potentially homeless people and persuades an individual landlord somewhere to take them on, he was not quite able to give me the reassurance that I had hoped for that that would be treated—as I understand it—like a hostel specifically for the homeless. These are specialist schemes in which the vetting will be done by Crisis. To say to the landlord, “I am sorry, we are unable to take away from you the responsibility for checking the migration status of the people we are bringing”, just adds another difficulty when it is difficult enough to get landlords to take in people, even with rent guarantees and other useful techniques. It would therefore be good to talk about that further.
I am grateful to the Minister for earlier discussions and his agreement that we should jointly explore some of these matters further. I look forward to such meetings and, in the light of his reassurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
(a) an asylum seeker or the dependant of an asylum-seeker as defined in section 94 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;(b) a person provided with accommodation under sections 17, 20, 23C, 24A and 24B of the Children Act 1989 or otherwise under that Act;(c) a person provided with support under Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to avoid a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights;(d) and—(i) an applicant for or a person holding a Tier 4 visa or holding a certificate of acceptance of studies issued by an authority-funded educational institution; or(ii) an applicant for or a person holding a student visitor visa for a period longer than six months;(e) a person who is resident outside the UK and is studying English in the UK who is accommodated in homestay accommodation;(f) ”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, Amendment 55A is the first in a group of 12 amendments all about who falls within and outside these provisions. This may be stretching it a little bit, but something occurred to me when listening to the noble Lord, Lord Best, talk about a proposed verifying body. However, I have completely lost my train of thought. I had a really good example to support that proposal and it may come back, but I will move on to the specific amendment.
In Amendment 55A, the first paragraph would provide for not only those asylum seekers whose accommodation is provided by the Home Office—they are covered by Schedule 3—but asylum seekers who make their own arrangements for accommodation. It seems to me that they should be excluded also. On a practical level, the state might be forced to provide for those who could otherwise provide for themselves, which is one of those unintended consequences.
As regards paragraphs (b) and (c) in Amendment 55A, provision is made in Schedule 3 for accommodation from or involving local authorities, but that provision is drafted in terms of the homelessness legislation and does not cover other accommodation such as that provided under the Children Act 1989. Section 17 of that Act is used primarily to support children with their families, Section 20 to support unaccompanied children, and subsequent sections to support care leavers. Where a person is without leave to remain, they will not be entitled to social housing or homelessness assistance from the local authority but in limited circumstances a person at particular risk may be accommodated by social services under relevant legislation because of their disability or ill health.
Paragraph (d) in Amendment 55A deals with students, which I think we will come back to. I suspect that I will be pressing the Minister to go further than the amendments being dangled in front of us may go, but I look forward to seeing them. Lastly, Amendment 55A covers young people accommodated in “homestay accommodation”—I think it should have a capital H—while undertaking language courses.
Amendment 55C would provide that there should be no breach when, after entering into an agreement, a tenant becomes disqualified because of his immigration status. This is a matter that the landlords associations expressed concern about in their evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the Commons. It is a probing amendment through which I seek to understand how a landlord is to ensure that he is not in breach without frequent checks. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to this on a previous day. If the landlord is satisfied that the tenant is a British citizen, that is one matter, but if the status is complicated or is not permanent, what is the landlord to do? It seems to me that he must keep on asking, which is impractical.
Amendments 55F and 55J are amendments to Clauses 19 and 21, dealing with excuses—that is the term used—available to landlords and agents. Clauses 19(2) and 21(2) excuse the landlord or agent from paying a penalty, having been given notice of the contravention. There is a world of difference between a contravention and merely not paying the penalty when in fact there was no contravention or, in the case of a landlord with an agent, when it was the agent’s responsibility. Therefore, I am seeking to put the position as I think it should be put, because I do not think that it is just a matter of semantics.
Amendments 55G and 55K are amendments to Clauses 19(7) and 21(7). Similarly, Amendment 55H in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, is an amendment to Clause 19(7). These amendments allow me to ask whether it is necessary both to have complied with the requirements during the period and to have notified the Secretary of State without delay. The amendments also enable me to ask whether the phrase,
“as soon as reasonably practicable”,
in these clauses means “without delay” in the eyes of the Government. They are not synonyms in ordinary language. I also ask the Minister to confirm that it is possible to notify the Secretary of State “as soon as reasonably practicable” under subsection (6)(a) without following the route in subsection (7)—in other words, that subsection (7) is not the only way to satisfy subsection (6)(a). I appreciate that this is not language that is holding the Committee riveted at the moment, but these small amendments could be important in practice.
Amendment 55L addresses whether or not the documents need to be “of a prescribed description”. The amendment would mean that any document could be used to prove that a person from outside the EEA had a right under European law to be in the UK or, in the case of other persons, that a document granting leave could be used. In other words, how is immigration status to be proved? I appreciate that in many ways it will be easier if there is a list. However, the list of documents has to be complete and accurate, and I am aware of the frequency of the change in immigration rules, which will affect which documents can be prayed in aid in this situation.
European nationals can bring family members with them. I was thinking about that when we were talking about people who are under or over the age of 18. Those family members may be persons from outside the EU if they have a right to be here and are not under an obligation to possess a document issued by the Home Office. They can apply for one and the Home Office is supposed to provide it within six months. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Home Office wants people falling within this category to apply for documents, as I suspect that that will cause a considerable amount of extra work.
EEA nationals, as a matter of law, should be treated as well as any third-country nationals. It looks as if third-country family members will find it harder to prove their entitlement to be in the UK—even those from a family composed entirely of non-EEA citizens who have visas. There are some small categories of British citizens who do not have passports but can show that they are British through the use of a birth certificate. Is the landlord expected to know that the birth certificate belongs to the individual? The guidance for employers on checking documents, as we have already heard, is very long—more than 80 pages. The amendment probes that area further.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, these amendments build on the two previous debates that we have had on this issue and highlight its difficulties and complexities. I know that the Minister will give an explanation of these but I ask him to take on board the points that have been raised today, and the other points raised on Monday at Questions, which strike at the heart of what these clauses seek to do.
What worries me is that if landlords are going to rent out their properties and want to abide by the law, they will need to have absolute clarity about what is expected of them. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, thought that she was testing the patience of the Committee. I do not think she was because, for example, Amendment 55Q makes an important point. I worry that the measure outlined in that amendment could be a further deterrent to landlords to rent.
The noble Baroness mentioned the code of practice and the documents available. As I said on Monday, the Government have tried to be helpful by increasing the number of documents available. However, I am not sure how helpful that is because it creates even greater complexities. I had hoped for an explanation of why under List A of acceptable documents, 10f has only a full stop. Presumably there is something missing and there will be another document at some point.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It is only a draft document. There may well have been other matters under consideration at the time.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
So there may be further documents which are acceptable. I appreciate that.
However, clarity for landlords is crucial, particularly if they are expected, according to the impact assessment, to pay £6.8 million-worth of fines, which is the Government’s break-even policy objective. Every time I read the landlords’ guidance it raises more questions than answers and I am sure it will be the same for landlords. If I were a potential landlord I would regard this as a disincentive.
In the previous debate I asked the Minister a question about landlords seeking to play safe and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has reminded me that I did not receive a response. The worry is that landlords will look at the obligations placed on them and want to choose tenants who most look like, sound like and are easier to identify as, in their eyes, British citizens. Rather than choosing those who may even have permanent leave to remain, they are going to play safe. There is a discriminatory aspect to that. However, the specific question I asked was whether the Government have made any impact assessment of the impact of the legislation on the availability of rooms to rent in the private rented sector. It would be helpful to know if any consideration has been given to that point.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am grateful for both the debate and the amendments tabled by my noble friend. They contain constructive suggestions and are designed to make this part of the Bill work, an aim which noble Lords will share. The amendments seek to exclude vulnerable people and students from the provisions of these clauses. I have already referred to the Government’s plans in relation to students. However, I wish to provide some reassurance in relation to those who may be vulnerable.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, discrimination is a concern. Certainly if it became widespread it would destroy the credibility of these arrangements. That is why there is a code on discrimination running parallel with the code of practice. As noble Lords will know, to breach this code and to act in a discriminatory fashion is against the law in any event, and so it is part and parcel of the package of non-regulatory measures being brought forward to reinforce these particular provisions.
Clause 16 provides discretionary powers for the Secretary of State to authorise a tenant who has no lawful status to rent property. This will include asylum seekers, who will be able to confirm that they have a right to rent with the landlords’ checking service, or a landlord may conduct a check directly with the service. This discretion will be exercised where a failed asylum seeker is unable to return home because of a recognised barrier.
Tenants housed by virtue of children or national assistance duties are also covered in exclusions. Schedule 3 provides that any accommodation provided to a person as a result of a duty on a local authority is excluded—that is, a duty on a local authority in respect of any obligations to vulnerable people. It does not seek to particularise the duties, including the respective Acts and orders relating to children or social care; it is a general obligation which local authorities may have to individuals. Therefore the amendment proposed by my noble friend is not necessary given the wide scope of this exclusion.
The amendments are also intended to provide further protection to landlords. The provisions create a civil penalty scheme which the Government are committed to applying on a light-touch basis. Where a suspected contravention is discovered, the Secretary of State may issue a penalty notice, including where they are not immediately contactable. The landlord is then afforded a right to raise objections. Where these objections show that the landlord has a statutory excuse from a penalty, they will be notified in writing. No further consequences will arise if the objections show that the landlord has a statutory excuse.
The power to increase a penalty is important—it is a kind of parallel power—as it may not be immediately clear whether the landlord has been previously penalised in this way. The landlord may, where it is decided to maintain a penalty, appeal to the courts. That is the right order of events: rather than going immediately to appeal, adjudication can take place informally between the landlord and the Secretary of State.
It is proposed that where a penalty remains unpaid the Secretary of State should be able to pursue recovery through the courts if the penalty were due under a court order in exactly the same way as a civil penalty. In cases where an appeal has been heard by the courts, this avoids the landlord, the Secretary of State and the courts having to return to the same court to hear an application for judgment for an amount the court has already determined should be paid by the landlord.
Turning to Amendments 55A and 55B, to which my noble friend wanted me to pay attention, I remind the House that the proposed sanction is a civil penalty, an administrative scheme; it does not form part of a criminal investigation. Clause 23 places a responsibility on the landlord and/or agent to evidence that they have complied with the prescribed requirements and have maintained an excuse against a penalty where necessary. That does not mean to say that the Secretary of State is not required to establish that there has been a contravention of Clause 17 to justify the issue of a penalty notice, nor that the Secretary of State will not engage with the landlord or agent and give them the opportunity to establish an excuse before a penalty notice is issued. I can confirm that the intention is that landlords and agents will be invited to demonstrate their excuse before a penalty notice is issued. However, in cases where the landlord or agent refuses to co-operate with an investigation, the Government consider that this is a proportionate and practical approach. The landlord or agent can easily prove that they have undertaken the checks by producing copies of the relevant evidence, whereas it would be difficult for the Secretary of State to establish a negative and establish that the prescribed requirements were not complied with.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I apologise because I now understand why the noble Lord is inching towards our pilot. However, I have asked him a question in the last two debates: has any assessment been undertaken of the impact of this part of the Bill on the availability of rooms to rent and properties to rent?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I cannot give the noble Baroness an absolute answer to that question. Of course one of the reasons why the rollout is important is that we need to check to see if there are any adverse implications in this policy.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, can I ask the Minister a question about asylum seekers and persons appealing against a refusal of asylum who are occupying rooms in private houses? It has been said that there are quite a few people doing this, notwithstanding the fact that accommodation is normally provided for them under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Can my noble friend elucidate what provisions are being made for documents to be produced by those who are occupying rooms in private houses because they are not covered by the provisions of Schedule 3, to which he has referred? They deal only with the accommodation that is provided to most asylum seekers under the 1999 Act when they cannot afford to pay for accommodation of their own. However, there is still an important residual group of people who find space in private houses. They will need documentary proof that they are allowed to live in those houses and thus ensure that landlords are not breaching the conditions by taking them in.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think I have made it clear that for people who have asylum seeker status, where it is not safe for them to return and therefore they may be failed asylum seekers, the Home Office will provide the necessary documentation to show that they have a right to accommodation even though their status may well be that of failed asylum seekers.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, perhaps I may also ask for some clarification. One of my concerns about this part of the Bill is that many landlords will simply not rent to anyone who seems to be foreign or who does not hold a British passport for fear of getting it wrong and being fined. I am afraid that that will inadvertently result in further racial discrimination and provide a charter for those unscrupulous landlords who are racist.
In response to the consultation, the Government accepted that the new rules might provoke landlords to discriminate against people they perceive to be foreign rather than to conduct proper checks. They also recognised the risk that vulnerable people might be impacted. So, is the code of practice and the associated guidance which will make it clear that the checks do not allow landlords to act in a manner inconsistent with the UK’s equality legislation sufficient? It simply requires landlords to read the code and adhere to it without any redress at all if they do not. Moreover, it will be extremely difficult and costly for any potential tenant to bring a challenge of discrimination or victimisation against a private landlord. If people cannot rent relatively easily, they will be forced to seek accommodation in the more shadowy parts of the housing market. I wonder whether the Minister can tell me whether I am right or wrong about this.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I do not want to sound complacent because I recognise that this is a cause of anxiety which has been expressed in meetings I have attended. It has also been expressed by other noble Lords in our earlier discussions about the Bill. I do not want to lay too great a store by the codes, but those codes exist, and I do not want to lay too great a store by racial discrimination legislation, which would clearly apply in such circumstances.
What I will do is to ask the right reverend Prelate to accept that this surely applies in connection with employment. I do not know whether the right reverend Prelate feels, as he looks at the nature of people who are engaged in work in this country, that there is widespread evidence of racial discrimination, but I would have thought not. I think it is to the great credit of this country that it is able to welcome people, and this is certainly not a Bill that is designed to make people unwelcome, as long as they have a right to come here and to remain here. That is the principle of this legislation, and I hope the right reverend Prelate will be reassured by that. It is not meant complacently but I believe that, at bottom, the analogy with employer provisions is a good one and leads me to suggest that the particular fear that the right reverend Prelate refers to is not the cause for concern that he thinks it is.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, this discussion has confirmed for me the complexity of the provisions, and therefore the advantages in having the sort of verifying body to which the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred in the previous group of amendments. We will come later in the Bill to the position of immigration advisers and tightening up arrangements there. It seems that, as well as rogue advisers, there must be many who are simply incompetent. One could almost say, “Who can blame them?”, but nevertheless I do blame them. Any arrangements which can make it simpler for those who are, as it were, at the coalface to operate will be very welcome. This debate has confirmed that in my mind. My noble friend Lord Avebury has been muttering in my ear about whether case law on employment restrictions applies here. That is another area where I dare say the Minister would say that it depends on the facts, but it is a good illustration of what we may be dealing with.
The Minister said that there was no need for a certified copy of a document, but I was suggesting—I hope—that it could be an option. The reference to the 48 hours to check reminds us all that, in this extraordinary letting market, the property will be gone in 48 hours. The Minister in the Commons talked about the increase in the penalty being based on “aggravating factors”. He said:
“If new information comes forward that demonstrates that, for example”—
I must concede that—
“the mistake was not innocent, but some sort of connivance was involved … it seems only right … that someone looking at the issue afresh should take that into account and reach a conclusion accordingly”.—[Official Report, Commons, Immigration Bill Committee, 7/11/13; col. 272.]
In my mind, that sort of connivance would be a new fact. I would be very happy to look at the language but I am concerned about the deterrent properties of this. I would hope that we might be able to pin that down a little more.
I will carefully read what the Minister said on this as it is a technical point. He referred to the detail of Schedule 3. My noble friend again questioned whether paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 covers the ground that we are concerned about. Going back again to the workability of these arrangements, I must of course read carefully what the Minister has had to say. I thank him for his answers and for what I think he said implicitly. These are detailed points which we might, if it is appropriate, look at again before Report so that we can make sure that anything we raise on Report is justified and not already covered. The Minister is nodding. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Patel
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, after Monday’s debate, I do not think this should take very long. Amendment 58 relates to Clause 33, on immigration health charges, and specifically to subsection (3)(b), which says:
“An order under this section may in particular … specify the amount of any charge (and different amounts may be specified for different purposes)”.
My amendment would remove the words in brackets. As I understand it, we already have the defined charges of £150 for students and £200 for other immigrants.
In the debate we had on Monday, I asked the Minister:
“Once that levy has been paid, it will allow them”—
we were speaking about students—
“to access all health services. Is that quite clear?”.
The answer the Minister gave was:
“Yes, that is exactly right. They will have the same access to health services as is available to a permanent resident”.—[Official Report, 10/3/14; col. 1573.]
Later in our discussions I said:
“As I understood it, I thought he said that once the health surcharge—let us say it is £200—is paid, for the duration of their legitimate stay in this country all health services will be available to them”.
In his reply, the Minister corrected me. He said:
“It is a per annum charge, so if they are here for three years and are not a student it will be three times £200”.
I accept that. But he went on to say:
“But yes, that is exactly right”.—[Official Report, 10/3/14; col. 1574.]
That is, there will be no further charges and all health services will be available to whoever has paid the levy or the health service charge—students or other immigrants.
In that case, I do not know why there is a need to have the words,
“and different amounts may be specified for different purposes”.
We need to know what these purposes are and whether there will be extra charges. If there are, what will they be for, and what will be the tariff? That is my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, when we discussed this previously, I, too, asked my noble friend the Minister about the relationship of this provision to Clause 33(4), which says that,
“the Secretary of State must … have regard to the range of health services that are likely to be available free of charge to persons who have been given immigration permission”.
I said that that implied that certain services provided by the health service were not going to be free of charge to these people. My noble friend tried to reassure me on this point but it is there in the Bill. It seems inconsistent with the repeated declarations that were made by my noble friend the Minister—which the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has just quoted—that once you have paid this levy, you are free to access all health services provided by the NHS. If that is the case, Clause 33(4) should be deleted from the Bill.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, when we discussed Clause 33 previously, the Minister was subjected to a very large number of points. I suggested then—and beg leave to suggest again this evening—that somebody should go over the clause very carefully and look at all the bits in brackets, of which there are quite a lot, and the various subsections and so on, to try to trim it down and make sure that it contains what is really necessary and does not have the opportunities for obscurities and criticism that it presently contains.
It is quite a difficult clause and I understand very well why when one gives power to make an order one wants to give as much scope as one can to the Minister, but this clause goes rather too far by trying to hedge too many bets, and I suggest that it should be looked at very carefully.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I attended some of the debate on Monday and heard my noble friend Lord Bourne refer to the £200—or £150 because he was talking about the student rate at about £3 a week—as being very reasonable and fair. As he said,
“it is the cost of a Sunday newspaper”.—[Official Report, 10/3/14; col. 1605.]
It seems sensible that there is some flexibility in this health charge.
The cost to the National Health Service for an individual between the ages of 15 and 44—presumably young enough to be in reasonably good health normally —is £700 a year. Of course, that rises for older people. As your Lordships may be aware, Professor Meirion Thomas has written extensively about the abuse of health tourism. Because we are not in the Schengen visa system, people do not need compulsory health insurance to come to the UK and as a result he has identified many instances of abuse by healthy people and particularly by people who are not well and pregnant women coming to this country to get health treatment without any coverage of costs.
It is true that the National Health Service has charged such “health tourists” some £300 million but it is also true that it has managed to collect only 16% of the amount it has invoiced. Other countries, such as America, Canada and Australia, have much more severe restrictions on people coming in without health insurance and consequently we get more than our fair share. I would argue for flexibility in the health charge and clarification, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, requested, of the parts of the health service to which it applies.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I would hope that if the intention of the words that the amendment seeks to delete is as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, speculated, the Minister will stand up in response and say it loud and clear to get it on the record.
I did not intervene in the debate on Monday. I read Hansard subsequently and I, too, was left somewhat confused as to the Government’s position. So I looked at the Explanatory Notes, and they do not explain the significance or purpose of the words,
“and different amounts may be specified for different purposes”,
which rather seems to defeat the primary objective of a document headed “Explanatory Notes”. The notes refer only to what is in Clause 33(3)(f), which is a reference to a “reduction, waiver or refund”. I then looked at the Home Office factsheet on Clauses 33 and 34, which also remains silent on the intention of the words, except to say that those who have paid the surcharge will be able,
“to access free NHS care to the same extent as a permanent resident, subject to some exceptions for particularly expensive discretionary treatments”.
I then looked at the letter we all received from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, dated 6 March, in the hope that the Department of Health might be able to throw some light on this, but the letter provides no help on the purpose or intention behind these words, which this amendment seeks to delete—although obviously the amendment has been tabled with a view to getting an explanation from the Minister as to what this means.
I then looked at what the Minister said on Monday. I came to the conclusion that the Minister, too, was unable to tell us why these words are in Clause 33. He said on Monday that those who have paid the levy will be allowed the same access to all health services,
“as is available to a permanent resident”.—[Official Report, 10/3/14; col. 1573.]
As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out, Clause 33(4) states:
“In specifying the amount of a charge under subsection (3)(b) the Secretary of State must … have regard to the range of health services that are likely to be available free of charge to persons who have been given immigration permission”.
The Minister also said on Monday that when the Bill was initially implemented, it was the Government’s,
“clear policy intention that there will be no further charges for treatments”.—[Official Report, 10/3/14; col. 1572.]
But the Minister accepted that this policy stance was not in the Bill. He said that the Government,
“will clarify the position on implementation”.—[Official Report, 10/3/14; col. 1575.]
Frankly, the Government should be clarifying what their Bill means today. Will the Minister now indicate what the words,
“and different amounts may be specified for different purposes”,
are actually intended to mean, and will he give some concrete examples? What different amounts and for what different purposes do the Government have in mind? Is Clause 33(3)(b) simply some sort of ghost paragraph that the Government think may come in handy at some time in the future for purposes about which they are currently unclear? Can the Government’s present position on why and at what stage these words in the Bill will be applied best be summed up as, “Don’t know where, don’t know when”?
I hope that the Minister can today give us clear reasons—which is what the noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked him to do—as to why these words are needed in the Bill and clear up the confusion that I think a number of Members of the Committee, both those who intervened in the debate on Monday and those who subsequently read Hansard, feel exists at present.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, it is helpful that we have had this debate; I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has moved the amendment. As he said, it was originally designed to supplement his amendment relating to students. I think that we have got a good story to tell in connection with students. If I may, however, I shall deal with the particular amendment, Amendment 58.
The noble Lord is right that the provision is not immediately transparent; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has challenged me on this point, too. I understand that the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, may have been in respect of the exclusion of certain expensive discretionary treatments from the free access afforded by having paid the surcharge—I think that that was his concern. I said on Monday, and I am happy to repeat today, that no such exclusions will apply when the surcharge is introduced, and none is planned for the future either. We intend that the payment of the surcharge will provide the same access to health services as is available to a permanent resident.
I turn to the penetrating critique from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. Both he and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, felt that a degree of ambiguity lay within the clause, so perhaps I may explain why Clause 33(3)(b) states that,
“different amounts may be specified for different purposes”.
The answer is that it allows regulations to specify different amounts of surcharge for different categories of migrants—currently, there are only two amounts: the £200 rate and the £150 rate—without which we would not be able to give the discount to students, which is one of the elements of the Bill. We need this capacity to do so. We do not have it in mind that there will be other categories, but this is the way in which the discount for students is facilitated by the legislation. It does not refer to NHS charging in the legislation.
Perhaps I may refer to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, because we have a very different health system here from that in the USA and in Australia which requires a different solution. Health insurance requirements would be expensive and compromise our own competitive position in the international market for students and for workers, which is not what we want the Bill to do. Most EU countries do not enforce the Schengen visa health insurance requirement at their borders. A student applying to Harvard in the USA, for example—my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby referred to Harvard and its great pull as a centre of learning for overseas students—has to pay a fee of $958 per year to access basic health services. To access Harvard’s more comprehensive health insurance plan, which is comparable to what the £150 rate gives access to, would cost a further $2,190 per year. That gives some measure of what is involved. We have already committed to this discount for students—that is what this clause is about—in recognition of their contribution to the UK, reinforcing, I hope, arguments that I am trying to make at regular intervals in our debates. They will pay just £150 instead of £200, which is 1% of the cost of coming to study in the UK and exceptional value for money, as I am sure noble Lords will agree.
Why does the Bill allow surcharge payers to be charged for further treatments? So that noble Lords are clear, I should clarify that the Bill does not prevent the exclusion of certain expensive, discretionary treatments from the free access. However, we have made it clear that we intend that no such exclusions will apply when the surcharge is introduced. The Department of Health has been clear that it will consider these in future only in the event of exceptional and compelling specific justification for health purposes; and any changes would need to be put before Parliament in the form of revised NHS charging regulations. One might say that this is for treatments which may in future emerge where it is considered that the health service quite properly should charge not just migrants but members of the UK population.
My noble friend Lord Avebury asked whether there was a problem with the drafting of Clause 33(4). The drafting purpose of Clause 33(4) is to provide a clear link in the Bill to health treatment. Without it, the clause would give an unlimited power to charge for any purpose, which is the intention neither of the clause nor of that particular subsection of it. I note what noble Lords have said about the wording of the subsection. It has been carefully drafted, but if I can provide noble Lords with an explanation of line-by-line implications, I shall do my best to do so before we get to Report. Meanwhile, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Avebury
Where the Bill uses the words,
“likely to be available free of charge”,
in Clause 33(4), it anticipates the possibility that the Minister mentions—that while we do not intend to charge anybody at the outset of the operation of the Bill for services of particular cost, we have it in mind to do so in the future. That would apply to students and to short-term migrants as well.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think that I made it clear that the wording is designed to enable the health service, if it feels that particular treatments should be charged for, to do so. There is no intention to do so at present, but it is important that the Bill makes it clear that this is a facility which the health service wishes to reserve for itself. I think that it is quite proper for it to do so, but there is no intention on the introduction of the health charge for there to be any additional fees for additional treatments.
Baroness Tonge (Ind LD)
My Lords, will the Minister clarify two things? I apologise if I appear to be Baroness Dim on these two points. The first is: will people who do not want to pay the health charge be refused permission to come into this country? I want to make that clear and have it in Hansard. Secondly, I am still not clear about the phrase that the Minister used a while ago, “different categories of charging”. I am still not clear about what will happen
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
There are two different categories of charge currently: that for students and that for everyone else. I just wanted to make that clear. The wording is general, but those are the two categories that the Bill is intended to introduce. On the question of whether paying the surcharge is mandatory, yes, it is for overseas applicants.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)
Will the Minister confirm that the real purpose of the clause and those words is to open the gates so that at some time in future, UK residents could be charged for services?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
No, that is not the case, but they may be, as they currently are, charged for particular treatments. There are some medical treatments available in this country which are not available under the National Health Service. That would remain the case. That is not the purpose of that particular phraseology. As I have explained, it is to provide for the charging of different categories of migrants—students and others. That is the purpose of the wording. The National Health Service has always said that it will provide health treatment free at the point of use. The purpose of the charge is to put applicants on the same basis as every other resident of this country, so the anxiety that my noble friend expresses is ill founded. This is not the vehicle for introducing mass charging for treatment under the National Health Service. That is not the purpose of the clause and it will not be possible to achieve it through this legislation.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I listened with great interest to that exchange. If the noble Lord is prepared to follow my suggestion and look at the wording, there is a bit of a mismatch between what one finds in Clause 33(1)(b), which mentions,
“any description of such persons”,
and the phrase,
“different amounts may be specified for different purposes”,
in subsection (3)(b). I could understand the linkage if one were talking about different charges for different categories of persons, but it is the breadth of the word “purposes” in subsection (3)(b) which causes difficulty. Looking to the future use of the clause when it becomes a section, it would really be helpful if it were a little more precise.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank the noble and learned Lord for that advice—free legal advice to the Government is considered to be very valuable. I hope that I have been able to explain what the legislation is intended to do and have reassured noble Lords on that point. Beyond that, I can commit to go back to look at the wording of the clause to see whether the intention could be made more explicit. That I will seek to do.
Baroness Barker (LD)
Perhaps I may help the noble Lord. Noble Lords understand that there are now NHS treatments and services for which charges are made and that people who are resident in this country pay those charges, as do visitors. What is perplexing about the clause is, given that that is the case, what is the Government’s intention? Is it to reach a point in future where different categories of people have to pay for identical services? If the Minister could write to noble Lords and give us some examples of what scenario the Department of Health envisages under the legislation, that would be extremely helpful.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
There is nothing sinister here. This is not a Machiavellian move by the Government. It is to bring in a differential between the charge for students and the charge for ordinary migrants, which I am sure that noble Lords applaud. That is the objective. I reassure my noble friend that I will take her advice and write to Noble Lords on this point. I was here for Third Reading of the Pensions Bill, when mention was made of the weight of paper with which noble Lords have been bombarded concerning that Bill. I fear that we may be getting into the same situation here, but I hope that noble Lords will understand that, in technical matters such as this, it is often easier to put things in writing, because I can be more explicit.
Lord Patel
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I have a few points to make. First, the Minister said that the subsections of Clause 33 were very carefully drafted. Listening to the debate, I think that there will be a collective opinion in the House today that that is not the case. I am pleased that the Minister said that he will look at the provisions to see whether the purpose for which they have been written can be clarified. I look forward to new amendments.
I am much clearer now about three things. First, once the health charge, or the levy, is paid, currently, for all those who pay the levy, health services will be available to them free of charge, just the same as permanent citizens of this country. That bit is clear. The second thing clarified by the Minister—I thank him for doing that—is that the words,
“and different amounts may be specified for different purposes”,
do not refer to health service charges but to categories of immigrants or students who we allow to come to this country.
The third purpose is what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to in subsection (4), which does refer to health charges that might be brought in subsequently. In answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, the Minister was quite clear that they do not apply to residents of this country and that the Government had no intention of using this as a backdoor way to bring in charges in the NHS for citizens of this country. The subsection refers to extra charges that the Government may introduce through legislation which will be brought to Parliament in the first instance. I hope that I am clear in what I understand and that that is what the Minister said.
On that basis, until we see the redrafted clauses, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
“(4A) The Secretary of State will, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before the House a report on the sums collected under this section and the expenditure thereof.”
Lord Rosser
This amendment also relates to Clause 33. The only comment I make to start with is that if all the verbiage in Clause 33 does is give the power to charge one rate to students and another to everybody else, it seems unbelievable that it cannot be made simpler and more explicit. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when he reflects on the debate that took place on the previous amendment.
Clause 33 provides the Secretary of State with a power by order to require certain migrants to pay an immigration health charge. It relates only to people who are seeking immigration permission; it does not relate beyond that. The charge would be paid by someone who was applying for leave to enter or to remain in the UK or for entry clearance. The amount, the method of payment and the consequences of non-payment will be set out in secondary legislation although, as has been said on a number of occasions, we understand from the Government that the amount of the charge will be £200 a year and £150 for students and that paying the charge will be a precondition of entry.
We agree with the principle of the charge. It is right in our view to require migrants who are here for a limited period to make a contribution to the NHS. We also agree that the test of ordinary residence is fairly generous. At the moment it is satisfied by many new and temporary migrants almost immediately and covers many people, including newly arrived family members.
We have tabled only one amendment to this clause, Amendment 61, which requires the Government to provide information to Parliament on the sums collected under Clause 33. Obviously, in large part the amendment is to find out a little more about the Government’s intentions on this score. The amendment asks for a review of the sums that are to be collected and how they are to be disbursed. The Bill states that the money will be paid into the Consolidated Fund or be applied in such other way as the order may specify. At Second Reading, in response to a question from my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, the Minister said that,
“on 20 January the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed to departments and the devolved Administrations that the money that is collected by these charges … will go directly to health services”.—[Official Report, 10/2/14; col. 524.]
Where will this be set out, and where is the guarantee of it?
There are further questions. Will hospitals that treat a high proportion of foreign nationals get an appropriate or proportionate share of it and how will the money be shared with the devolved Administrations? What is the definition of the words “health services”? Could the money go to the private healthcare sector, for example? If the money is to go to health services, why not say so in the Bill and end any doubts on that score? Will the money from the charge be in addition to the money that the Government provide for the NHS or for health services, or will it be used to reduce the amount that the Government would otherwise have provided? In other words, is it extra money or is it simply going to be used to reduce the amount that the Government themselves provide? Some response to that point would be very helpful.
I want to ask about the implementation of the provisions, because in the consultation document the Government indicated that the migrants’ biometric residency permit would be endorsed to show that they were entitled to NHS treatment without further charge. How will hospitals and doctors be made aware of that? I ask that in the context—I understand that I may well be wrong, and I am sure that if I am I will be corrected—that the Department of Health will publish a full implementation plan—indeed I may be told that it has already done so—which will include plans to develop a new NHS registration process for the identifying and recording of patients’ chargeable status. If that has not already been produced, will the Minister confirm when it might be available? We also want to ensure that there is no disincentive for people who bring benefits to this country. One category is students. How will that charge be kept under review to ensure that it does not act as a disincentive for people who we would wish to come here to do so?
In probing what the Government’s intentions are and how they see this operating, I want to ask about transitional arrangements. The Minister has confirmed to us in a letter that affected migrants who are already in the United Kingdom at the time when the policy is implemented will not be liable to pay a surcharge and will not be charged for healthcare for the remainder of their leave if they were previously exempt from NHS charges. However, once their leave expires, the migrant will be required to pay the surcharge as part of any further immigration application unless they are applying for IDR. Will the Minister confirm where this will be set out in the legislation and how people will be made aware of it? In that scenario, how will a GP know whether someone who should pay the charge is covered if for that patient the charge becomes payable only when they apply for an extension of leave to remain? If a GP refers to hospital a patient who should have paid the charge, will the hospital also have to check that that patient has paid—a double check—or can the hospital accept that the GP making the reference will have done a check and rely on that?
The Minister said on Monday, in a discussion on the issue of the charge, that there would be no transitional arrangements. I ask him not to confirm that there will be no transitional arrangements, because that is clearly in black and white in Hansard, but to confirm that that also means that there will be no transitional costs relating to the bringing in of this payment. It would be helpful to have clarification on that.
I have raised a number of questions: what the Government’s intention are; how this will operate; where the money will be going; whether it will be used to reduce the amount that the Government provide to the health service or whether it will be additional money; what the definition is of “health services”; and whether the money could go to the private sector. I have also raised queries about the position of GPs and the checks that they have to make, and in particular whether there is a double check if they refer someone to a hospital or whether the hospital can take it that the GP will have done the checks and that is the end of the matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 66F in this group. Following the consultation in 2013, the Department of Health said that,
“while there is a great deal of speculation about the numbers of visitors and short-term migrants using the NHS, robust data are very limited”.
That is the point that I wish to address. I have no problem with the Government’s intention to introduce a health levy, and I have no problem with them seeking to have different rates for different groups of people. However, I want to be sure that when this House makes a major change to a fundamental policy that we have held in this country for over 60 years, that it does so on the basis of sound evidence.
Back in 2006, noble Lords will remember that proposals of this kind came before this House from the then Labour Government but then disappeared, principally because someone went back to the department and worked out that the cost of implementing the proposals far outweighed any benefit. It is simply good business practice to have done a cost-benefit analysis of a major change before one implements it. The Government are wedded to doing this—fair enough, and I have no doubt that they will go ahead—but it is only right that if they go ahead they should do so on the basis that its implementation will be thoroughly analysed, so that we do not find ourselves back here in five years’ time responding yet again to an agenda that has been set by various media organisations and political groupings on the basis of nothing more than speculation.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 66 requires information outlining details of health charges for health services applicable to the individual to be given at the point of an application for immigration permission or upon request. One of the biggest worries about the health service clauses in Part 3 is that they could create confusion and wrongly discourage some migrants from accessing free healthcare to which they are entitled. According to the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, for whose briefing I am most grateful, there is already a notable lack of understanding about how the charges for health services will work among both individuals and healthcare professionals. Even more worrying, there has also been inconsistency in how charges are implemented.
Most welcome is the exemption from charging for the treatment of diseases which present a public health risk. However, public confusion could result in delays in people presenting themselves and therefore in diagnosis. Already in 2012, 47% of adults newly diagnosed with HIV were diagnosed late. I am not sure what percentage of those late diagnoses would be attributable in any way to confusion. Overall, 81% of AIDS-related deaths in England and Wales in 2012 were attributable to late diagnosis. There is an issue about timing.
Equally, unless people are made aware of their entitlement to health treatment right at the start of their application for immigration permission or when they request it, they are likely never to sort this out or to become clear about the services to which they are entitled. From the taxpayers’ point of view, it is crucial that those entitled to free GP consultations are aware of it. The risk is that fear of being charged for a visit to the GP may result in people not doing that and later needing an A&E appointment. The cost differential between these two options is £90 per patient and could over time add up to quite a bit for the taxpayer, quite apart from the detriment to the patient.
Does the Minister agree that readily available information accompanying any changes to the healthcare charging system or to the collection of charges—I understand that is going to be much tougher in future—is essential to prevent public health risks and unnecessary costs to the Exchequer? I hope the Minister will inform the House what assessment the Government have made about the current level of public understanding about healthcare charges and exemptions for specific groups and what steps they have taken or will be taking to improve awareness among healthcare professionals and members of the public.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Following what the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said about the importance of the evidence base, I take us back to our debate on Monday. In that debate, a number of noble Lords questioned the evidence base for the claim that there is a problem of so-called health tourism in this country. They asked the Minister what the evidence base was for that claim and questioned the Department of Health’s report on it. The Minister had an awful lot of points to make in his summing up speech and, after about 30 minutes, he quite understandably thought that he had had enough and probably everyone else had, too. Although he has already helpfully circulated a letter following our first day, I could not see anything in it that responded to the concerns raised on all sides of the House. I use this opportunity to invite the Minister to respond on that this evening.
Lord Leigh of Hurley
Perhaps I should declare an interest as a chartered accountant. As such, I looked at Amendment 66F with care. I agree that it is important to have a proper review, analysis and evidence of real costs, but the trouble with the proposed new clause is that it asks for a calculation of the total charges paid, among other things, but it does not look for an assessment of the cost against those charges. For the proposed new clause to be meaningful and for the assessment of the health charge to be made, one would have to look at the costs incurred by the National Health Service for the £200 or £150.
Baroness Barker
As someone who is not a chartered accountant, I thank the noble Lord for the free advice. If I were to redraft the clause, I would include that in it.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I welcome the general support offered by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for the surcharge. Indeed, I felt that there was support around the House for the surcharge in principle; it is just on implementation and the practicalities that the Government are quite properly being challenged.
The Home Office, which is responsible for administering the health charge, but not for spending the money, will be open and transparent about the operation of the surcharge. As my noble friend Lord Howe set out in his letter to all noble Lords last week—I hope it helped; it was designed to try to put these changes to the law in the context of wider health service reforms—the surcharge income will be allocated directly to the National Health Service across the UK. Allocation will be in accordance with the Barnett formula.
The dear and much-loved noble Lord is not in his place, but much as he seeks to see the end of his legacy in establishing the formula, it is still widely used in government and it seems the most appropriate way of ensuring that the money goes to the NHS. It will go to the NHS—the National Health Service—not to any other agency offering healthcare in this country. How the NHS spends it is for the Department of Health, of course, and the devolved Health Ministers, because health services are a devolved matter. The allocation of the money will be made by affirmative order, so we will have control here in Parliament of how this is finally resolved.
I note what my noble friend Lady Barker said in speaking to her amendment. While the Home Office already has a well established procedure through which it is accountable to Parliament, I appreciate that this House would benefit from the means to scrutinise the impact of the surcharge. I am therefore prepared to make a Statement to this House to provide information about the Home Office’s administration of the surcharge within 12 months of it going live. I hope that that will give some assurance to noble Lords on how the surcharge is working.
It may include details such as the number of migrants who pay the surcharge and the total amount of surcharge collected and directed to the National Health Service. I believe that this sort of transparency is important, and the Statement will provide proper transparency and provide the House with the necessary flexibility in scrutinising the surcharge scheme. Furthermore, any future changes to the core operating principles of the surcharge, including the amount to be paid, will have to be agreed by both Houses under an affirmative resolution procedure.
On Amendment 66, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, we intend to do our utmost to ensure that visa applicants understand the purpose of the surcharge and how it might apply to them. We will make the information available to individuals, including through our website and visa application centres. Indeed, the visa application form is where most people encounter this surcharge because it is directed only at those applying for a visa for a stay of six months or more. The form itself will explain it.
My noble friend Lord Attlee has pointed out in conversation that universities themselves might like to promote the student surcharge as being a very competitive offer at £150; it certainly is a bargain in global terms. However, it would be most unfair to ask migrants to pay a surcharge that they know nothing about. Both the reasons it is being charged and what it gives migrants access to are very important.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked when the Department of Health will publish its detailed implementation plan for patient registration and identification. If I say “shortly”, he will know that that word is used regularly enough. We do not have an exact date, but it will be shortly. He also asked how the transitional provisions would be set out and how a hospital will know if a person is a transitional case. This will be done in the order implementing the surcharge. We will use the patient registration system to flag people who have paid the surcharge. We will consider doing so also for those who benefit from the transitional arrangements. The simple production of a visa or biometric residence permit—BRP—that is current and valid will give evidence of free entitlement to the NHS, and transitional cases will be identifiable because their entry clearance or BRP will be dated before the commencement of the surcharge scheme, which will be known.
My noble friend Lady Barker asked about the costs of implementing the health charge and whether we have done a cost-benefit analysis. We have indeed. The Home Office has produced a full impact assessment on the Bill. It is available on the Immigration Bill page of the gov.uk website.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked about treatments for infectious conditions, such as HIV and TB, for example. They are free, and will remain so. It was this Government who abolished the NHS treatment charges for HIV.
I hope that I have answered most of the points. I will go through the record and see whether there are aspects that I have not addressed. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, is looking particularly questioning. Can she remind me of what I have missed?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Given that the Minister was able to slip out of answering this point on Monday—it did not seem fair to push him on it after he had covered so many points—perhaps I might remind him about the evidence base for health tourism. I have a snippet of information that one piece of research that the Department of Health is relying on is that, out of nearly 1,000 migrants screened by overseas visitors officers in more than 15 trusts during August 2013, only four individuals—0.4% of the sample—were identified as “health tourists”. Even if the Minister cannot now tell us what the evidence is for this claim of health tourism, I would be grateful if he could commit to write specifically on this issue, given that it kind of got left out of his last letter.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, when the noble Lord is replying on that point, will he deal with story of the 300 maternity patients who were alleged to have been treated at St Thomas’s hospital? When we last discussed this, the allegation was found to have been apocryphal. I would be grateful if the Minister would repudiate it.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I would not wish to get involved in hearsay or gossip or, indeed, the suggestion that some of this stuff is just newspaper chat. I will get back to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, with a reasoned reply explaining the Government’s analysis of the situation. However, the purpose of this measure is not to do with health tourism at all; it is to do with providing a charge whereby people who stay here for more than six months make a contribution to the NHS. It will make it more difficult for people who are not entitled to access healthcare to do so, but that is a secondary purpose.
Baroness Meacher
Perhaps I might ask for clarification on one point. The Minister skated rather quickly over that fact that “it” will be explained on the visa application form. I wonder what “it” refers to. Will it spell out clearly that all health services freely available to permanent residents will also be available to the applicant as somebody who has paid the surcharge?
My second question concerns people with infectious diseases who may not have paid the surcharge but who will be entitled to free treatment for an infectious disease. What sort of action will the Government take to inform them of their entitlements?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The latter point is more difficult to answer positively; it is something which my noble friend Lord Howe would be in a position to reply to with authority. On the first point, I think that the wording which the noble Baroness suggested is particularly good. It sums up the policy as I have tried to describe it to the Committee.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, which was far more helpful than I had expected. Perhaps I may press him a little further and ask whether he would be prepared to make not just a one-off Statement to the House about the introduction but perhaps to do so annually, or more than once, so that we can have comparative data in different years. That would give us a slightly more robust evidence base than we would have by having just a one-off Statement in the year after a measure has been brought in. A fair amount of information and attention would, presumably, attend its introduction.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I start from the position that an informed House is better able to make decisions and judgments on issues. Having said that, I am not sure that I could commit to making a periodic Statement on this issue, although I know that the Home Office will always respond to questions that might seek updated information of this type, and indeed there are other ways in which this House has the capacity to bring the Government to account on policy. At least by promising this Statement I am giving an indication that we are confident that this particular measure will be a success and raise money for the National Health Service, which will be to the advantage of the taxpayers of this country and a bargain for migrants to this country. I hope that my noble friend is reassured by that point.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is reassured. However, I think that the Committee would also be glad to know—I do not expect the Minister to pin down the detail tonight—the range of issues that will be covered by a Statement. That addresses my noble friend’s point about the data which will be collected. We were quite rightly reminded about the costs of the services, which have not been included in our list. I am sure that there are other points as well. It is the detail that is important and that noble Lords will be interested to know. Perhaps I may leave that with the Minister as something to think about after this stage.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
If my long-suffering noble friend will be kind enough to bear with me for one minute, perhaps I may raise one further point which follows what the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said. I think that the Minister said in his response that it was already the case that no charges would be made under the NHS for treating infectious diseases such as AIDS and tuberculosis, and that that would still be true for those who are not permanent residents. I believe that I understood that correctly. It is therefore strange that I have had briefings, particularly from the National AIDS Trust and from bodies concerned with drug-resistant TB, asking that it should be made quite clear that there would be no charges for treatment in the cases of these wildly infectious and very frightening diseases. There is, therefore, something of a conflict of understanding which the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, might go some way towards meeting. However, it is troubling when a professional foundation says something quite different from what I understand we have been discussing and have been told here in this Chamber.
Lord Rosser
I, too, thank the Minister for his response. I am in much the same position as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, in the sense that it went rather further than I thought it would go, so I genuinely thank the Minister for what he had to say in his reply. I am also sure that the Minister might wish to reflect on the number of points that have been made after he sat down. Bearing in mind that he has said that he will send a letter to pick up any points he has not covered, perhaps he will reflect further on some of the points that have been raised in the past few minutes.
I do not expect the Minister to respond to the questions now because he has said that he will write a letter. He has certainly not responded to some of the issues that I raised but I accept that he will do so in the letter. One of those issues, of course, is why it does not say in the Bill that the money will go to the NHS—why not put that in there? We are not proposing, are we, that the National Health Service will be disappearing within the next few years, so it is not the usual argument that you do not want to put this in the Bill because it might not be there for very long? Or at least I hope that that is not the point. I have not received a specific response yet, but I know that I will when the Minister sends the letter about whether this will be additional money to the National Health Service or whether it will simply be used to reduce the amount that the Government provide.
Lord Rosser
I also asked about whether there would be any transitional costs as opposed to transitional arrangements. I take it that the Minister will respond to that question, too.
The Minister will be aware that doctors and other parts of the health service have expressed a view that the kind of checks they will have to make will be an administrative burden. I asked a couple of questions about whether a hospital, if a patient has been referred to it by a doctor, can assume that the doctor has done the check and not have to do a double-check, and how a GP can know whether a patient who is already in the country, and therefore not covered by these new arrangements, requires a renewed application to remain here. I am sure that that will be picked up in the Minister’s reply.
My general point—bearing in mind that some doctors have expressed a concern about what they feel will be an administrative burden, and that the Minister has said that a Statement will be made to Parliament—is whether the Statement will also cover whether the arrangements have imposed an administrative burden on doctors. As some doctors have raised the issue, this would be one way of getting an analysis of it and discovering whether there is any substance to it, or whether their fears have not been realised. Perhaps the Minister can also comment on that point when he sends the letter. Once again I thank the Minister for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Bletchley Park
Baroness Trumpington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the future of Bletchley Park.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, timings for the QSD are quite tight. I remind noble Lords that when the indicator shows “4”, noble Lords are in their fifth minute and therefore out of time.
Baroness Trumpington (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity this short debate presents to recall the significance that Bletchley Park represents to our history. This debate allows me to provide some background and context to the restoration that is being contemplated as a result of the £8 million financing that it has received. I hope that those involved will avoid creating a Disney theme park experience for the visitor—the Hollywood films that have been made to date bear little resemblance to the Bletchley that I recall. I still find it difficult to discuss this subject in public. After all, the Bletchley that I knew was a highly secret place and for many years we were forbidden from mentioning it.
I am especially pleased to see that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, will be speaking. His mother Sarah was my colleague and a great friend. Three weeks ago I was called to a small table in the tea tent of the Peers’ Dining Room where a host Peer and his wife had as their guest 96 year-old Pamela Rose. Pam worked and I typed through those wartime days and nights. We were employed by the Foreign Office, never in uniform, and we did not look after Colossus, as did the Wrens pictured so recently in the Times.
Let me try, very briefly, to describe my recollection of the Bletchley Park that I knew. I spent my time working in Hut 4, followed by Block B. We were never allowed to visit other offices. I am delighted that the original Hut 4 remains. In 1941, it was the centre of U-boat warfare research before Colossus; nowadays, Hut 4 is a bar. I never went into the mansion, which was known to me and my colleagues as “The Other Side”. The present day invaluable post office did not exist, and at the back of the mansion lay paddocks belonging to Captain Ingram’s stud farm. Nowadays, those paddocks are covered by huge housing estates, and only someone as old as me and as keen on racing as I am would know of their past. The pond, now a rather grand lake, stood alone, and a nearby path is bordered by American shrubs, to which we all contributed in order to commemorate American involvement with Bletchley, which was an important part of the latter part of the war.
Food was actually a bit of a problem. Outside the main gate was a short road. On one side lay strictly private houses and on the other side a very large shed housed our only canteen. At the end of the building was a raised stage from which Bletchley Park choirs sang and theatrical productions took place. It is a pity that the shed was not preserved for visitors’ use in peacetime, although I am glad that the disgusting food is not available. I hope that some of the new money can be set aside to provide first-class meals, snacks and maybe facilities for banquets—and I consider this to be very important.
The recent debates in this house about Alan Turing have highlighted some of the work done at Bletchley. It strikes me that I am probably seriously out of date; I should therefore be wise to seek the help of the many voluntary guides who I know do such an admirable job. In the mean time, I hope that it does not sound cheeky for me to wish that funny old place a magnificent future.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, it is an extraordinary privilege to speak in this debate and to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. I think that she has shared with us this evening more memories than she has allowed herself to speak of at other times, because she has kept the oath of silence magnificently over the years. In fact, she has been more concerned to recognise the efforts of others, notably Alan Turing, than she has been to promote her own contribution at Bletchley. It is with great humility that we all take part in this debate to follow what she has said.
I would like to quote something from one of her colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, who when he wrote of his own memories in 2003 wrote about Jean’s contribution. I am using the noble Lord’s term, “Jean”, because she is such a noble friend to all of us. The noble Lord, Lord Briggs, said essentially that, when she spoke at the opening of the visitors’ information centre at Bletchley in 2003, she took a long-term view. Jean, he said, was exactly the right person to present it in 21st-century Bletchley Park. She always takes a long-term view and she has taken it again this evening by sharing those memories and sharing her optimism and hopes for the future of Bletchley, in which she has played such an extraordinary role.
It is very difficult to underestimate the importance of Bletchley and its scientific and technological heritage, as well as its wartime role. There were 9,000 people on that site, and they all kept silence for such a very long time. Code-breaking is what it is known for, but the work of those brilliant men and women did not just shorten the war and save countless lives; Bletchley Park proved to be to the information age what Ironbridge was to the industrial age 300 years ago. For many years, the site itself was silent and deteriorating under the long shadow of wartime secrecy, but gradually history, memories and voices have emerged. However, as with so much of our heritage, it was terrifyingly touch and go 20 years ago that anything would be saved or celebrated at all. It is extraordinary to think that in 1991 the site was almost turned into a housing development. In 1993, the mansion was not even listed, because it was not thought to be of sufficient special interest.
It was not until 2004 that English Heritage began the detailed archaeological research that showed, for example, how the secrecy of the operation was maintained by the physical separation of the huts and how, as the huge volume of the signal traffic increased, those huts became permanent. As recently as 2006, they were in a very fragile condition, and I am pleased to say that English Heritage jumped in, as it often does, with emergency funding to enable the bigger funders to come and provide that £8 million of public and private help. The master plan set out last year by the trust will produce, I think, a very important and productive future for the trust. We know that there are now 15 listed buildings on that site. Block C is a visitor interpretation centre, and the huts that housed the code-breakers and bombes will be restored—all because of Bletchley Park Trust 20 years ago and the volunteers and veterans.
As the noble Baroness said, we know more through documentaries and films. The visitor numbers have trebled in the past six years, and what is encouraging is that it is recognised as a world site. A world-class learning and interpretation centre must now be provided, which tells the complex and often personal stories of the genius of individuals but also of the culture of Bletchley, and the creativity and tensions not just of the mathematicians but of the historians, poets and musicians who also played such an important role. I hope that that will include the noble Baroness putting her own memoirs into that living archive so that more people learn of her contribution to this extraordinary story.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, when I saw this subject on the Order Paper and noted that my noble friend would lead the discussion on it, I could not resist getting involved given that she knows so much about this important matter. Indeed, my noble friend hinted that the whole story may not have come out yet and it is still exciting and changing. Therefore, we should have a good, long, hard look at what was at Bletchley Park, and what it meant.
Bletchley Park is also exciting because it is not just a part of a war; it was effectively the start of the computer age in which we now live as Colossus was there. I wish to deal first with an issue that has been in the press—namely, the two organisations, both of which are in receipt of public money, which are not co-operating. I suggest that it might be the role of Parliament to bang their heads together until they either scream or agree to co-operate as the two of them are interlinked. The issues surrounding the construction of the fence and where tour groups can visit can surely be resolved given the importance of this site. Pressure should be put on the two organisations concerned to operate in a more seemly fashion. There is no reason why this cannot be done. I do not know the ins and outs of the argument, who said what or know about the egos involved—I am sure egos are involved on both sides—but surely differences can be resolved. Those who look after the Colossus, the National Museum of Computing and the Bletchley Park Trust must come together and look after the whole site as all its parts are interlinked.
Looking at the history of computing, effectively modern computing started at Bletchley Park—at least, that is my interpretation of it. I speak diffidently given who will speak later in the debate. The work done at Bletchley Park led to the development of the modern computer, which is changing our lives on a daily basis, and affects just about everything we do. Therefore, this issue is not just about the past but constitutes a link to something which dominates our lives today. The fact that computing started at Bletchley is an enormously important lesson for us to learn in terms of understanding that good things can come out of conflict—that is, if we agree that the modern computing age is a good thing. It is possibly not an unmixed blessing but it has changed the way we live.
I would like to give noble Lords a small example of what computing has achieved in the minute or so I have left to speak. I cannot write properly without using a voice-operated computer because of my dyslexia. Literally millions of people in this country are assisted to communicate by computers. I declare an interest as chairman of a firm that provides assistance to people in this country and many parts of the world, including deaf people, those with dyslexia and blind people, by means of text-to-voice and voice-to-text machines and screen images. This work all started at Bletchley Park.
We are in danger of losing the link between the past and the present embodied in Bletchley Park. The work that was done there affects us to this day in virtually every aspect of our lives.
Lord Higgins (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on obtaining the debate and, of course, on her speech. One is constantly astonished by the noble Baroness. Even two nights ago, I happened to turn on the television and see a recorded version of “Have I Got News For You?” in which the noble Baroness appeared. I have never seen the regular panel so intimidated as they were on that occasion.
The noble Baroness has a very close and long association with Bletchley Park. Curiously, I discovered that I, too, have links, albeit rather remote ones, with Bletchley Park, although I was quite unaware of it at the time. I did my national service in 1947-48 in the air force. It was a pretty miserable time as there was no prospect of promotion or learning to fly; one was just there to make up the numbers while others were demobbed. I may have spent much of my time training for the 1948 Olympics, but I was also trained ostensibly as what was known as an “instrument basher”, where one had the responsibility of looking after aircraft instruments and so on. I did not think much of the training and I took the precaution of never going up in an aircraft which had an altimeter that I had calibrated. I was later posted to somewhere in the south of England which was responsible for testing and repairing type X machines, which were the British equivalent of the German Enigma. If there is one theme in my remarks this evening, it is that I think the type X machine has been grossly misrepresented compared with the Enigma machine. After all, the Enigma codes were broken, which was never true of the type X machine used by the British.
Reading through some of the books that have recently been published, it has become clear to me that it was not just a question of decoding the Enigma ciphers; you also had to decipher them in a form which was readable. To do that, you had to put it into a similar machine. We clearly did not have very many Enigmas, so the type X machine must have been used. I believe that that was the case. Therefore, the type X machine played a major role in the success of the whole code operation and its effect on the outcome of World War 2.
As noble Lords have pointed out, the work which was done at Bletchley was of great importance. I fear that, increasingly, we are tending to concentrate on World War 1 rather than World War 2. Perhaps this is just because it is the anniversary of World War 1. It is very strange how World War 1 seems to have captured young people’s imagination more than World War 2. However, young people may be inspired by Bletchley as the place where modern computing began, and where they can discover what it was all about, which is important.
Just before I was demobbed, I was told that the type X machines were going to be destroyed. I gather that that did not take place, but I believe that Churchill had the big machines destroyed. That was a shame, but it is good that the exhibition has those machines on display. That is as astonishing as the extraordinary decoding work that was done at Bletchley Park in the war, including by my noble friend.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, although I must conclude, with some relief, that during my career I clearly never encountered any of his altimeters.
I, too, welcome this debate and add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for securing it. I should also like to express my admiration for her sterling efforts in support of the work to secure a pardon for Alan Turing. A few years ago, I had the privilege of opening the Turing building at Qinetiq’s facility in Malvern. The increasing official recognition of the debt that we in this country owe to Alan Turing is very much to be welcomed. We cannot, alas, reverse his personal tragedy, but we can at least ensure that he and his work are remembered and honoured. And, of course, some of the most important strands of that work were carried out at Bletchley Park.
This year sees the 70th anniversary of Operation Overlord, the allied landings in Normandy. Bletchley Park played a defining role in that operation, as it did in so many others during the course of the Second World War. The intelligence produced by Bletchley Park undoubtedly shortened the war and saved countless lives. This success depended upon the talents and dedication of many people, and, above all, upon their unyielding secrecy. It is worth remembering that, while transparency is often a good thing, it can occasionally be destructive. One whisper of the successes at Bletchley Park would undoubtedly have led the Germans to eliminate the poor operational procedures on which the code-breakers depended. The history of that time underscores forcefully the old adage that secret intelligence needs, above all, to be secret.
We in this country need a considered debate on the balance that we should seek to strike between the sometimes competing needs of security, liberty and privacy. In such a debate, the story of Bletchley Park has important lessons to teach us.
Bletchley Park is relevant to our consideration of the future as well as to our remembrance of the past. It reminds us of a debt that we owe, but also of the need to make hard choices. It is an important part of our national heritage, but it should also help to stimulate an important discussion about our future society.
We should be very grateful to the Bletchley Park Trust, which over the past 22 years has transformed the site from a derelict wasteland to a thriving memorial. Visitor numbers have indeed increased threefold since 2007, but continue to rise steeply. Many of the historic buildings have been restored, and in June the carefully rescued code-breaking huts will be formally unveiled, along with a new visitors’ centre. Of the some 250 staff at Bletchley Park, 174 are volunteers, including all the 46 tour guides. The work of that team has been and will continue to be crucial to the preservation and development of Bletchley Park, and we can only admire and praise its commitment.
There has been some controversy in the media recently surrounding the relative positions of the Bletchley Park Trust and the National Museum of Computing, a valuable independent enterprise that occupies part of the site. Needless to say, the coverage has aimed to maximise the controversy rather than to reflect in a balanced way the issues involved. I am sure that the leadership of both enterprises is mature and experienced enough to work out an appropriate modus vivendi.
I would just say this: for most of the past 22 years, Bletchley Park has been in survival mode. Only now—only today—after the sustained efforts of the trust, its staff and its supporters is it able to think with confidence about the future. As visitor numbers grow, so the quality of the Bletchley Park experience needs to develop to meet that demand. That means continued change. Change is never easy and often controversial, but standing still is not an option. Bletchley Park is simply too important both to our heritage and to our future in this information age. The trust recognises that, I know. We should be grateful to it for bringing Bletchley Park to its present successful state, but should also support it in its endeavours to fit it for the challenges ahead.
Viscount Astor (Con)
My Lords, Bletchley Park is a crucial part of our history. Its role in cracking the German codes gave us a unique advantage in the Second World War. Winston Churchill told King George:
“It was thanks to Ultra that we won the war”.
The name, of course, arose because the intelligence that was obtained was considered more important than that already designated by the highest British security classification, “most secret”, so it became “ultra secret”. Much of the German cipher traffic was encrypted on the Enigma machine. Used properly that machine would have been virtually unbreakable, but in practice shortcomings in its operation allowed it to be broken.
As my noble friend said, my mother was also in Hut 4, the naval section, from 1941 to 1944, when she moved to the Admiralty in London to be the liaison officer between Bletchley and the Admiralty. She and my noble friend became great friends, and their friendship lasted all my mother’s life. Just before she died last year, I asked my mother what two things she remembered and was most proud of in her time at Bletchley. She said that she was most proud of being part of the team which was able to find where the U-boats were waiting to sink Allied convoys, and being able to alert the Admiralty. The second thing was what she really remembered—it was, one afternoon, putting her friend Jean in a large laundry basket on wheels, which was normally used to move “most secret” files, and launching it down a long corridor. It gathered considerable momentum, and Jean and the basket disappeared through the double doors down the next corridor, before finally crashing to a halt in the men’s lavatories. I do not think that noble Lords require an Enigma machine to work out who Jean was. A serious reprimand was administered to both of them, and their watches were changed so that they were distributed among what were called more sober colleagues.
Over the last few years Bletchley Park, managed by its trust, has been transformed with a new visitor centre, and receives more than 150,000 visitors a year. There is more to do as interest grows in the extraordinary work and achievements of its code-breakers. I thank my noble friend for initiating this debate and giving us all the opportunity to thank her and all those who served at Bletchley for their extraordinary wartime work.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on securing the debate, and that is not just the usual formula. It is clear that the situation at Bletchley Park needs some attention. I was rather dismayed when I looked through the Library briefing for this debate. Bletchley Park is much too important to allow the current problems to continue. As many speakers have said, two important things happened there: the cracking of the Nazi Enigma code, and the beginning of computing and of computer science. Both deserve a proper, civilised and shared commemoration. It is entirely appropriate that we should have a museum of code-breaking and a museum of computing on the site. What is entirely inappropriate is that the two museums should be on such very bad terms.
I will not rehearse again the various charges and countercharges levelled by each museum against the other. I will not comment on the obviously dysfunctional management that allows the situation to continue. However, I will say that any organisation which loses the person who saved it is obviously doing something wrong. That person is Dr Sue Black, who is largely responsible for saving Bletchley from dereliction in the first place. She was instrumental in obtaining the funding needed to secure Bletchley Park’s future, yet has resigned from the board of the Bletchley Park Trust in protest against its failure to sort out the long-running dispute with the National Museum of Computing. Dr Black even suggested that the gender balance on the boards could be preventing a solution; she did not mean that there were too many women on the boards.
It is clear that the relationship between the Bletchley Park Trust and the National Museum of Computing has broken down. It is clear that some kind of intervention is needed. Common sense needs to be restored. The commentator Gareth Halfacree, in his blog of 29 January, made an extensive analysis of the situation and several common-sense recommendations. He recommended: that there continue to be knowledgeable and expert volunteer guides alongside the modern audio guides; that there be a review of the joint ticketing arrangements, which is eminently sensible; and that the trust look again at the way in which it communicates its goals and plans to its employees. He did not recommend the removal of the fence, but that was because it had not been built when he wrote the review.
None of those recommendations seems difficult. In fact, they all have a common-sense and conciliatory air. However, to put them into place and even to begin to discuss them, firm leadership is required. Bletchley Park and its history are too important to allow a rather shameful quarrel to continue there. Intervention is needed, and I hope that the Government will think creatively about how they can, if at all, help to resolve the situation. But there is another kind of intervention available. When the campaign to pardon Alan Turing seemed to be stalled the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, wrote to the Prime Minister. Two months later, Turing was pardoned. Perhaps it is time for her to take up her pen again.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
My Lords, as a novice Baroness and a woman who has worked in technology her whole career, an invitation to tea from the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, in the first few weeks in your Lordships’ House was indeed a highlight. Hearing her this evening, I defy anyone of my generation not to be inspired by her example. I am not an expert on the situation at Bletchley, but I would like to suggest three ideas which I hope illustrate why it still has wide-ranging significance and must be preserved.
First, today is the 25th anniversary of the invention of the world wide web. It was probably about this time of the day when Sir Tim Berners-Lee gave to his boss the piece of paper on which he had written down his invention, and on which his boss famously wrote “vague but interesting”, and handed it back.
Like the millions of lives that were saved due to the direct work at Bletchley, the web has transformed millions of lives, and both are achievements that this country should be immensely proud of and grateful for. I believe that both Bletchley and the invention of the web could be used more widely as examples of British creativity and possibility. I am not convinced that many people in our country are aware of the history of either.
Yesterday I had the opportunity to spend time in the Science Museum with the computer on which Tim wrote the first code for the web. It has come on loan from CERN, and I felt a bit giddy next to it. We were in a room full of computational history, including Charles Babbage’s analytical engine, the first Lyons tea factory LEO computer and ERNIE—the random number generator that ran the premium bonds. What struck me was how many women were part of the stories of all these computers—from Ada Lovelace to the women working on ERNIE and at Lyons.
Starting with Bletchley and on through the 1950s and 1960s women worked in computing and fuelled the burgeoning computer industry. The unbelievable Dame Stephanie Shirley employed only women in her company, all working remotely at home and on complex problems, from the black box on Concorde to the Polaris submarine. Half the people working at Bletchley were women, yet we are now facing stagnation in the numbers of women in the tech sector. How can Bletchley be more widely used to help reverse this trend? The numbers are depressing.
Finally, I should like to mention coding itself. From September this year, every child at primary school will be taught to code. This is a visionary policy and the Government should be congratulated. We will lead the G8. A number of organisations have been encouraging coding for many years, especially among children—including Young Rewired State, Decoded, Free:Formers, Code Club and #techmums, started by Dr Sue Black. The curriculum shift has also raised the profile of coding, with Hour of Code and Year of Code being particular examples, and demonstrates the power of this incredible language. Yet, there remain a number of challenges in training teachers and it would be sad if this incredible opportunity was not given the best chance of success.
I look at Bletchley and think what an immense shame it would be if it did not continue to be a national treasure. What a tribute it would be to the brave people who worked there in secret for so long if we used it to celebrate more noisily our technology inventions, to encourage more gender equality in the sector and, finally, to inspire a whole new generation of coders.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow one of our most remarkable new Members of your Lordships’ House. She has today become the chancellor of the Open University and we should all congratulate her on that.
It is a real privilege to speak in a debate introduced by my noble friend Lady Trumpington. She is a national treasure. If we had, as the Japanese have, national treasures as human beings, she would be right at the top of the list. She embodies so many of those qualities that made our country great. She is determined, never takes no for an answer, has a wonderful good humour but, above all, has a passionate love of her country.
I remember taking my noble friend to Bletchley. A few years ago, she will remember, I was asked to take there a group from the All-Party Parliamentary Arts and Heritage Group. We had a bus load of Members of this House and of another place and went to see the manor and the huts. The company included not only my noble friend Lady Trumpington but the son of Viscount Montgomery of Alamein and Countess Mountbatten of Burma. It was a real historic day. Of all the buildings that the all-party group has visited over the years, every one is more distinguished architecturally than the house at Bletchley. We saw huts that would never enter the heritage league but we came away united in the realisation that we had seen something of imperishable worth that was truly part of our national heritage, because the work that was done there helped to preserve our national heritage of freedom and democracy at a dark time. I very much hope that young people going there will realise just what was done by a number of extraordinary people, led by Alan Turing but including my noble friend—our noble friend—Lady Trumpington and so many others, such as the mother of my noble friend Lord Astor.
It would be very bad indeed if we allowed any disputes between individuals to confound the preservation of Bletchley Park. I have the honour to be a patron of the trust and hope that the patrons together might help to bridge any gaps that may exist. Of course it is vital to have a computing museum. As my noble friend Lord Sharkey said, it is nonsense to have disputes between two essentially worthwhile organisations confounding the realisation of both. If there is one thing that I hope the Minister will be able to say when he replies, it is that the Government are utterly determined to ensure that this part of our history, symbolised by a rather indifferent Victorian manor house and a number of huts, is preserved for future generations. These huts are every bit as important as—indeed, in many ways more important than—Captain Scott’s huts in the Antarctic, which should also be maintained. I hope that we will have a positive response from my noble friend to the debate, which was so brilliantly initiated by our noble friend Lady Trumpington.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in this debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for arranging for us to debate these issues.
I notice that most noble Lords have a small memory of working with, or a story about, the noble Baroness. I should like to mention a small event. She may not recall it but she was briefly a Films Minister in the Conservative Administration when I was director of the British Film Institute. She is nodding, so I have stirred that memory. She may not remember that one of her duties, which I do not think she volunteered for but she accepted with great grace, was to open the London Film Festival. It was not a happy hunting ground for Conservative politicians, certainly not before she arrived. I was terrified because there were some 2,000 film fans there who were eager to bay for the blood of those who, they felt, were cheating them of their right to watch films for free in perpetuity and at the public’s expense—I exaggerate slightly to make the point, but noble Lords will get the feeling.
When the noble Baroness arrived, she made it clear that she was not entirely happy to stand around waiting and wanted to get on with it. We went on stage at the Odeon Leicester Square, which holds some 2,000 people. We arrived slightly early, so the organ was still playing and we had to wait around while it disappeared slowly down. The organist disappeared in a mysterious way that I never quite understood. She then wowed the audience with a completely unconvincing narrative about how supportive the Conservative Party was of film at that time. However, the members of the audience were all so terrified and impressed by her that we went off without a single hoot of derision. There were cheers, it was a triumph and I had a wonderful festival. Thank you very much for that memory. That is the sort of person who we are talking about. When she says that she wants the Government to reveal their plans for Bletchley Park, I am sure that the Minister is quivering in his shoes and will come up with some wonderful new announcements, even as we speak.
As the noble Baroness said, it is inevitable that the place that was built and operated in deepest secrecy should have retained that aura, and a lot of the contributions today have been about why it is difficult to understand more of what went on there and to understand better the role it played. I think that we owe it to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and all the others, including of course Alan Turing, to tell their story accurately and within the wider narrative of how Britain organised and won this aspect of the war.
Somebody said that until recently Bletchley was in survival mode. It is absolutely right that, when the works are completed, we should have a Bletchley that is fit for the 21st century and beyond, marking all the important things that we have heard about this evening. When the Minister comes to respond, it would be very good if he could explain exactly where we are in that process. We know the opening date, but I am looking through the good collection of material provided by the Library and I find it hard to work out who has made the contributions that have allowed this to happen. There is talk of the Heritage Lottery Fund and a sum of about £8 million; there is the separate sum of about £330,000, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Andrews, for the restoration of the house; there are Google and McAfee; there is a donation from an individual, Maureen Jones, who I think worked there and left some money in her will; and there is money from the Foreign Office. Is this an independent trust which is gaining money on its own, or is it in fact part of the Government’s contribution and does it fit within the DCMS? It would be helpful to be clear about that.
We would like some information, if it is possible to get it, on what is happening in the dispute between what seem to be two very important national activities: the National Museum of Computing and the Bletchley Park Trust. As we have all said, this needs to be sorted out. Also, when the Minister comes to speak, perhaps he could say on what lines we should be thinking with regard to this site going forward. If we can get it fit for the 21st century, we have to think about how to take it forward.
I was very struck by the contributions from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, about using the 25th anniversary of the world wide web and some of the suggestions surrounding that, such as having a Magna Carta for the web. The Government might get behind that and think harder about the balance between liberty and security. They might use this site and the relaunching of Bletchley as an opportunity to reaffirm their commitment to, and support for, the way that the web is developing. If, within that, we could get a British creativity centre located there that exemplified the best of British creativity—which is often talked about but rarely analysed and looked at—and particularly pick up the point about the need to have a better gender balance in that, then I think we would achieve something really worth while and something worthy of the efforts made by those who worked there in the 1940s.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I, too, wish to say that it is an enormous privilege to speak in my noble friend’s debate. She brings to it an exceptional personal knowledge of Bletchley Park in its operational days. What we owe to the men and women like her is impossible to express adequately. Their importance to the history of our nation and, in turn, the free world should never be forgotten.
Why and how did this place and the truly extraordinary people who worked there become so crucial to the successful outcome of the Second World War, and therefore why is it so important that its future should be secured? Bletchley Park, until fairly recently, was probably Britain’s best-kept secret, a point to which my noble friend Lady Trumpington referred. Indeed, the secrecy surrounding all the activities carried out there was vital to our national security and ultimate victory, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, emphasised.
During the war it became the centre of code-breaking and intelligence activity. As has been said, it was at Bletchley that the Enigma codes were broken—an event which turned the course of the Battle of the Atlantic in our favour, as the mother of my noble friend Lord Astor knew at first hand—and later the Lorenz codes, with crucial implications for the D-day preparations. It has been estimated that the duration of the war was reduced by two years thanks to the work undertaken in secret at Bletchley.
Some of those who worked at Bletchley are now as famous as the site itself: Alan Turing, Gordon Welchman and Dilly Knox come to mind. Your Lordships have recently played a pivotal role in ensuring that due recognition is given to the supreme contribution that Alan Turing made and which the Government acknowledge. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and my noble friend Lord Sharkey were particularly crucial in this matter.
The code-breaking activity at Bletchley developed into an operation on an industrial scale. I believe that up to 10,000 people were employed there at the height of the war. In October 1941, after receiving a letter from some of the senior code-breakers decrying the lack of resources being afforded them, Winston Churchill directed:
“Action this day! Make sure they have all they want on extreme priority and report to me that this has been done”.
Machines were developed to deal with the huge amount of data, including the Bombe, an electromechanical device which helped to reduce the potential number of codes. It was at Bletchley that Tommy Flowers built the Colossus, now recognised as the world’s first electronic computer. So Bletchley is also recognised as being of international significance due to its place at the beginning of the age of the computer. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, highlighted this point, as did my noble friend Lord Addington and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. At the end of the war, the remarkable expertise that had been developed at Bletchley Park was taken forward by a number of the wartime Government Code and Cypher School staff in a new organisation known today as GCHQ.
In 1987, after 50 years of association with British intelligence, Bletchley Park was finally decommissioned. In 1991, many of the organisations that had occupied post-war Bletchley Park had moved out. The site became partially derelict and was being proposed for housing and a supermarket development. A campaign was launched to save the site. Inspired by veterans and others, the Bletchley Park Trust was formed and took ownership of the site on a 250-year lease.
Bletchley Park museum opened in 1993, and since then the trust has been working to restore the site. My noble friend Lord Cormack spoke of the beginning of this journey and the impression that it made on parliamentarians when they visited the site in those early days. In 2007, the Codes and Ciphers Heritage Trust began to establish the National Museum of Computing, which includes a working reconstruction of a Colossus computer, along with many important examples of British computing machinery.
A number of your Lordships have raised concerns about the reports of discord between the Bletchley Park Trust and the National Museum of Computing. I acknowledge the work of both these organisations and I very much hope, as I know do your Lordships, that they will look to collaborative solutions to their differences. Indeed, we look to both museums to tell the incredible story of Bletchley in the most innovative but accurate way that will enable Bletchley to be in the nation’s consciousness for many generations to come. Since opening, the Bletchley Park museum has seen a consistent growth in its visitor numbers: 40,000 people passed through the gates of Bletchley Park in 2006, with that number swelling to 150,000 in 2012. Indeed, there are ambitious projections for the next three to five years. The figures that I have seen for this year compared with last year are very remarkable indeed. It is obviously a place that is becoming very strong in people’s consciousness, which is so important.
This is a testament to the relevance and importance of the work of Bletchley in this country’s history. So many people of all ages and backgrounds want to come and understand how this site contributed to the world in which we live now. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, was absolutely right to mention education and interpretation. We have to inspire the next generation to understand what this was all about. The education and interpretation part will be a very important feature of what will happen at Bletchley.
Of course, this increased demand has meant that the Bletchley site has had to upgrade to reflect this continuing interest. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, rightly asked some questions about the status of the independent Bletchley Park Trust. In September 2011, the trust secured a grant of just under £5 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund towards the £8 million restoration of Bletchley Park phase 1 project. The noble Lord was absolutely right to acknowledge that there were other contributors to that £8 million which again has been hugely appreciated and is absolutely vital for the fulfilment of that first phase.
In this first phase of regeneration the once derelict Block C will become a vibrant visitors’ centre. The code-breaking Huts 3 and 6 have been restored to their original condition and the restored bomb Huts 11 and 11A will present exciting new displays. So, by the middle of this year, the huts will be ready for visitors to experience what life as a code-breaker was like. I thought that my noble friend Lord Higgins gave a fascinating and personal insight into what that could mean.
Remarkable work has been done and progress made over the past 20 years. We have mentioned discord, but it is important in all these things to get the balance right and record and celebrate the remarkable achievements. The strategic vision for Bletchley Park is to restore and put to productive use all the remaining buildings. Everyone I have spoken to who has visited—I have to say that I have asked quite a number of people how they would describe it—almost without exception has come up with the words, “This is such an inspiring place”. Our task is to ensure that that remains.
My noble friend Lady Trumpington and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, referred to volunteers. I say specifically that volunteers, as in so much of our nation’s life, have been at the heart of Bletchley’s regeneration and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to their work. It is through the dedication, knowledge and enthusiasm that they devote to Bletchley that has helped to bring it to life again. It is very clear from the rise in visitor numbers and the growing recognition of what we owe to the men and women of Bletchley Park that there is ever-increasing interest. It is clear that it is somewhere where families and children go, and it is very important that all of it is understood. These men and women who worked there gave of their best. Indeed, we are rightly very proud of my noble friend. It is for our generation and those who follow to ensure that this site of exceptional, historic and national importance is secure.
Immigration Bill
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Meacher
“Domestic abuse and female genital mutilation
No charge may be imposed for health services—(a) relating to injuries sustained as a result of domestic abuse as defined in Home Office Circular 003/2013 “New government domestic violence and abuse definition”, or(b) relating to injuries sustained as a result of female genital mutilation as defined in the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003.”
Baroness Meacher (CB)
In moving Amendment 62, I shall speak also to Amendment 62A. The purpose of Amendment 62 is to ensure that treatment for any injury resulting from domestic abuse or female genital mutilation is exempted from NHS charges even if the victim does not have permanent leave to remain, or indeed if her immigration status is not clear. I should explain at the outset that these are probing amendments and I understand from the Minister that these matters will be dealt with by the Department of Health in regulations. Having said that, this amendment provides an opportunity for this House to try to influence those regulations. I think that I am right that there will be no further opportunity to do that.
Clause 34 defines for the first time the term “ordinarily resident”. If the person is not ordinarily resident they may be charged for health treatment. If they have paid the surcharge they should be covered for health services but many other people are already living in this country—I understand in the realm of about half a million—who have not paid the surcharge and are eligible for NHS charges. Further, Clause 34 brings ordinary residents into line with permanent residents. That means that instead of being here with a visa for a settled purpose such as a job, a university course or to reunite with a spouse for a minimum of one year, an immigrant will need to be here for a minimum of five years in most cases before they are fully covered for healthcare. This is why Amendment 62 is important and relevant to health charges, as I understand it.
In his letter of 12 March, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said that short-term visitors and those without lawful immigration status will,
“continue to be liable to pay overseas visitor charges for secondary care treatment under NHS regulations”.
This is similar to the letter from the Minister for health quality, who said that,
“illegal non-EEA migrants and short-term visitors (under 6 months) will continue to be liable to NHS treatment charges as they are now”.
I am told that this is not precisely the case, as the National AIDS Trust’s excellent briefing points out. In fact, the Government plan to introduce new charges for primary care, apart from GP and nurse consultations, and for A&E services for this group and for any migrant who cannot show that they have paid the levy. The need to assess patient entitlement in primary care or A&E would be an unhelpful distraction in an emergency situation. This might be done after someone receives treatment—but that, too, is an alarming position for someone who may have little or no money.
In his subsequent note and his latest briefing, the Minister gave assurances about a number of vulnerable groups who will not be subject to the surcharge or charges for treatment under the NHS charging regulations. There is no mention of the victims of domestic violence or FGM in relation to either. Do the Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Health, intend to exclude these two groups from the surcharge and, in the case of those already here without permanent residence, from NHS charges? If not, it is a matter of great concern that the moral and humanitarian case previously accepted concerning these groups appears to have been set aside.
As to the practical difficulties in determining who the exemptions for domestic abuse and FGM would apply to, I understand that medical checks would be needed if these groups are to be exempt from the surcharge. I appreciate that could be problematic in the circumstances, but in the case of NHS charges for failed asylum seekers, irregular or undocumented migrants, short-term visitors and others without permanent residence, does the Minister not agree that if a patient in any of these groups has been domestically abused or damaged by FGM, they should not be charged for treatment? It would be helpful to have clarification on this point on the Floor of the House, if the Minister is able to give it, albeit that such provisions would ultimately be made in Department of Health regulations.
If irregular migrants and refused asylum seekers who would not have paid the surcharge cannot access primary care services, apart from GP and nurse consultations to address comparatively minor health problems, they will eventually present elsewhere—probably at an A&E department—at much greater cost, as I referred to in relation to an earlier amendment.
A different but important point is whether the NHS will be expected to report back to the Home Office if a patient’s migration status requires them to be charged for NHS services. There is a concern about this in view of the comment of the Home Office Permanent Secretary to the Home Affairs Select Committee that the Home Office intends,
“to improve its radar screen into the NHS”.
I find that rather chilling. If it became known that a visit to the doctor could lead to a report to the Home Office, people could be deterred from seeking healthcare. Can the Minister assure the House that this will not be the case?
The Government have previously recognised the important role of the NHS in identifying victims of abuse and helping them to recognise, consider and exercise their option to escape from that abuse. Also, in the case of FGM—where we have not had a single prosecution—the NHS is seen as probably the best hope of identifying perpetrators and providing evidence to support the prosecution case. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s view on that.
On Amendment 62A, the Government have agreed that no charge will be made for health services to victims of human trafficking. I am dealing with this issue separately because, in a sense, these people are in a different situation. The aim of the amendment is to put this commitment in the Bill and to require the Government to produce a strategy and procedures to ensure that the victims of human trafficking are promptly and effectively identified for the purposes of the clause. This is a probing amendment which I hope the Minister can endorse, thus assuring the House that there will be regulations in place to achieve its aims so that victims receive the necessary medical treatment. The UK would thus satisfy our international obligations.
According to the Catholic Bishops’ Conference, the UK Human Trafficking Centre shows that more than half—54%—of trafficking victims were not recorded by the national referral mechanism in 2011. UKHTC notes that people who have been trafficked are often treated as irregular or illegal migrants. They may, of course, have been given false, stolen or genuine but fraudulently obtained identity documents. They will most likely then be treated as immigration offenders despite not acting under their own volition. This is quite understandable but it will need attention to avoid this kind of thing happening.
As the Bill is currently worded, these victims would not be exempt from the charges for health services if they are in one of these obscure groups. Also understandably, people who have been trafficked and coerced into criminal activities are often treated as offenders rather than victims. They are unlikely to benefit from exemption from health charges. A 2013 report by Anti-Slavery International highlighted a lack of awareness of trafficking indicators among authorities. If these victims are not identified, they are likely to get a criminal record, go missing, be deported and be retrafficked. They become victims a second time round.
All this will increase the fear of victims and their suspicion of the authorities. Help with later investigations is less likely to be forthcoming. At the moment, the authorities rely on those who are trafficked to disclose their status quickly or face detention—and, for obvious reasons, often that does not happen. If not identified immediately on arrival, trafficking victims are unlikely to be identified subsequently, and hence the importance of subsection (2) of the amendment. There is a need for,
“a strategy and procedures to ensure that victims of human trafficking are promptly and effectively identified”.
We are particularly concerned about trafficked children. I understand that at the moment social workers receive no mandatory training in identifying a trafficked child. We know that in the context of the draft Modern Slavery Bill there is a commitment to roll out specialist training and other measures. Can the Minister give the Committee a commitment that rigorous enforcement of health charges will not be introduced until the safeguards associated with the Modern Slavery Bill are rolled out?
Let us get things in the right order. Does the Minister agree that before the planned safeguards are introduced, they will be put before the modern slavery commissioner, who is to be appointed under the modern slavery legislation? Indeed, to clarify these matters, can he provide the Committee with information about the planned timing of the introduction of the new enforcement rules for health charges and of the implementation of proposals in relation to the Modern Slavery Bill? I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Meacher has introduced this group of amendments with great clarity. I have added my name to Amendment 62 and I will speak to Amendment 64. Other Peers who have added their name send their apologies for not speaking at this late hour. I do not want to add much more to what has been said about domestic abuse and female genital mutilation except to say that I have a major concern as to how this will actually work in practice unless these groups are exempt.
What happens if a girl comes into the country, her status is not established, and she has infected wounds? What happens to the girl who has been mutilated and has urinary and voiding difficulties or suffers chronic pain? What happens during pregnancy, when delivery can be incredibly complicated? If it is not properly managed, a woman may literally burst because scar tissue is not elastic. We recognise FGM as an absolutely awful form of abuse and it is shameful that there have not been prosecutions already. If we put these women into the charging category, we will almost reverse the message we have sent to society about this terrible act.
The other problem arises with domestic abuse. If a woman arrives at A&E with severe facial injuries including fractures to the bones of her face or her chest wall, they may be life-threatening. If her ribs have been stoved in, it may be a life-threatening injury such as a pneumothorax and treatment will have to begin straightaway. Emergency service personnel are going to be put into a terribly difficult position. Another problem is that, in the societies from which many of these women come, sadly they are not afforded the rights they have in our society, and they are not given the respect they deserve. I am fearful that there may be a tendency to blame the woman if attempts to stay fail because she is a burden on the man, thus making it more difficult for him to stay.
Amendment 64 is about people who are released from detention. Currently, people can receive treatment while they are being held in an immigration detention centre and the course of treatment will be ongoing when they leave, but this may not be the case in the future. The consequences will be particularly acute in the area of mental health. It is well documented that the experience of an immigration detention centre is damaging to the mental health of many detainees. Without ongoing support, those mental health problems will be exacerbated rather than ameliorated at the point of release. The problem we are faced with is where to set the boundary and how it will actually be implemented.
These are probing amendments, but when regulations come before the House we will not be able to amend them. We will be faced with either accepting or rejecting them. That is why we need to tease out these issues very carefully at this stage.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 66A on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, who sadly has another commitment that she has to honour this evening. Successive Governments have very good track records in safeguarding the public’s health. When I was a Minister, I was deeply involved in the Health of the Nation strategy, which was lauded at the time by the World Health Organisation as a model for other countries to follow. Since then, through the Labour Government and now our present Government, we have concentrated on looking after the public’s health. Indeed, Ministers were saying only in November last year that nothing will be done to worsen public health. Two years ago, this Government extended free treatment regardless of immigration status to include treatment for HIV infection. As was said at the time:
“Reducing transmission will reduce the risk of new infections in the wider UK population and … reduce … NHS costs”.—[Official Report, 29/2/12; col. 1397.]
They have confirmed that treatment for communicable diseases and sexually transmitted infections will remain free to all.
These are really welcome and important commitments but we have to be very careful that this proud record is not undermined by what we are now doing. Many noble Lords, I know, have a crystal-clear understanding of the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has explained to us this evening, but I would like to clarify some issues. First, who is actually going to be affected by these charges? I look to my noble friend to provide the clarity that I seek.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly address Amendments 66A, 66B, 66C and 66D and leave my noble friend Lady Hamwee to address Amendment 66E.
Amendment 66A stands in the name of my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby. It is a shame that she is not here because, as Members of this House will know, among her many areas of expertise is an encyclopaedic knowledge of the United States. She and I talked a lot, particularly during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill, about the comparisons and contrasts between our health system and that of the United States. One of the most graphic contrasts is in A&E. When Americans go to A&E they are there for a very long time because they ask every conceivable question they can and fill their pockets with everything that is going. Millions of them do not have any healthcare cover at all. By contrast, we do. Per capita we spend about a third of what they spend in the USA but study after study shows that our health outcomes are better. Our systems are better because, by and large, we get people at the right place at the right time—and most people, because they have access to a GP and a certainty that they will be treated, present themselves early.
The amendments in this group are not about trying to gain exemptions for one group of people and putting some kind of moral case that puts them in a different category from other people; they are about saying what is the most effective National Health Service for everybody—those who live here permanently and those whose leave to remain is as yet uncertain.
I do not see the purpose in making a charge for A&E. There may be some belief on the part of the Government that if they charge people for being seen in A&E it will somehow have the effect of pushing them to go to their GP. I would love to see the evidence for that; I do not think that people are either that calculating or that logical about the way in which they use the NHS, particularly A&E. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the case on which the Government have based the proposal to charge people for turning up in A&E.
What discussions have they had with the College of Emergency Medicine about how this will work? I have recently been a member of the committee of your Lordships’ House reviewing the Mental Capacity Act. When we talked to representatives of the College of Emergency Medicine, they were in no doubt. We talked to them about advance statements and how much they found out about people’s wishes and so on, and they just said, “If somebody’s ill, you don’t do that; you just treat them”. It is naive to assume that they will change their entire practice for thousands of people who come through their doors on a weekly basis just because somebody happens to fall into a different immigration category; that is perhaps wishful thinking.
Amendment 66C poses a very simple question: are we going to charge people for diagnostic tests and, if so, on what basis will we do so? Frankly, I cannot see the incentive for somebody to go and see a GP if the consultation is free but they then have to pay for any diagnostic tests. That is what most GPs do above anything else; they run a set of diagnostic tests and they look at them. There is also a public health implication here. The issue that we have with a number of conditions is trying to persuade people to be tested so that we can then make plans for their individual health and also plot the health of the community. What exactly are the proposals on diagnostic tests?
Perhaps the most important and relevant amendment in this group is Amendment 66D. My understanding, and that of the people and organisations which have briefed us, including the National AIDS Trust, is that, should the Bill remain unamended, the Department of Health will have the power to levy charges for mental health services outside those provided by hospitals. Clearly, it will not be able to charge people who are detained under the Mental Health Act, and I doubt that if somebody was sufficiently ill to be receiving mental health treatment in a hospital they would be charged for that—I may be wrong—but community and primary care service mental health treatments could be charged for.
On that, we should follow the point made firmly by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges in its response to the Department of Health consultation: that access to primary mental health services is a public health issue. We should not leave mentally distressed people to get to the point where they become a danger to themselves and to others. This measure would fly in the face of the intentions of the most recent Mental Health Act to go through this House, in which there was an emphasis on ensuring that people were subject to compulsory treatment in the community. I have no wish go back over some of the worst legislation that we have ever passed in your Lordships’ House, but this measure seems to undermine that considerably. I would like a full statement from the Minister on exactly what the Government’s intentions are on mental health services.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I may be quite wrong in my recollection, but I remember reading somewhere that only a single consultation with a GP would not be charged for. I hope that I am wrong in thinking that, but if that is the case, I am really worried. It builds on my noble friend’s point about diagnostic testing. I have a wonderful GP, but on the, happily, rare occasions on which I see him, he usually says, “Go to have a blood test and come back”, or “Let’s see how it goes and come back”.
Amendment 66E covers ground that has already been thoroughly covered by the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Cumberlege, about both victims of domestic abuse and persons who are believed to be victims of trafficking. The point about identifying both those groups—not all of them, but many of them, women—is very important. Often, they may not even be suspected of falling within those groups until they see a doctor. Doctors are in the best place gently to investigate how certain conditions have come about, because the patient may not be prepared to disclose the information without being encouraged to do so, and may not have disclosed it to anyone else—possibly not even to a doctor on initial consultation. Although the intention here is good, we have to be clear about how the provision will be implemented, as well as getting assurances that what we understand to be the case will be the case.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, there is little I can add to the points made eloquently by noble Lords—although, in an all-female debate, perhaps I should say noble Baronesses. Some points are not dissimilar to the principles that we raised on Monday about exemptions on housing issues and the rate of pregnancy and domestic violence. Again, the debate highlights confusion and a lack of clarity. The Government have to accept some responsibility for that confusion and lack of clarity.
The case raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and reinforced by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is that victims of domestic violence and victims of female genital mutilation are not just vulnerable but are victims of crime. That is a step further than vulnerable.
I recall that when I was a PPS at the Home Office many years ago, the Government piloted working with A&E departments to identify women who presented with injuries that were likely to be the result of domestic violence, to see whether we could get those cases through the courts and protect the women from being victims again. That was a very important part of A&E working as part of the whole criminal justice system. I worry that women who should present themselves to health services to receive treatment for violent injuries and FGM—the case presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was horrific—will be victims of trafficking. We have to imagine the terror of someone who has been trafficked to the UK, often for sex or slavery. They may not speak English; they may not be aware of their legal status; they will have little trust; they will be fearful and in poor health; and they will be worried about going to the authorities in the first place because of worry about their own status.
There needs to be careful thought about how that can be managed. The Minister and the Government have been helpful in saying that victims of human trafficking will be exempt from charges. They have been very clear on that, but much concern has been raised about how to identify those women and help them come forward. What the noble Lord said was helpful, but he needs to say more.
I return to the question of what this means and the complications that other noble Lords have raised. What is the Government’s definition of success here? If their policy is successful, health services will be able to check the eligibility of those who are entitled to free healthcare and, consequently, charge those who are not eligible. The second aim is to draw to the attention of the authorities those who present and do not have a legal right to stay in this country. The point about public health is particularly pertinent here, and I would like to know what the Government are thinking on this and how they identify the problems.
If identifying those who are not legal migrants and reporting them to the authorities means that those people are less likely to report for healthcare, what are the implications for public health if someone has an infectious disease that needs treatment or a condition where a lack of early intervention means more expensive, or even emergency, care? We heard about the case in Northern Ireland. Another case I have been aware of is that of a young woman who had asthma. Simple preventive treatment would have been cheap and easy, but the care later on that was necessary because she had not had that treatment was very dangerous to her health and expensive to the public purse.
The question of far greater cost comes back to the issue of mental health cases. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, on this. If someone has mental health problems, they are likely to be a danger to themselves and to others. I am sure that it is not the Government’s intention that those people should go without healthcare, but we have to recognise that there are specific obligations in those cases. I am seeking from the Minister an explanation of what thought the Government have given to these issues prior to bringing the Bill forward, and what plans are in place to deal with these kinds of issues regarding the most vulnerable—the victims of crime, those who could be a danger to themselves or to others, and those who could present at even greater cost to the public purse if they do not get the treatment that they need? I am particularly interested in the Minister’s response on this matter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very reasoned debate and I am pleased that we have had a chance to return to it. It has taken us slightly further along the track than the legislation takes us, but that is a feature of where we are. We have an Immigration Bill, a Home Office measure, that is designed to provide for a surcharge, which in turn is to provide free healthcare for those covered by the surcharge, and we have the health service itself, under the Department of Health, looking at ways in which it can more effectively recover sums that are due, under current legislation, from visitors—and, for that matter, illegal migrants and the like—to see how that can fit in with all the other considerations; public health has been mentioned, as well as the vulnerability of some of the patients who present themselves who may have become victims through no fault of their own and need proper medical attention. Those two things are going on at the same time. I suspect that at bottom that is why we are finding it a bit difficult to discuss this issue.
If I may, I will turn to the Bill itself to start with, as that is the most important thing. I am aware that I speak for the Government and I cannot say, “Well, this is my dear noble friend Lord Howe’s responsibility”, so I will do my best to integrate into one proposal both the Bill and the health service reforms. I reassure noble Lords that there is nothing in the Bill that will impact on the current arrangement for migrants in any of the areas covered by these amendments that have been debated this evening. Our intention is that the payment of the surcharge, which takes place when people make an immigration application, will entitle migrants to free access to the NHS in the same way as a permanent resident. This will include treatment for injuries sustained as a result of domestic violence, which the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, mentioned, or female genital mutilation, which was mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Finlay. It will also include mental health, to reassure my noble friend Lady Barker, and maternity services, as we discussed when we were debating previous amendments. We have also committed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, to exempting victims of human trafficking. I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that there is no charge for anyone in detention accessing NHS healthcare.
Secondly—this is the second element of the debate—as my noble friend Lord Howe set out in his recent letter to noble Lords, the Bill does not make any changes to the way in which short-term visitors and, for that matter, illegal migrants access medical care. Any NHS charging exemptions for health purposes for these groups are a matter for the Department of Health and, within their devolved remit, the devolved Administrations. Within the framework of government, they are not the responsibility of the Home Office.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked me how we will ensure that NHS staff can effectively identify potential victims of trafficking. The Department of Health already identifies patients who are victims or potential victims of human trafficking in order to waive treatment charges. We will work closely with the Department of Health on this matter in order to ensure that proper guidance and training are provided to NHS staff. I am not convinced that the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness are necessary.
I was asked why the national referral mechanism was not put on a statutory footing. It was set up to ensure that victims of human trafficking are identified and given the support they need. We want to make sure that the NRM is working as effectively and supportively as possible, and healthcare is part of that mechanism. That is why the National Health Service announced a review of the NRM on 3 December. It will commence shortly, and we await it.
The Department of Health has already confirmed that it will be exempting certain treatments from charging, including GP and nurse consultations, specified infectious diseases—we have talked about HIV and tuberculosis—and sexually transmitted infections. This will ensure that everyone has unrestricted access to prompt diagnosis and intervention and that public health is safeguarded.
The Department of Health has, however, signalled an intention to introduce overseas visitor charges for some primary care services, including A&E, as part of its extensive reform of NHS charging in England. It is carrying out detailed analysis to inform decisions in this area. I am confident that cost-effectiveness—noble Lords mentioned some of the consequences of poor primary care leading to complications that can be very expensive as a consequence—public health and the moral case for protecting vulnerable groups will remain key factors in this consideration. I can reassure noble Lords that any agreed changes will be put to Parliament in the form of revised NHS charging regulations. That is not an unusual situation. We are talking about a consultation. This aspect of health service reform is not appropriate in an Immigration Bill because it is not about immigration but the practice of charging within the health service.
Without getting involved in the argument as to whether that is the right or wrong thing to be doing, as we know, we have all been fortunate to grow up in a world in which, for most of us, all healthcare—well, not all healthcare; not dental care and things like that—has been free at the point of use. That is a remarkable privilege, but it is an expense and one has to argue whether the resources are properly justified if they are extended to visitors, for example, or illegal migrants. That is not an unreasonable position to take.
Baroness Meacher
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. He understandably said that this was a matter for the Department of Health and therefore not really appropriate for discussion here. Can he assure the Committee that we will therefore have another opportunity to influence the design of these regulations, which will indeed determine whether people suffering with FGM, domestic violence and so forth will be excluded from health charges or not? That is a matter of great concern to many of us. If we cannot discuss it here, will there be another opportunity?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That is why I am going to try to address some of these matters. It is right to seek to do so, allowing for the limitations of my knowledge in this area, which I hope that noble Lords will understand.
This House has a good reputation for debating these sorts of things not, if I may say so, through the statutory instrument process so much as generally. I am absolutely certain that my noble friend Lord Howe would be quite prepared to come at a suitable point during the consultation to discuss the basis of changes that would be made. I am sure that I am not losing a friend for life by committing him to do just that.
As if to show that I need to brush up a little bit, apparently I may not have said, through mis-speaking or a slip of the tongue, that the Home Secretary announced the review of the NRM. I thought that I had implied that, but if I had not, I should have done so. Let us hope that I do not fall out with another friend for not crediting the Home Secretary.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked about training for the enforcement of new NHS rules, and also about the Modern Slavery Bill which, as noble Lords know, is in pre-legislative scrutiny. The Department of Health will publish its implementation plan on the health service rules during the course of this year. The Modern Slavery Bill will be a fourth Session measure. I must not anticipate the Queen’s Speech, but the fact that that Bill is going through pre-legislative scrutiny rather suggests that it will be in the fourth Session legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked about a victim of FGM who has infected wounds. Under the NHS charging regulations and policy, immediate necessary treatment is not held up because of charging. I think that the noble Baroness has enough experience of how the health service operates charging principles, and I do not think that that is likely to change. GP care is not charged for, as I have said. The Department of Health is reviewing provisions for vulnerable individuals under these NHS regulations.
The noble Baroness asked why we were planning to charge migrants for accident and emergency services. Surcharge payers will obviously not have to pay for A&E services. The Department of Health has indicated that there is a good case for introducing overseas visitor charges for A&E, for those short-term visitors and illegal migrants who do not pay the surcharge. It is giving this detailed consideration, but will not make any changes unless it is confident that the new systems will work well without compromising rapid access to emergency care for those in immediate or urgent need, which will never be withheld or delayed pending payment. However, as I said, that is not a matter for the Bill. It is part of the review into regulations which is going on at the moment.
My noble friend Lady Cumberlege asked whether those exempted from the charges will be exempted from NHS charges. Our policy intention is that those who are exempt from the surcharge will also be exempt from subsequent National Health Service charging for health services under NHS regulations. However, obviously they will be liable for dentistry; as I mentioned before, at the moment that is not free other than in exceptional cases.
Under the Bill it is possible for surcharge payers to be charged for certain expensive discretionary treatments —I think we have discussed that already. However, we have made it clear that we intend that no such additional charges will apply when the surcharge is introduced. The Department of Health has made it clear that it would consider those in the future only in the event of any exceptional and compelling specific justification for health purposes, and, as I have already said, any changes would need to be put before Parliament.
My noble friend welcomed the exemptions, but those refused asylum will face charges, as will most victims of trafficking who are not recognised through the national referral mechanism. I emphasise to my noble friend that refused asylum seekers will not pay a surcharge. Health charging for refused asylum seekers is a matter for the Department of Health and the devolved health administrations within its remit. We have already confirmed that trafficking victims will not have to pay the surcharge.
The NRM is the only process by which an individual can be formally identified as a victim of trafficking and matched with appropriate support. Someone who has not been identified as a victim through the NRM and who is an illegal migrant or visitor would not be covered by the exemption for NHS charging under the existing regime. However, the NHS can write off NHS debts if individuals are subsequently identified as victims of trafficking, so there is a retrospective exemption in that regard.
The Department of Health has committed to give further thought to strengthening exemptions in the current NHS charging regulations for vulnerable groups, including victims of trafficking. We want to make sure that the NRM works effectively, which is why the Home Secretary has commissioned the review.
My noble friend asked whether those who come on a visa, pay the levy—or the surcharge, as it is properly called—and are later refused an extension will still get free NHS treatment while waiting for an administrative review decision, and asked about a period for which the paid levy has expired. This is about people and their leave to remain. Those individuals will continue to receive free NHS treatment as part of the conditions of their extant leave. Where individuals had leave, alongside which they paid the surcharge when they applied for an extension and applied for an administrative review within the specified time limit for doing so, their leave will be extended on the same conditions under Section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 until their administrative review is decided.
My noble friend asked what would happen if their review is refused and they bring a human rights appeal. Once an administrative review is refused a migrant will be liable for NHS overseas visitor charging unless they fall under one of the exemptions set out in NHS charging regulations. That will be commensurate with their immigration status.
A number of noble Lords were concerned about GP consultations being free—I think that that is widely understood—but what about treatment? We intend for surcharge payers to receive most treatment free, as would any other UK citizen or person with indefinite leave to remain. We have made that clear in all the responses that I have given. They will be charged only for services for which permanent residents are also charged. As part of its work to reform the charging regime in England, the Department of Health has signalled an intent to extend charging for short-term visitors and illegal migrants to some primary care services, excluding GP consultations. It is carrying out a detailed analysis to inform decisions in this area, and any agreed changes will be put to Parliament.
I was asked by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege to give an assurance that the Home Office would not be permitted to use access to healthcare as a means for it to identify and take action against those subject to immigration controls. Healthcare staff are not routinely required to inform the Home Office on issues to do with individuals’ immigration status, and there is no plan to change this. However, there are circumstances where it is appropriate for the NHS to pass information to the Home Office, such as for enforcing the NHS debtors rule, which is a current rule under which migrants who have run up an unpaid debt of £1,000 or more are not given permission to enter the UK while the debt remains unpaid.
Finally, I hope that I have answered the questions posed by my noble friend Lady Barker on mental health and such matters. She made a valuable contribution to the debate.
I turn to the challenges presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who asked, “What is success?” Success might be the £2 billion surcharge income for the NHS, which is a large sum of money even in a health service budget running to several hundred thousand million pounds. An additional £500 million will be recovered in treatment charges each year through better administration, plus the surcharge, and vulnerable groups will be protected and treated. Part of the consideration of the NHS review and the provisions of the Bill are to ensure that vulnerable groups are protected. There is no adverse impact on public health, and there is a fairer set of rules and arrangements, which command public support. Those are the basic challenges that face us in seeking to reform charging within the health service.
I reiterate that the introduction of the surcharge in the Bill will give those who are obliged to pay it—and they are obliged to pay it—the peace of mind that they will receive comprehensive NHS treatment when needed. But charging for short-term visitors and illegal migrants remains the responsibility of the Department of Health, and it is not dealt with in the context of this Bill.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I thank the Minister. I know that health is not his subject, but he has given an excellent response to those of us who speak fluent NHS and know all the language. I thank him for the detail of his response, but I ask him to write to me on two points. First, on my point about charging for diagnostic tests, I understand the point about people paying the levy having to pay for the same things as people who are resident and about the exemptions for some categories of people and some conditions, such as infectious diseases. But there are some conditions—for example, diabetes—where you have to have a diagnostic test. It is important that people know that they are diabetic and that healthcare workers know that those people are diabetic, because if it goes untreated there may be further consequences.
Secondly, I seek clarification on the important matter raised by my noble friend Lady Hamwee on whether initial consultations with GPs would be free and subsequent consultations would be charged for or whether all consultations with a GP practice’s staff would be free. I do not want to detain the Committee now but if the Minister could answer those two questions in writing, it would go a considerable way towards allaying anxieties in that regard.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I give that commitment. I will, of course, write on that. I will also go through the debate as other questions may have not have been answered, for which I apologise. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, nods, so I clearly forgot to answer one of hers. However, I will go through the debate and answer all the questions as best I can. Indeed, my officials will talk to officials at the Department of Health as some of these matters are the responsibility of that department, as we have already discussed. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for her kind words.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for his thoughtful response. He was able to give us some reassurance on some points. I think that there are still a lot of gaps, but I am sure that the Minister will respond to some of the points in writing. I am very grateful to him for his kind offer in regard to his colleague, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, meeting us. I assume I am right in saying that the Minister’s office will be in touch with the office of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to set up such a meeting because I think that it is only in that forum that we can achieve clarity about some of the most important and concerning issues to do with health charges and these vulnerable groups. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, we are talking about the victims of criminal offences.
There is much to thank the Minister for, but we will have to read the debate carefully and think about Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“( ) A person is within this subsection if he or she has made a claim for asylum which has not yet been determined by the Secretary of State or has been refused and an appeal against that refusal is pending, and—
(a) “claim for asylum” has the same meaning as in section 94 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (interpretation of Part VI);(b) an appeal is pending for the purposes of this subsection when it is pending under section 104 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (pending appeal).”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, in moving Amendment 66G, I will speak also to Amendments 66H, 66J, 66K and 66L. This takes us on to the provisions regarding bank accounts, which is perhaps a slightly drier issue than others we have discussed but is very important.
The Bill prohibits the opening of current accounts for disqualified persons and regulates banks’ operations in this regard. The first of my amendments in this group would provide that someone who has made a claim for asylum which has not been determined, or whose claim has been refused but an appeal is pending, would also be covered by the exclusion. The clause, as drafted, seems to exclude persons on temporary admission. It is most likely that those on temporary admission for a lengthy period are seeking asylum. I do not suggest that many of those will have a lot of free cash and want a current account, but some whose claims have been pending for a long time may be allowed to work in a shortage occupation. I imagine that this is quite rare, but some may even be able to get some money out of their country of origin. Those people ought to be able to have a bank account. How can that be permitted if the clause remains as drafted?
Amendment 66H goes to the definition of a “disqualified person”, whom we are told in Clause 35(3)(b) is,
“a person within subsection (2) for whom the Secretary of State considers that a current account should not be opened”.
I suggest that the Secretary of State should be required in the Bill to act “reasonably”. I certainly acknowledge that, as a matter of law, it may well be that she should act reasonably, but the complete discretion is concerning. We are not told of any criteria on which the decision will be based. The Explanatory Notes state:
“The Secretary of State therefore has discretion as to who should be barred … because there will be some individuals who face legitimate barriers which prevent them from leaving the UK, even though they do not have leave. The Secretary of State may enable these persons to open a current account”.
It is important to have published on the record the criteria on which the Secretary of State will base her decision and what options someone who is not able to open a bank account has to challenge her refusal.
That takes me to Amendment 66J, because I cannot see how one would challenge the decision. Provided that they do not discriminate and act lawfully, banks can refuse to open a bank account as they choose. However, if the Secretary of State can order them to refuse to open an account, I wonder whether she can require them to make a provision for a refusal to be challenged. It is a very homegrown and underdeveloped amendment, but there has to be some means of challenging because the consequences are serious. Being refused a bank account goes to one’s credit status and to an application for a mortgage at a later stage, and a number of other consequences may apply to somebody who should never have been refused in the first place. I am seriously concerned about this.
Amendment 66K is on our old friend in Clause 36(1): “The Treasury may”—or “must” it?—“make regulations to enable” the FCA to monitor and enforce compliance. Might the Government think it right to bring the scheme into force but not have these arrangements made?
Finally, Amendment 66L is on “in particular” in Clause 36(2)(b), which provides that “The regulations may” make certain provision,
“including in particular those mentioned in subsection (3), with or without modification”.
I am not clear what is added or suggested by all that and hope that the Minister can help me on it. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, at the moment it is entirely at the discretion of a bank or building society to agree to open a current account in the name of a person who requires leave to enter or remain but does not have it. The status checks that the bank would carry out would be to determine whether the applicant was financially reliable rather than what his immigration status was—although if he falls within Clause 35(2)(b), he is unlikely to be acceptable to the bank.
Clause 35 provides that a bank has to refuse to open an account for a person who does not have permitted leave to remain, and who is also labelled on a database operated by an unspecified anti-fraud organisation or data-matching organisation as a person whom the Secretary of State considers should not be able to open a current account. I should be grateful if the Minister would elaborate on the details of the organisation to which the banks will have to refer and how it will be established. It means that there will be some people on temporary admission whom the Secretary of State might consider eligible to open a bank account; the Explanatory Notes say this in fact means individuals facing legitimate barriers preventing them leaving the UK.
However, neither the Bill nor the Explanatory Notes gives any detail as to how the Secretary of State will make these decisions or what rights a person will have to challenge her refusal to let him open an account. Should not an asylum seeker who has exhausted his rights of appeal against refusal but is given further temporary leave to remain be allowed to open a bank account? One thinks of the Zimbabweans who were given temporary leave over many years, many of whom opened current accounts if they satisfied the bank’s conditions. Clause 35 prohibits a bank only from opening a current account in the name of a disqualified person, not from continuing to afford facilities to such a person who already has an account. Will this be made clear in the guidance that no doubt will be given to the banks?
Amendment 66G removes from the scope of the clause asylum seekers whose claim has not been finally determined. Most of these people, as my noble friend said, will be very poor and thus unlikely to need a current account, but even those supported by the National Asylum Support Service under Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act, and who receive payments fortnightly, may not wish to carry around the money they receive. A couple with two children under 16 would receive £357 a fortnight, which is quite a large sum to have in one’s pocket or handbag.
Asylum seekers whose claims have been pending for more than a year and who can find employment in shortage occupations may be allowed to work, and my noble friend Lord Roberts will suggest in later amendments that the right to work should be further extended. These people will need accounts into which their wages can be paid. For that matter, could my noble friend say how many people it is estimated will be prevented from opening accounts under this clause who would otherwise have been able to be accepted by the banks under their own rules? What is the cost to the Government of setting up and managing the database, and what is the cost to the banks of making the checks required?
On a casual inquiry at my own bank, Santander, I was told that it would open an account only for a person who was resident in the UK—rather an incongruous condition to be imposed by a foreign-owned bank. It would mean, if the bank meant it literally, that it would not open an account for an EEA citizen who owned a holiday home in Cornwall or for a foreign student—but perhaps the bank makes exceptions.
An immigration lawyer who deals with a substantial number of immigration cases told me this morning that the banks invariably refuse to open current accounts for asylum seekers and appellants. So the result that the Government are aiming for in these clauses is already being achieved by market forces. However, Clause 37 defines the term “bank” to exclude credit unions, and the London Community Credit Union confirmed to me this morning that it would be prepared to open a current account for an asylum seeker, provided of course that his papers were in order. Will my noble friend confirm that asylum seekers and those who appeal against refusal of asylum will continue to be free to open current accounts at credit unions?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I want to make just a brief observation and ask a quick question. I am quite curious about the analysis of the costs and benefits of this proposal. The point that I want to make is similar to that made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. What is the extent of the problem that the Government are trying to resolve? My understanding is that many people on low or irregular incomes find it quite difficult to access bank services in the first place. Is there is a significant problem here that the Government are seeking to address?
I also notice that the clause is headed, “Prohibition on opening current accounts for disqualified persons”. It is not a prohibition on holding a bank account. What if somebody legally opens a bank account while they have leave to remain but their leave to remain is then revoked or expires? What action is the bank supposed to take in those circumstances? The very helpful guidance from the Home Office says that this is to ensure that there is a reduced risk of extending credit to individuals who are likely to be removed from the country at short notice. I should have thought that those whose leave to remain was revoked or had expired would be in that position. If the noble Earl could answer those questions, it would be helpful.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for the clear and succinct way in which she spoke to her Amendments 66G to 66L. These amendments seek to make various revisions to the bank accounts provisions. The objective of these provisions is to make it much more difficult for people to operate in the UK if they do not have the appropriate immigration status to be here.
Amendment 66G would amend Clause 35(2), which sets out the group of people who may be disqualified from opening an account. This amendment would specifically add to this group asylum applicants who have an outstanding claim. I am not convinced that that is what my noble friend intended. However, I can confirm that the policy intention is not to prevent these people opening a current account. The details of persons who are liable to removal and who have exhausted all their appeal rights will be the only ones shared with CIFAS, the specified anti-fraud organisation. By definition, this will not include persons with outstanding asylum applications and appeals.
My noble friend Lord Avebury asked about CIFAS. It is already a recognised checking agency and has been selected because we believe that it is the best organisation to perform this function. I will write to my noble friend with further details about that.
My noble friend also talked about the cost of these checks. First, I make it clear that a customer applying to open a bank account will not notice any difference, as these will just be checks that the banks do electronically with CIFAS. Because they are done electronically with an existing organisation, there will not be significant extra costs.
Amendment 66H would insert the word “reasonably” into the definition of a disqualified person. This amendment is unnecessary. As a matter of general administrative law, the Secretary of State is obliged to act reasonably, as pointed out by my noble friend. If he did not act reasonably, I am sure that he could be challenged in the courts by means of judicial review.
Amendment 66J would create a right to challenge or appeal against the refusal of a bank or building society to open a current account. The refusal of an account for a disqualified person by the bank or building society is mandatory and flows directly from an individual’s immigration status and the Secretary of State’s decision to disqualify the individual from opening an account. It remains open to individuals to apply via the immigration system to regularise their status or appeal through that route as appropriate. We do not need to create a fresh appeals mechanism here. However, I want to provide reassurance that if any details given to CIFAS are incorrect or become out of date, an individual would be able to complain directly to the Home Office. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the prohibition is on opening an account, not having an account. If I am incorrect on that, I will write to the noble Baroness.
If there is an error at CIFAS, the Home Office would then have a legal obligation under the Data Protection Act 1998 to correct it. The Home Office exercises considerable care over the quality of the data it shares with CIFAS and has systems in place to regularly update CIFAS records if someone’s status changes. From over 100,000 cases notified to CIFAS since 2012, I am aware of only one complaint being made to the Home Office.
Amendment 66K would require the Treasury to make regulations enabling the Financial Conduct Authority to make arrangements for monitoring and enforcing compliance. The amendment is not necessary, as I can assure the Committee that we will make such regulations.
Amendment 66L would leave out the words “in particular” from Clause 36(2)(b), which refers to provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to which the aforementioned regulations may apply. The words “in particular” are intended to make it clear that the list of provisions is not exhaustive, and they follow similar provisions in LASPO. The list is simply intended to give a clearer sense of the provisions that the regulations are intended to cover.
In short, my noble friend Lord Avebury expressed concerns about whether these measures were appropriate. These proposals do not breach human rights legislation; they will not impact on a person’s ability to provide themselves with the basic necessities, nor prevent them interacting with the world around them. This measure is necessary and proportionate; it supports immigration control which is a legitimate aim. My noble friend was asking broadly what would be done to ensure that the measures do not have the effect of turning the individuals concerned into vulnerable people. These individuals will still be able to conduct everyday transactions using cash, but I heard the noble Lord express concern about people’s supply of cash mounting up. In the past he has chided me about the relatively limited amounts of money supplied under Section 4 support to failed asylum seekers. The measures will make it more difficult for them to obtain loans and conduct a settled life in the UK, but it will not make it impossible for them to exist.
I hope that I have reassured the Committee that these amendments, while useful for seeking assurance, are not necessary, and I hope that my noble friend will feel free to withdraw them.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, to pick up on the phrase my noble friend has just used about cash mounting up, that is not the point that my noble friend Lord Avebury was making. He was talking about the cash that one might have in one’s pocket immediately upon collecting two weeks’ money. It is quite a lot when you receive it but it has to be eked out over two weeks.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, is the noble Baroness talking about support under Section 4 or Section 95? If it is under Section 95, the person will still have an outstanding claim and will therefore be able to open a bank account. If I am wrong on that, I will, of course, write.
Baroness Hamwee
That is helpful. I am grateful. On the issue of the Secretary of State acting reasonably, I was seeking the criteria. I am grateful for the detail of the Minister’s responses. Obviously I need to read them, as one always does, against my questions and against Clause 38, which gives the Treasury quite wide, but not unlimited, powers to amend what will be Sections 35 to 37. The practicalities and practice of this, as my noble friend will understand, concern us. However, I am grateful for the answers and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.