House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
1. What assessment he has made of the potential effects of Scottish independence on border parliamentary constituencies.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael)
As a United Kingdom, we all have better job opportunities, employment and mobility. Every day, 30,000 people travel between Scotland and England for work. If Scotland were to leave the United Kingdom, our border constituencies would be the first to feel the effects of the creation of an international border.
Rory Stewart
Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the challenges of separation would be that our focus would be lost and our energy dissipated by looking at the details of administration and borders, rather than all the opportunities in the world, from Brazil to Indonesia?
Mr Carmichael
That is one of the many downsides a vote for independence would bring. It would be an unnecessary distraction that would indeed remove our focus from the opportunities that being part of the United Kingdom give us to develop Scottish business by looking overseas.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
On the question of separation, surely it is understood that divorce can be messy and that in this case it certainly would be messy? What I have been told by businessmen in my area is that they will move out of Scotland if separation takes place.
Mr Carmichael
I think we all know that what matters to business is the bottom line: the profit and loss account and the balance sheet. If businesses felt that independence was going to be good for them, they would be lining up to support it. Since the turn of the new year, we have heard a steady chorus from the business community, who have all been coming out to underline the risks and uncertainty that would come from independence. [Interruption.] These are voices that the hon. Members on the nationalist Benches may wish to drown out with their incessant chatter, but they will not do it.
Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (LD)
Anybody who pauses at the top of the hill on the Carter Bar on the A68 is able to reflect on one of the most beautiful views of Scotland and on one of the most beautiful views of England, and reflect on the fact that these two countries have so much in common and so much shared family experience. Does my right hon. Friend share my hope that that will always be the case, rather than it marking the border point between two separate states?
Mr Carmichael
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. I always think of the United Kingdom as being a family of nations. Of course, like all families, we do have those moments where we have disagreements, and we do occasionally want to do things in a slightly different way, but as a family the ties that bind us are so much greater than the differences that divide us. That is why I believe that Scotland, come 18 September, will choose to remain part of that family of UK nations.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
But the people of the borders and the rest of Scotland are being subjected to the self-styled “project fear” campaign, which its own supporters describe as negative, nasty, and threatening, and who also say that the Prime Minister is toxic in Scotland. Why are even the Secretary of State’s own colleagues saying this?
Mr Carmichael
I have to say that it is a bit rich to hear the right hon. Gentleman talking about “project fear” when the First Minister went to Carlisle on St George’s day to deliver a lecture that I can only describe as project ridiculous. The fact of the matter—there is no escaping this for the nationalists—is that for people living in the constituencies on either side of the border, there are real benefits to being part of the United Kingdom. The nationalists want us to walk away from those benefits.
Angus Robertson
Leading members of the right hon. Gentleman’s own campaign have told people in the borders and the rest of Scotland that they will have to show a passport at the border; drive on the right-hand side of the road; worry about their pensions, when in this place people are being told that they are safe; and that they will not be able to use their own currency, when the media in London are being briefed that that will be safe. Why do his colleagues think that the people of the borders and the rest of Scotland will fall for this demeaning, insulting nonsense?
Mr Carmichael
The question of the borders highlights perfectly how the Scottish nationalists want to have their cake and eat it. On the one hand, they tell us that we could have a common travel area, which works very well with the Republic of Ireland at present. At the same time, they tell us that we will have a widely divergent immigration policy, which the Republic of Ireland does not have. They can have one thing or the other: they cannot have both. That is why their prospectus is flawed.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
In places such as Carlisle, many businesses have branches and offices on both sides of the border. Does the Secretary of State agree that if Scotland votes yes there is a real danger that there will be such an additional burden on those businesses that it will have an effect on jobs and economic prosperity on both sides of the border?
Mr Carmichael
Inevitably, an independent Scotland would have a different taxation system, different national insurance provisions and different economic regulations, and that would impose an extra cost on business. The financial services sector, which supports 200,000 jobs in Scotland, has already issued serious warnings about what would happen to its business and how it would organise itself if Scotland became independent.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
2. What discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues on the effects of housing benefit changes in Scotland.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
9. What discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues on the effects of housing benefit changes in Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
I have had regular discussions with ministerial colleagues about the effect of housing benefit changes in Scotland, and in particular about the application of discretionary housing payments to those affected by the removal of the spare-room subsidy. Those discussions led to the announcement on Friday 2 May that the setting of the limit for such payments could become the responsibility of the Scottish Government.
Katy Clark
In February the Scottish Parliament voted in favour of full mitigation of the bedroom tax, but much of that money has not yet reached tenants. Given that there has been a discussion about the discretionary cap, does the Minister agree that the Scottish Government could have acted earlier, and, given that an announcement has now been made, will he do everything in his power to ensure that there is co-operation between Westminster and the Scottish Government so that the money reaches the people who need it?
David Mundell
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. The Scottish Government already had powers that they could have used to take other steps for the purpose of the mitigation that they said was necessary, but they chose not to do so. The Scottish Parliament forced additional funds to be provided, and we will not stand in the way of the spending of those funds. I shall be meeting the Deputy First Minister of Scotland tomorrow morning, and I shall convey the hon. Lady’s comments to her.
Sandra Osborne
Does the Minister agree with the far-reaching proposals of Scottish Labour’s devolution commission, including the proposal for the devolution of housing benefit? Does he agree that that would be a progressive, logical and practical step that would enhance devolution and the ability to meet Scottish housing needs?
David Mundell
I think that the proposal to devolve the setting of the cap for discretionary housing payments is a positive step, and I welcome the fact that the Labour party has presented proposals. At the end of May, the Scottish Conservative party will present its proposals following the outcome of the work of our own devolution commission.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
An important part of dealing with housing benefit is ensuring that there is enough affordable housing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lack of suitable affordable housing in Scotland is the result and the responsibility of successive Scottish Governments?
David Mundell
I do agree with my hon. Friend. She will be aware that since 2010 the Scottish Government have had an additional £1.3 billion in funding that they could have used to provide affordable housing in Scotland. We used to hear constantly in the Chamber about the number of shovel-ready projects in Scotland, but we have not seen much shovelling.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
The bedroom tax has been a costly fiasco in Scotland. It should never have happened, but I am glad that the Government have at long last agreed to allow the Scottish Government to mitigate its worst impacts. However, the Secretary of State recently boasted that we have a “fantastic” benefits system. Does the Minister think that he was talking about the bedroom tax, or is he also living in a parallel universe?
David Mundell
I certainly do not live in the universe that the SNP inhabits. It has not given us a single detail of how a welfare system would operate in Scotland. Indeed, in the 670 pages of the Scottish Government’s White Paper, there is just one reference to the establishment of such a system. The SNP set up a commission, but we have heard nothing from it, so I am afraid that I shall take no lessons from the hon. Lady.
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister accept that, now that the Scottish Government have been given the powers for which they asked in relation to discretionary housing payments, there is no reason why they should not first cancel all the bedroom tax for this year, and then write off all the debts that were incurred last year? In order to ensure that no moral hazard is involved, should they not do as the Scottish Affairs Committee has asked, and refund the money that Scottish people paid last year in bedroom tax?
David Mundell
I understand that a statement is to be made about the matter in the Scottish Parliament today, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues will raise those very points with the Scottish Government.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
3. What assessment he has made of the effects of recent trends in household energy bills on standards of living in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
Rising energy bills are a serious concern for consumers in Scotland and across the rest of the UK. We are increasing competition, sustaining vital financial support for vulnerable consumers, and working to ensure suppliers put customers on the cheapest tariff.
John Robertson
I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that with the closing of coal-fired power stations and a doctrine of anti-nuclear power stations north of the border, under independence, with the reliance on renewables, energy costs must increase?
David Mundell
I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the serious loss to the Scottish economy of closing the door on the nuclear industry, which has brought so much benefit to Scotland, and I pay tribute to him for being such a champion of that cause. He is right that energy costs will go up in an independent Scotland, as set out in the Government’s analysis on energy.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
Both in Northumberland and in Scotland people are setting up oil-buying clubs to deal with the problem of off-grid energy. Does the Minister agree that the best way to combat energy problems and price rises in off-grid circumstances is to copy this good measure and spread it out across the country?
David Mundell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Oil clubs are developing in Scotland and the Government are keen to promote and support them. I commend him for highlighting this issue.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
11. If the Minister is genuinely concerned about rising costs of energy in Scotland, why is it that Ofgem has yet again delayed the implementation of Project TransmiT, which would finally begin to tackle the discriminatory and expensive transmission charges? Will he press his colleagues to implement it immediately?
David Mundell
Project TransmiT is one matter on which I am probably in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. The important thing for Scotland is to get the right answer. Yes, it is disappointing that it has taken some time, but the Scotland Office is determined to work towards getting the right answer, and I urge him and his colleagues to continue to press Ofgem on this as well.
Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State explain why, when the Prime Minister said that consumers in Scotland would be £50 better off after cuts to the green levies, hundreds of thousands of Scottish consumers have seen their bills decrease by only £12?
David Mundell
There is no reason why consumers in Scotland should not be seeing this £50 benefit, and the Government will continue to do all we can to make sure that they do.
Margaret Curran
That is the definition of an inadequate answer, and perhaps goes some way towards explaining why Labour’s policy has gained widespread support across Scotland. In opposing Labour’s energy freeze, the Tory-led Government have had the full support of a surprise friend in the form of the Scottish National party, and it does not stop there: standing up for energy companies, failing to take action on the living wage, proposing tax cuts for those at the top. Does the Minister not agree that Scotland deserves better than this?
David Mundell
What I believe is that we do not take any lectures from Labour on energy issues. Gas bills more than doubled under Labour, electricity bills went up by 50%, the leader of the Labour party was responsible for £179 of additional levies on gas bills and fuel duty went up 12 times. I am proud of this Government’s record on energy and Scotland is doing well under it.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
4. What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Scottish Government on the potential role of the Bank of England in the event of Scotland becoming an independent country.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael)
I have not had any discussions with Ministers in the Scottish Government on the potential role of the Bank of England. If people in Scotland vote to leave the UK, they are voting to leave the UK institutions that support it, such as the Bank of England, which will continue to operate on behalf of the continuing UK.
David Mowat
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. The majority of my constituents hope very much that Scotland will stay in the Union, but for the avoidance of doubt, will he confirm that in the event of a yes vote, there are no circumstances under which my constituents will underwrite the borrowing and spending plans of an independent Scotland, whichever currency it uses?
Mr Carmichael
I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the continuation of Scotland within the United Kingdom. The position on any currency union or central banking arrangements if Scotland were to vote for independence has been made very clear recently by the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary and also by the shadow Chancellor: there will be no such arrangements.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
In the event of an independent Scotland, will the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee take its instructions from the UK Treasury or the Scottish Government?
Mr Carmichael
The Bank of England will continue to take its instructions from the UK Treasury. It is a UK institution and that would not change.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
If Scotland separated from the United Kingdom, how would the UK’s foreign exchange reserves be reallocated?
Mr Carmichael
That would be a matter to be determined in the event of Scotland voting to leave the United Kingdom. I very much hope that will not come to pass.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The Bank of England has already sensibly engaged in technical discussions with the Scottish Government. As each day passes and a yes vote on independence becomes more likely, is it not about time this Government abandoned their bellicose scaremongering and also engaged in sensible discussions with the Scottish Government on how these institutions can continue to work, in the best interests of both countries?
Mr Carmichael
Both Governments agreed in the Edinburgh agreement that there would be no question of pre-negotiation. That was a sensible situation and I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman now seeks to walk away from it.
Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the Bank of England is not an asset to be shared but an institution that belongs to the United Kingdom which Scotland chooses to leave? Does he also agree that it is an extraordinary kind of independence where one wants to hand over control of one’s fiscal and monetary policy to a foreign bank?
Mr Carmichael
My right hon. Friend puts it perfectly. The difference between an asset and an institution is not a difficult one to understand, but the Scottish nationalists do seem to struggle with it.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
5. What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Scottish Government on a potential currency union with an independent Scotland.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael)
I have not had any discussions with the Scottish Government about the prospect of a currency union. The Chancellor, Chief Secretary and shadow Chancellor have all said there will not be a currency union. The only way to keep the UK pound is to stay in the UK.
Michael Connarty
I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Having read the fiscal commission’s report, it is clear that it took the advice that I have been giving Scottish National party colleagues here that they would be destroyed if they went into the eurozone, where the stability and growth pact would destroy their economy. If they have no currency union with the UK, exactly what prospects are there for the 8% deficit that Scotland is running at the moment?
Mr Carmichael
The position is very clearly laid out: the difficulties that would be created by the currency union would be difficulties for the whole of the United Kingdom, but particularly for the people of Scotland. If we are to be independent, we need to be independent with all that that means. It is not possible to be half independent.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that Moody’s has stated that if Scotland were to gain its independence it would downgrade Scotland’s credit rating to B? What effect would that have on Scotland’s interest rates?
Mr Carmichael
The comments and report by Moody’s last week have to be taken very seriously and read with some care. Moody’s makes it clear that on its estimation an independent Scotland would be rated two levels below the rating the UK currently enjoys. For the people of Scotland that would mean more expensive store cards, more expensive overdrafts and more expensive mortgages. We are cheaper as part of the United Kingdom.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
12. Does the Secretary of State agree that all the currency options that have been put forward for an independent Scotland by the nationalists would actually involve constraints on decision making on fiscal policy?
Mr Carmichael
Every option that is put forward by the Scottish nationalists is inferior to what we currently have as part of the United Kingdom. That is the unpalatable truth that they do not want to hear, but from which there is no escaping. The people of Scotland know that truth.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
The success of the Government’s economic policy is proven by the fact that the number of people claiming unemployment benefit in my constituency reduced by 419 in the past year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to keep this sustained economic growth is to stay within the UK and with the common currency that we have at the moment?
Mr Carmichael
Indeed. My hon. Friend gives me an opportunity to remind the House that the United Kingdom has the fastest growing economy in the G7, and that Scotland is the second wealthiest part of that economy.
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
10. The people of Scotland want facts, so will the Secretary of State tell us on what date, if Scotland chooses to separate, will it either have to begin printing its own money or, failing that, start using the pound as a foreign currency?
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman invites me to look into the future and make a prediction, which is never an easy prospect—it is an unwise prospect for anyone in politics. The truth of the matter is that all these things are uncertain, and they bring enormous risks in areas where we do very well as a result of being part of the United Kingdom.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
To echo the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), what could be more demeaning and insulting than to lead the Scottish people to believe that there are no risks in independence, and that a currency union is a foregone conclusion?
Mr Carmichael
The only foregone conclusion about a currency union is that it will not happen. It will not happen because that is the advice that has been given by the permanent secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That advice is not going to change, and the outcome of that advice is not going to change.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The Chancellor’s sermon on the pound was supposed to bring the Scottish people back into fearful line, but as the opinion polls have shown, the Scottish people will not be discouraged by this; instead, they are emboldened and angered. The Scottish people will no longer be told by Westminster. Will the Secretary of State tell us what has happened to the search for the Minister who told the truth? Have they made any progress, or do they perhaps need our help?
Mr Carmichael
Mr Speaker, I am delighted that you were able to fit the hon. Gentleman in; otherwise, we would all have missed his monthly comedy turn. It is quite remarkable that he chooses to ignore the advice given by the permanent secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, setting out why a currency union would be bad for the rest of the United Kingdom and bad for an independent Scotland. Why does the hon. Gentleman want something that would be bad for Scotland?
Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)
Last week, 18% of members of Scottish Chambers of Commerce confirmed that they are making plans to move out of Scotland in the event of a yes vote, and 63% believe that an independent currency or the euro would be bad for business. Today we have heard from the British Chambers of Commerce that 85% of their businesses are against independence, and nearly half identified currency concerns as the most important issue for them. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give the House about currency for businesses on both sides of the border?
Mr Carmichael
The only reassurance I can give is that if people in Scotland vote no, they will continue to enjoy the use of the pound and they will continue to have the Bank of England as a lender of last resort. Beyond that, everything is uncertain.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
6. What assessment he has made of the potential effects of Scottish independence on cross-border trade and employment.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael)
Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom means we have a truly single domestic market, with no barriers to trade and employment across the United Kingdom. Independence would fundamentally change that. The resulting “border effect” would disrupt trade and free movement of workers, reducing real incomes by, it is estimated, around £2,000 per Scottish household per year.
Iain Stewart
My constituency is home to a large number of national logistics and distribution companies. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing concern in that sector that separation could make some cross-border routes less attractive, as they would become international rather than domestic ones?
Mr Carmichael
Indeed, and I hear the same message from a range of business interests. The financial services industry, for example, says that independence would bring extra costs with different taxation and different regulation. The supermarkets have made it very clear that extra costs would fall to Scottish consumers if Scotland were independent.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
According to the House of Commons Library, 200,000 UK jobs depend on trade with the Republic of Ireland—double that of Canada and Norway. Ireland used to be part of the UK, but trade between the two has never been higher. The UK is Ireland’s No. 1 trading partner, and among the recently independent nations of the European Union, foreign direct investment rose by 215% in the first four years of independence. For those realities, what scare stories will the Secretary of State use?
Mr Carmichael
It is not a scare story to point out that the White Paper presents a prospectus and a future where there would be barriers and where the mere existence of a border would be an extra cost. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know the truth of the matter, he need look no further than at the situation that exists between Canada and the United States. The hon. Gentleman might not like it, but that is the truth.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Scottish Government regarding the possibility of border controls between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK, if an independent Scotland had a separate immigration policy?
Mr Carmichael
It is an inescapable fact that if, as the nationalists tell us in the White Paper, Scotland were to have a widely divergent immigration policy, which would be necessary for such of their economic plans as they have been prepared to tell us about, the operation of a common travel area of the sort that currently works well with the Republic of Ireland simply would not operate. You cannot have your cake and eat it on this occasion.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
Given the First Minister’s threat to blockade Scottish fishing grounds if he does not get his own way on EU membership and given that licences are held across the United Kingdom, what analysis has the Secretary of State done on the impact on employment in the Scottish fishing industry?
Mr Carmichael
The impact on employment would be serious in some of the most economically fragile communities in Scotland in our coastal and island communities. I have to say that the First Minister’s comment about blockading Scottish waters went beyond the ridiculous, but it makes me wonder whether that is why he seems so desperate to cosy up to Vladimir Putin.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 May.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mel Stride
As the proud father of three daughters, I am sure that the entire House will share my deep concern for the more than 270 Nigerian schoolgirls held captive in that country. Their only so-called crime is that they aspired to receive an education. Will my right hon. Friend set out for the House the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that we help to secure their release as soon as possible?
The Prime Minister
I know that my hon. Friend speaks for the whole House—and, indeed, the whole country. I am the father of two young daughters, and my reaction is exactly the same as my hon. Friend’s and of every father and mother in this land and in the world: this is an act of pure evil, which has united people across the planet to stand with Nigeria to help find these children and return them to their parents.
The Foreign Secretary and the British Government have made repeated offers of help to the Nigerian Government since the girls were seized. I shall be speaking to the Nigerian President this afternoon and will say again that Britain stands ready to provide any assistance, working closely with the US, as immediately as we can. We already have a British military training team in Nigeria, and the Foreign Office has counter-terrorism experts. We should be proud of the role we play in that country where British aid helps to educate 800,000 Nigerian children, including 600,000 girls. We should be clear that this is not just a Nigerian issue: it is a global issue. There are extreme Islamists around the world who are against education, against progress and against equality—and we must fight them and take them on wherever they are.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Let me begin by fully associating myself and the Opposition with the Prime Minister’s remarks on the terrible situation in Nigeria.
On our proposal for three-year tenancies in the private sector, will the Prime Minister tell us when he expects to make the inevitable journey from saying that they represent dangerous Venezuelan-style thinking to saying that they are actually quite a good idea?
The Prime Minister
I have not had the time to study the rent control proposals, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be able to lay them out for the House. Let me be clear about my view. If there is an opportunity to find longer-term tenancy agreements to give greater stability—a proposal made at last year’s Conservative conference—I am sure we can work together. If, however, the proposal is for rent controls that have been tried all over the world, including in Britain, and have been shown to fail, I think it would be a very bad idea.
Edward Miliband
Even by the right hon. Gentleman’s standards, this is a pretty quick U-turn. Last week, the chairman of the Conservative party—I know the right hon. Gentleman does not have a briefing on this, but perhaps he can listen to the question—was saying this was all back to Venezuela and that it is completely wrong, but the Community Secretary has supported these proposals. The question is how are we going to make it happen?
The Prime Minister
Actually, I have got some very good briefing on these proposals—from Labour MPs. Here they are. Let us start with Labour’s Housing Minister. You would think she would support Labour’s policy. She says:
“I do not think it will work in practice”.
The shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government says this:
“We don’t want to return to rent controls because the rental sector is meeting a demand for housing.”
There we are—the authentic voice of Bennism.
Then we come to the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee, a Labour MP, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). He said this:
“We concluded that rent control was not feasible.”
So there we have a Labour policy, completely unclear about what it is; but the one thing that is clear is that Labour MPs do not back it.
Edward Miliband
All the right hon. Gentleman shows is that he has nothing—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I know it has to be said every week, but I will very happily say it again. However long it takes—a very simple exercise in democracy; the lesson should be learned—the question will be heard and the answer will be heard. It is incredibly simple.
Edward Miliband
All the right hon. Gentleman shows is that he has no idea about this incredibly important issue facing our country. Let me explain it to him. There are 9 million people renting in this country. Our proposal is that there should be fixed three-year tenancies as the norm for those people with predictable rent changes. Right? That is the proposal. Many people across this country think that for the first time this is a party addressing the issue they face, so will he explain what is wrong with going from one-year tenancies with unpredictable rent rises to three-year tenancies with predictable rents? Why has the Conservative party given up on millions of people who are Generation Rent.
The Prime Minister
We want to build more houses so we have a better rental sector with more affordable rents. But as I said in my very first answer, if this is about finding new tenancies that give long-term security on a voluntary basis, yes. If it is about mandating rent controls from the centre and destroying the housing market, no. The problem I have with so many of the right hon. Gentleman’s policies is that they all come from the same place—
The Prime Minister
Thank you very much. Len—they come from the Unite union. Unite said, “Renationalise the railways.” The right hon. Gentleman wants to renationalise the railways. Unite says, “Let’s have old-style rent controls.” He wants old-style rent controls. The problem with rent controls is their policies are for rent, their candidates are for rent and their leader is for rent. That is the problem.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
The Prime Minister will be as encouraged as I am that unemployment in my constituency is down by almost a third since the last election. However, the future for almost 1,000 workers related to Eggborough power station in my constituency is less certain. Will he meet me to ensure that we have a future for this very important asset in my constituency?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this. What he says about the fall in unemployment, which we are now seeing right across our country, is welcome. In fact, employment is growing fastest not in the south-east but in Wales, which shows that the recovery is increasingly more broadly based. I know about the problems at Eggborough power station, and the demand there for further action, as has been agreed at Drax. I am very happy to discuss that with him and see what can be done.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Q2. I have two world-class hospitals in my constituency. The Secretary of State for Health has decided that Hammersmith will lose its A and E this year and Charing Cross will be demolished, losing all consultant emergency services, including A and E, and the country’s best stroke unit. Will the Prime Minister stop his Health Secretary putting my constituents’ lives at risk?
The Prime Minister
What we are doing in north-west London is ensuring that the NHS gets more money. It will be getting £2.4 billion this year—£74 million more than the year before. Let us remember that his own party’s policy was to cut the NHS, as is happening now in Wales. The changes that are being made in north-west London are backed by clinicians and local people. We want to see our NHS improve, as it is under this Government.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policies of the UK Independence party are based on fear—fear of the world and fear of foreigners? As a great trading nation, we should embrace the world. If anyone comes to my constituency and goes to the hospital, the nursing homes, the farms or the building sites, they will see the great contribution that is being made to our communities and to the growth of our economy by fellow EU citizens.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that Britain has benefited from being an economy that is open to investment and open to people coming who want to contribute and work hard here. I agree with what he says about UKIP: so much of its view seems to be that we do not have a bright future in this country. I absolutely believe that we do. If we get our deficit down and our economy growing and we invest in apprenticeships, we will show that we can be one of the success stories of the 21st century. We are making progress and that is the way to challenge its world view.
Edward Miliband
There is deep concern in the British business and scientific communities about the proposed takeover of AstraZeneca by Pfizer. The deal would have an impact for decades to come on British jobs, British investment, British exports and British science. The Business Secretary said yesterday that he is “not ruling out intervention”. What type of intervention is under consideration by Government?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with what the Business Secretary said yesterday, but let me be clear that the most important intervention we can make is to back British jobs, British science, British research and development, British medicines and British technology. That is why I asked the Cabinet Secretary and my Ministers to engage with both companies right from the start of this process, and I make no apology for that, because we know what happens when you do not engage. If you stand back and just say you are opposed to everything, you get abject surrender and no guarantees for Britain. We are fighting for British science, and it is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to play politics rather than backing the national interest.
Edward Miliband
It is good to hear that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with the Business Secretary. The Business Secretary said this:
“One of the Government’s options would be to consider using our public interest test powers.”—[Official Report, 6 May 2014; Vol. 580, c. 23.]
There needs to be a proper assessment of this bid, and yesterday the Business Secretary said that he was open to doing that. It could be done straight away, through this House, and we on the Labour Benches would support making that happen. Will the Prime Minister agree to do it?
The Prime Minister
The assessment that I want is from the Business Department on this deal or indeed, because there is not now an actual offer on the table, any subsequent offer. I will judge all these things on whether they expand British jobs, British investment and British science. Let me just make this point, because I worry that it may be lost in this debate. We all know that the right hon. Gentleman thinks he is extremely clever—we all know that—but he may have missed this point. Britain benefits massively from being open to investment. Nissan is now producing more cars than the whole of Italy. Jaguar Land Rover, under Indian ownership, has created 9,000 jobs in the west midlands since I became Prime Minister. Vodafone and indeed AstraZeneca have benefited from that backing of an open country to go out and build and buy businesses around the world. There is more inward investment in Britain today than the rest of the EU combined. Let us not put that at risk.
Edward Miliband
The right hon. Gentleman does not understand. This is simply about something very straightforward—having an independent assessment of this bid and whether it is in the national interest. I will ask him the question again as it matters to people right across this country. Is he ruling out, or ruling in, using the public interest test on this takeover? We could make it happen. His Business Secretary could make it happen, and we would support it. If he does not take action now, and the bid goes through without a proper assessment, everyone will know that he was cheerleading for this bid, not championing British science and British industry.
The Prime Minister
I think it is deeply sad that the Leader of the Opposition makes accusations about cheerleading when the Government were getting stuck in to help British science, British investment and British jobs. Does it not tell us everything that, given the choice of doing the right thing for the national interest and working with the Government or making short-term political points, that is what he chooses to do? We might ask why the public interest test was changed in the first place. It happened when they were sitting in the Treasury. Yes, they wrote the rules, they sold the gold and they saw manufacturing in our country decline by one half. We will never take lectures from the people who wrecked our economy.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister confirm that under his leadership this country will never spend less than the NATO recommended minimum of 2% of GDP on defence?
The Prime Minister
We are spending in excess of 2% and we are one of the only countries in Europe to do that. The Greeks, I believe, are spending more than 2% but, if I can put it this way, not all on things that are useful for all of NATO. We should continue to make sure we fulfil all our commitments on defence spending.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Q3. Will the Prime Minister urgently meet again with me and fellow MPs to find a way forward on consultant-led maternity services to be run by the university hospital in Stoke-on-Trent?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady has asked me this question in the past. I was keen to ensure that despite all the difficulties at the Mid-Staffordshire hospital there was an opportunity to see whether it might be possible for the long term to have consultant-led maternity services. People who live in our major towns, such as Stafford, want to be able to have their babies locally. It is vital that we do that and I am regularly updated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). I would be happy to meet him and a delegation of Staffordshire MPs if it is necessary to talk further about this point.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
Q4. Last week, Boston Consulting Group published research that found that Britain is the No. 1 competitive manufacturing country in the whole of western Europe and number four globally behind China, the United States and South Korea. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is just the sort of company we should be keeping and further evidence that our strategy to rebalance the UK economy towards manufacturing and the west midlands and other regions is working?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what she says, because for the first time in almost a decade all three main sectors of the economy—manufacturing, services and construction—have grown by at least 3% over the past year. That is further evidence that the economic plan is working. Manufacturing is important in itself and it is also important because so much of it is tradeable. We want to see Britain export more, make more and invest more. The moves made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget in terms of investment allowances and backing UK Trade & Investment are dedicated to that angle. As I said earlier, we must also remain an open economy, which will encourage people to invest in our manufacturing base.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Later this week, the opening stages of the Giro d’Italia will take place in Northern Ireland. The Tour de France is also coming to Yorkshire. Such world-class sporting events allow us to showcase our region, boost tourism and grow the local economy. Does the Prime Minister agree that as we seek to build a more prosperous and better future for all our people in Northern Ireland it is vital that the suffering and hurt of the victims is never forgotten and that whether it happened one year ago, 10 years ago or 42 years ago, justice must be pursued and the police must be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead?
The Prime Minister
First, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of these great sporting events—both the one he mentioned in Northern Ireland and, of course, the Tour de France, which will be starting in Leeds. That will be a great moment for Yorkshire and for the whole United Kingdom. We should do all we can to promote these events, although we should perhaps draw the line at appearing in lycra at either of them.
The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue about terrorist victims. We discussed recently the important issue of trying to ensure greater assistance from Libya over Semtex that is still being found in Northern Ireland as we speak today. As for his other remarks, we should be proud of the fact that a free country has an independent judiciary, an independent legal system and an independent police service and that they decide who to arrest, who to question and who to charge. That is how it must remain.
Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Q5. Dementia is one of the biggest challenges facing our country. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Alzheimer’s Society and Public Health England on launching a major new campaign through Dementia Friends to raise awareness and to challenge stigma? Given that 50,000 people quit their jobs to care for people with dementia, will he ensure that there is a new dementia strategy at the end of this year—the current one ends this year—so that we can ensure that people with dementia receive the support they need?
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for raising this issue. We have turned the zero on No. 10 into the dementia flower today to help to boost the importance of raising awareness of this issue and of encouraging more people to train as Dementia Friends. I will look at what he says about the strategy. As he knows, it is about investing in research and science, where we have doubled the budget for dementia. It is about dementia-friendly communities and also making sure that our hospitals and care homes treat people with dementia better. We will carry forward all those, and I will perhaps write to him about the update to the strategy.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Some 100,000 people are already dead in Syria and others are dying while we are here today. They need help desperately. We have talked about humanitarian help, but we have not crossed borders. What on earth are we doing about it?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady is right to raise this. The answer to what are we doing about it is that Britain is the second largest bilateral aid donor in terms of humanitarian aid going into Syria, so we are helping to feed, clothe and house people in Turkey, in Lebanon, in Jordan and elsewhere. She raises the important point about getting aid into Syria. More is being done on that, but it is extremely difficult because of the security situation. We will continue to do what we can.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
Q6. As we mark the centenary of the first world war, it is a national disgrace that the graves of Victoria Cross winners lie crumbling and derelict. As a patron of the Victoria Cross Trust, may I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on pledging £100,000 to help to restore some of those graves, and The Sun on highlighting this campaign? As the Government have pledged to match-fund every penny raised by the Victoria Cross Trust, will the Prime Minister join me in urging people to go online, to donate and to ensure that we have fitting memorials for the bravest of the brave.
The Prime Minister
I certainly join my hon. Friend, who is a patron of the Victoria Cross Trust, for the hard work that is being done. The Sun did a good job in highlighting the importance of this issue. As my hon. Friend mentioned, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has announced £100,000 of funding for the Victoria Cross Trust. This should go to restoring the graves of Victoria Cross recipients.
We also have a programme for letting local authorities put down paving stones for people who won Victoria Crosses in their area, and we are looking at many other ways to commemorate this absolutely vital anniversary. The most important thing we are doing is the huge multimillion pound investment going to the Imperial War museum, which is opening this summer and to which I take my children. It brings the first world war to life in an extraordinary way, and that is at the heart of our important commemorations.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Q15. My constituent Darren Lugg’s disability means that he needs a specially adapted bed. He therefore cannot share a room with his wife, but still they are hit by the bedroom tax. Can the Prime Minister explain why this Government are punishing him for his disability?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Lady knows, we have discretionary housing payments for exactly this sort of case, and the money has been topped up, so there is no reason for people to be disadvantaged in the way she suggests.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Q7. AstraZeneca is Macclesfield’s largest employer with 2,000 employees, so I share constituents’ concerns about Pfizer’s proposed bid. I welcome the steps taken by the Government to secure initial commitments from the company if it succeeds. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what further steps are being taken to strengthen those commitments and to safeguard highly skilled manufacturing jobs in Macclesfield?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s remarks. There are 2,000 people employed by AstraZeneca in his constituency, and he is quite right to speak up for them. Our entire approach is based on trying to secure the best possible deal in terms of jobs, investment and science, and that is why I believe it was absolutely right to ask the Cabinet Secretary to engage with Pfizer, just as we are engaging with AstraZeneca. I find it extraordinary that we have been criticised for this. Of course, there is no offer on the table, but the commitments that have been made so far are encouraging in terms of completing the Cambridge campus and making sure that 20% of the combined companies’ total research and development work force is in the UK going forward—and they specifically mention substantial commercial manufacturing facilities in Macclesfield. The company also goes on to say that because of the patent box that we have introduced, it would look at manufacturing more in the UK. But let me absolutely clear: I am not satisfied; I want more, but the way to get more is to engage, not to stand up and play party politics.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
On a number of occasions the Prime Minister has raised the important issue of awareness of mental health, and I thank him for that, but can he explain why, since 2011, there has been a 30% drop in the number of mental health beds in the NHS, and is it really right that mental health patients are having to travel up to 200 miles to access a bed?
The Prime Minister
What matters in our NHS is the quality of provision and parity of esteem between physical health and mental health. This Government have not solved every problem, but we have put proper parity of esteem into the NHS constitution and the NHS mandate. We have also put in proper targets for some of the talking therapies that are absolutely vital in mental health. Measuring the output of our NHS purely by the number of beds is not a sensible approach.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
Q8. The Government are making a substantial investment in renewing and expanding the nation’s infrastructure. There is, however, a real need to get more young people into engineering so that we will have the long-term skills base for these projects. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that this Government will do all they can to inspire the next generation of engineers?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely back what my hon. Friend says. I know he has been campaigning very hard to get the HS2 academy to go to Milton Keynes, because there is a vital bit of skills work that needs to be done. [Interruption.] I am sure there will be a lot of competition. The key thing about these investments, whether it is Crossrail, the Olympics or HS2, is to plan in advance for the skills that we are going to need so that we can fill the jobs with British people leaving school and college wanting to take on those skills. Today the Chancellor and the Minister for Schools have launched the “Your Life, Your Choice” campaign, which is all about encouraging young people to get into STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—and to stay in STEM subjects, because there is a massive fall-off from GCSE to A-level, particularly in physics among young women, and we need to encourage them to go on studying.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I am delighted to see that the Prime Minister is wearing his Dementia Friends badge today. He will congratulate the Alzheimer’s Society on its commitment to get 1 million dementia friends over the next year, but will he also today commit personally to putting an end to the scandal of 15-minute visits, low wages and zero-hours contracts for the dedicated home carers who look after people with dementia in our country?
The Prime Minister
First, let me praise the right hon. Lady for her work on dementia and the amount of work she has done to spread awareness about this. The 15-minute working times is an issue for local councils. My local council has just decided to stop these 15-minute visits because it does not believe people can really get any meaningful work done, but this is a matter for councils. We are the first Government to have a proper review on zero-hours contracts. We are very unhappy about those with exclusivity clauses that do not allow people to work elsewhere. As important as those things are, it is as important to make sure that our care system has got people inside it who are really caring and understanding about the problems of dementia. The right hon. Lady and I have both been through the very short Dementia Friends training course, and I do not know about her, but I think I am ready for a refresher.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Q9. With 1.3% growth in manufacturing in the last quarter and some strong performances from my local firms such as Renishaw, Dairy Crest, Lister Communications, Lister Shearing and others, largely through innovation, does the Prime Minister agree that one key element of the long-term economic plan is the need further to strengthen our skills base so that those firms can continue to grow, work hard for Britain, and generate exports?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A key part of the long-term plan is to rebalance our economy away from purely the south-east and also towards manufacturing exports and investment. I know that he has been playing his part by running a festival for manufacturing and engineering in Stroud. This is really important, because one of the things we have to do is inspire a new generation to think of these careers and think of the subjects they should be studying in school and at university to open up these careers for them.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Last Thursday, the European Union ban on the import of Indian mangos took effect. As a result, hundreds of businesses in Leicester and throughout the UK will suffer millions of pounds of losses. There was no consultation with this House and no vote by British Ministers. Next week, the Prime Minister will have his first conversation with the new Indian Prime Minister. Will he do his best to reverse this ban so that we can keep our special relationship with India, which his predecessors and he have worked so hard to maintain, and have our delicious mangos once again?
The Prime Minister
I know how much the right hon. Gentleman cares about this issue, so much so that he delivered a tray of mangos to No. 10 Downing street—missing the deadline, I might add, so that they could safely be consumed by the people inside. I am very grateful for that.
This is a very serious issue. The European Commission has to consider it on the basis of the science and the evidence. There are concerns about cross-contamination of British crops and interests, so we have to make sure that that is got right. I understand how strongly the right hon. Gentleman and the Indian community in this country feel. Indeed, I look forward to discussing the issue with the new Indian Prime Minister.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
Q10. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Vitsoe, the world-class furniture manufacturer, on its decision to locate its manufacturing facility in Leamington and on the jobs that will create? I am proud the decision was based in part on our community’s rich industrial heritage. Will the Prime Minister also pay tribute to local businesses that have created jobs and reduced the number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants in Warwick and Leamington by a remarkable 54% since May 2010?
The Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the decline in unemployment in his constituency, which is incredibly marked at 54%. I note what he says about furniture factories, because those are the sorts of businesses that were going offshore. What we are seeing in our country is a slow trend—but I want to encourage it—of reshoring and getting businesses to come back to, and invest and expand in, Britain. We must do everything we can to encourage that by keeping their taxes down, keeping national insurance down, cutting national insurance for young people, training more apprentices and investing in infrastructure. That is what we will do so that there are many more success stories like that mentioned by my hon. Friend.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Q12. My constituent Lorraine Seath’s son has recently returned from serving our country in Afghanistan. Does the Prime Minister think it is right that she has to pay the bedroom tax to keep a room available for her son to stay in when he is at home?
The Prime Minister
Let me look at this individual case, because we made a specific exemption from the spare room subsidy for people who were serving overseas. If the spare room subsidy exemption does not apply in this case, there is of course the provision of the discretionary housing payment, which is another way of dealing with this, and I would hope that Scunthorpe borough council would take up that offer.
Mr Speaker
I call Mr Simon Burns. [Hon. Members: “More!”] There will indeed be more, which is why we must hear the right hon. Gentleman and then, at my request, others. We are concerned also, I am sure, about others.
Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
Q11. The Prime Minister will be aware that last week the service sector grew at its fastest level this year, with the ensuing creation of jobs. Does he agree that that demonstrates that we must stick with the long-term economic plan, because it is working? I trust my right hon. Friend has enough time to answer the question in full.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: we have to stick to the long-term economic plan and deliver it. For my right hon. Friend to be called at 12.33 pm on a Wednesday shows that if you stick at anything, you can win.
Mr Speaker
I have always practised that philosophy myself: however long it takes, we are going to get through them.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
The Prime Minister will know that recently it has gone into the public domain that more than 365 people in Northern Ireland were given the royal prerogative of mercy, despite 10 years of files being lost. Will he give a commitment that those names will be made public? After all, if the Queen takes the time to sign 365 names, surely the public and particularly the victims have the right to know.
The Prime Minister
I would say to the hon. Lady, who I know takes a very close interest in these issues in Northern Ireland, that difficult decisions were taken, principally by the previous Government at the time of the various agreements, which involved very difficult choices—hard choices—that had to be made in order to try to build the platform for peace and reconciliation. I am very happy to look at her specific point and see whether there is anything I can do to reassure her in a letter, but I do not want to unpick decisions taken at a difficult time to try to give us the peace that we enjoy today.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
Q13. The chief medical officer warned last month that we are misusing antibiotics to such an extent that we risk returning, in just a matter of years, to a 19th-century environment where routine operations carry a grave risk of death. A couple of days ago, the World Health Organisation issued a similar warning, saying that we are hurtling towards the post-antibiotic age. On that basis, it is surely madness to continue to allow so many antibiotics to be used on our factory farms—about half the total use in this country—when we know that that contributes to resistance.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an extremely serious problem, which is global in its nature and could have unbelievably bad consequences in terms of anti-microbial resistance leading to quite minor ailments not being properly treatable. One of the problems is that the way research is done currently by pharmaceutical companies is not necessarily bringing forward new antibiotics in the way that we need or solving this problem. I have met the chief medical officer to discuss this. There are a number of steps that we can take here in the UK and working with other countries, and I hope to say something about it soon.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills said that he was working with civil servants to ensure that any assurances given by Pfizer during the proposed takeover of AstraZeneca could be made legally binding. Does the Prime Minister back that?
The Prime Minister
As I said, the more we can do to strengthen the assurances we are given, the better. But the only way to get assurances is by engaging and getting stuck in with those companies, which is what we have been doing, and I find it extraordinary that the Labour party chooses to criticise us for that.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Q14. The Pfizer bid for AstraZeneca is driven by tax advantages. Has the Prime Minister spoken to the US Government about whether they propose any changes to their tax law, and has Pfizer asked for any changes to our tax system, particularly to the patent box?
The Prime Minister
In its letter to me, Pfizer mentions the patent box as a positive reason for wanting to invest in Britain and for examining whether it could increase manufacturing in Britain. Of course, because of the way the patent box works, you only get the low-tax benefit if you make your investments and do research in the UK, and then exploit that research by manufacturing in the UK. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should be incredibly hard-headed about this. It is an advantage that Britain is a low-tax country. We used to stand in this House of Commons and bemoan the fact that companies were leaving because of our high taxes. They now want to come here because of our tax system. I agree with the Business Secretary that that is not enough; we want the investment, the jobs and the research that comes with that competitive tax system.
Petition
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
If you were at Prime Minister’s questions today, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would know that I asked the Prime Minister about the EU mango ban, a decision taken by the European Union without consulting this House or British Ministers. This vote took place with officials. Last week I asked local residents who were affected by this to gather a petition so I could present it to the House, and in a very short time 329 local residents have signed it—people who regularly buy and eat mangoes and those who sell them. I present this petition today on behalf of Hasmukh Pabari, Darmesh Lakhani, president of the Belgrave road traders association, Joga Sandhu, Shahidullah Khan and Ratilal Patel.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Leicester East,
Declares that the EU ban on the importation of Alphonso mangoes from India is unjust, that petitioners are anxious about the hugely detrimental impact that this ban will have on the livelihoods of millions of people in, and on the economies of, both the UK and India, and further declares that there has been a significant lack of consultation with both the Parliament and the affected people.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs do everything possible to reverse this ban, to develop an action plan on how best to progress in this matter and to better communicate with the people affected.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001348]
Smoke Alarms (Private Rented Sector)
12:57 - The House divided: - Ayes: 245 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make provision for the mandatory installation of smoke alarms in privately rented accommodation; and for connected purposes.
At the outset, I draw attention to my interests as declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, including my role as a non-executive director of the Fire Protection Association—a not-for-profit organisation that works to improve fire safety.
Smoke alarms save lives. The latest Government statement on the subject, issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government in February, states that
“analysis suggests a person is…4 times more likely to die in a fire in the home if they do not have a working smoke alarm”.
In recent years, as our fire and rescue services have focused increasingly on fire prevention, we have seen a substantial increase in the number of homes that are protected by smoke alarms. Building regulations require smoke alarms to be installed in all new dwellings. The impact of that regulatory requirement, together with national and local promotional campaigns to get alarms fitted in existing properties, has been to ensure that almost nine out of 10 homes across the country are equipped with at least one working smoke alarm.
That still leaves about 2.5 million homes unprotected. By a margin, the largest proportion of unprotected homes are privately rented. The latest available data from the English housing survey suggest that only 82% of privately rented homes were equipped with a working smoke alarm in 2011. The purpose of the Bill is to remedy that by making the installation of a working smoke alarm mandatory in all privately rented housing. I would have no objection to extending the provision to all rented homes, including those rented from councils and housing associations. However, as those sectors have already gone significantly further, with 89% of council properties and 93% of housing association homes having working smoke alarms, it seems sensible to start with the sector where the need is greatest.
Very few people appear to disagree with the proposal. The National Landlords Association says:
“we already advise that it is best practice to install smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors in rental properties and are comfortable with this being made a regulatory requirement”.
The British Property Federation says that it
“supports the compulsory roll-out of smoke alarms and CO alarms across the rented sector”.
The Chief Fire Officers Association, which has provided me with very helpful information and guidance in preparing the Bill, is adamant that this proposal is one of the simplest and most effective ways to save lives.
The Government appear to agree. Section 150 of the Energy Act 2013 empowers the Secretary of State to make provision, by statutory instrument, to require residential landlords to ensure that tenanted properties are
“equipped with a required alarm”.
A required alarm is defined as covering smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms.
The public appear to support the proposal overwhelmingly. Research by YouGov, which was commissioned by Cheshire fire and rescue service but conducted nationwide, found that 93% of the more than 2,000 respondents agreed with the statement:
“Private landlords should be required by law to ensure that working smoke alarms are fitted in rented residential properties.”
A parallel YouGov survey of businesses found a very similar level of support, with 91% of the 690 respondents agreeing with the statement. Interestingly, when that was broken down by category of business, YouGov found 100% support among real estate respondents. That does not imply that there is opposition to the principle of regulation in the industry.
What can possibly be the objection to taking action? Why has the necessary statutory instrument not been introduced? The clue to answering that question appears in the DCLG consultation paper that was issued in February, to which I have referred. The paper, which is entitled “Review of Property Conditions in the Private Rented Sector”, sets out clearly the forceful arguments in favour of the mandatory installation of smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms as a lifesaver. However, the paper continues:
“requiring the installation of smoke alarms in all privately rented homes would impose additional costs on landlords.”
It concludes:
“Regulation is always a last resort and, as part of the review, we will also explore the scope for non-regulatory alternatives to promote further take-up.”
I find that regulatory burden argument wholly unconvincing. As I have pointed out, the National Landlords Association and the British Property Federation are in favour of the proposal. When the representative bodies for the businesses concerned are not complaining about the regulatory burden, why on earth do the Government see a problem?
The Government are sceptical about regulation, but that scepticism does not prevent them from imposing new regulatory burdens on landlords when they want to. For example, the Immigration Bill, which the House will debate this afternoon, will impose penalties of up to £3,000 on landlords who let premises to people who do not have leave to remain in the UK, even if they were unaware of their tenant’s immigration status. Landlord representatives have made it clear that they oppose that new regulatory burden, but the Government have insisted on keeping the provision in the Bill.
However, when landlord representatives are not opposed to a new regulation that would save lives, the Government appear less committed. That is, frankly, perverse. The cost would be tiny both in absolute terms and as a proportion of landlords’ income. A sealed smoke detector with a 10-year battery costs about £15, which is only £1.50 a year spread over the life of the battery. Even if three or four alarms needed to be installed, it would still be no more than £6 a year, compared with an average rental income from a private letting of more than £10,000 a year. The regulatory burden argument is wholly unpersuasive, and we simply cannot allow such a flimsy pretext to delay any further the necessary action to save lives.
Nor is it the case that, as the DCLG consultation paper implies, voluntary arrangements without a regulatory obligation will be an adequate alternative. We have certainly seen real progress in voluntary arrangements to date, with the number of existing homes protected by smoke alarms increasing dramatically over the past decades. However, a law of diminishing returns is at work. Landlords keen to do the right thing will almost all have installed alarms by now. Those who are negligent or indifferent to tenant safety may well not have done so. Without a legal obligation, it is unlikely that they will respond positively to further encouragement. That is one reason why landlord representatives are not opposed to making the installation of smoke alarms a regulatory obligation. It would ensure that there was a level playing field and help raise safety standards across the whole sector.
The failure of irresponsible or negligent landlords should no longer be allowed to damage the reputation of the whole private rented sector. The case for the mandatory installation of smoke alarms in all privately rented housing is overwhelmingly strong, which is why I am presenting the Bill as a call to action. I am delighted that it is supported by Members from throughout the House, and I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have agreed to add their names as sponsors. It is a simple, common-sense measure that would save lives, and I commend it to the House.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I rise to oppose the Bill. First, like the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), I should draw the House’s attention to an interest declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As I have made clear before, I am a landlord, although an accidental one, and a tenant as well, so perhaps I am in an unusual position in being able to see both sides of the argument from personal experience. I want to place on record my thanks to the Residential Landlords Association for its help on the issue. Although it does not oppose the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal outright, as I do, it has highlighted to me a number of potential problems with it.
Perhaps I should start with something that the right hon. Gentleman failed to mention: his former ministerial role. He was the Minister in charge of this area of policy, and he had the opportunity to introduce the law that he suggests, but he did absolutely nothing about it. We should start compiling a list of things that Opposition Members ask for that they failed to do in their 13 years in office. The right hon. Gentleman has gone one step further, because he was the Minister responsible and did absolutely nothing. In fact, when he was questioned about what measures he would take to require more smoke alarms in properties, he used to give answers that mentioned everything apart from a mandatory requirement for private landlords to install them. He asks how on earth anyone could oppose the Bill, but the question for him should be why on earth he did not introduce it when he was the Minister responsible if it is such a fantastic idea. I might add that at the time he failed to introduce it, there were far fewer private landlords with smoke alarms and far more fires. If there was ever a time to do it, it would have been when he was a Minister, rather than now.
There is no doubt that the desire exists to reduce and eliminate the number of incidents and fatalities that horrifically result from fire accidents, but I wish to record my concerns about the Bill because I do not believe that it provides the necessary solution. Surely, it is obviously in everyone’s interests to have a fire prevention device installed in their property. In a rented property, the tenant would want one to protect themselves and their family, and the landlord would be keen to protect their property from any chance of fire damage—the figures bear that out.
In answer to a parliamentary question on 27 March, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), stated that 82% of privately rented properties already have a smoke alarm. As I find myself saying all the time, some people want to regulate everything in the name of a worthy cause. However, potentially criminalising law-abiding, decent landlords—the vast majority of whom, by anyone’s standards, have properties with smoke alarms already fitted—and adding to the burdens that could put them off renting their properties will have undoubted unintended consequences on the market and the very people this proposal seeks to protect.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the cost of this measure as though that were the only factor, but it is not. The risk of prosecution is a factor for landlords when making these decisions. The practicalities of implementing and enforcing a mandatory programme to install smoke alarms in private rented accommodation could make it incredibly inefficient and almost impossible to police. Although landlords would be legally obliged to install such devices in their properties, they would not be able to check the status of the alarm regularly. Shifting that responsibility to the landlord, who has irregular and unguaranteed access to the property, might result in testing becoming a less regular affair than would otherwise be the case.
We should also consider tenant responsibility. Given that time and again it appears that tenants interfere with fire protection devices in their property, how can the landlord be held responsible if those sensitive alarms are disconnected or tampered with? You do not have to take my word for it, Mr Speaker, because when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister, he stated in a parliamentary answer that
“in approximately 9 per cent. of households containing fitted smoke alarms at least one alarm has either been disconnected or has had the battery removed.”—[Official Report, 13 January 2003; Vol. 397, c. 392W.]
How can a landlord be held responsible for that?
If a tenant were to remove the batteries, cover the sensor or disconnect the device completely without notifying the landlord, would it still be the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that those protection devices were engaged, and if so, how? [Interruption.] Opposition Members are chuntering, but they just like having noble ideas. They have absolutely no idea about the practicalities because they never think anything through. It is totally impractical, impossible and unrealistic to expect a landlord to check on the status of all smoke alarms in his or her properties on a daily basis to ensure that all devices are connected and operational. How on earth are they expected to do that? If smoke alarms are not working, they are pointless.
How many smoke alarms would be satisfactory? Guidelines seem to suggest that an alarm should be present on every floor of a property, but given the nature of private letting, where rooms are often let on an individual basis, will the landlord need to provide a separate alarm in all rooms of the property? Would one alarm in an eight-bedroom property be sufficient? Not only would excessive alarm installation amount to an increased financial burden on the landlord, but it would no doubt have a knock-on effect on tenants, who will pay extra to rent those properties.
A mandatory smoke alarm policy could reduce the use or consideration of alternative safety alarms and measures. I believe that heat alarms have been acknowledged as a suitable and in some cases more appropriate alternative to smoke alarms. They reduce the risk of accidentally triggering an alarm, which in turn lessens the chances of tenants actively disengaging them. The Residential Landlords Association recently pointed out that it is clear from relevant British standards and Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services guidance, that in certain situations the fitting of a heat alarm is more appropriate. Smoke detectors are not appropriate in kitchens because of the higher risk of accidentally setting off the alarm. [Interruption.] Labour Members do not like listening to this because they have not thought it through. Any mandatory policy on smoke alarms could create a climate where landlords might remove a more effective heat alarm system and replace it with a less effective smoke alarm system that would be less suitable for the type of property and tenant, just because of the right hon. Gentleman’s diktat.
I understand that private rented accommodation is already covered by an extensive amount of safety regulations, including on fire safety, which makes this proposed extra burden seem completely unnecessary. Local authorities already have powers to require the provision of smoke alarms where necessary through the housing, health and safety rating system. A British standard underpins various provisions for the installation of fire detection, along with LACORS guidance, as agreed by the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Chief Fire Officers Association, and that is the basis for fire protection in existing dwellings. A clear downward trend in fire deaths and injuries has been evident for many years in fire statistics. Although those statistics are encouraging, they bring into question the need to adopt compulsion for fitting smoke alarms when steps are already being taken in the right direction and with excellent results.
Finally, I have great concerns about discriminatory treatment in relation to private landlords. If the intention is to promote fire safety, surely the right hon. Gentleman’s motion should apply to the mandatory installation of smoke alarms in all types of accommodation and not single out private landlords. Given everything that I have said, I do not believe there should be any move towards the mandatory provision of smoke alarms in private rented accommodation. As mentioned, the Bill applies only to private landlords, not to social housing or owner-occupied homes, despite the threat of fire not respecting such boundaries.
The Labour party thinks that, whatever something is, it must be regulated, that there must be a law for it and that we must have more burdens and unnecessary regulations, but I think that this provision is completely unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman needs to explain why he did absolutely nothing to introduce this measure when he was a Minister and in a position to do so. I oppose this Bill. I will allow the right hon. Gentleman his moment in the sunlight and his moment of glory, and I will not seek to divide the House. However, I hope that the Minister will register my points and not introduce this ridiculously unnecessary nanny-state proposal.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23).
Water Bill
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendment 142. If the House agrees to it, I will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.
Clause 10
Agreements by water undertakers to adopt infrastructure
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 15.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 16 to 30, 32, 33, 43 to 64, 101 to 103, and 107 to 147.
Dan Rogerson
The Lords amendments relate to the subject of market reform, and in particular to retail exits. By that I mean allowing an incumbent water company to exit from the market for retail services to non-household customers.
Lords amendments 15 to 30, 43 to 48, 101 to 103 and 107 to 147 are minor technical or consequential amendments to the market reform provisions in the Bill—for example, changing wording from “a code” to “the code”. Some are minor and technical amendments relating to cross-border pipes. Lords amendments 32 and 33 ensure that the Consumer Council for Water is consulted on water company charges schemes. The Government are keen to ensure that customers are protected, and are grateful to Opposition Members for highlighting the important work done by the council on behalf of customers. We expect it to contribute to all discussions about the future of the industry, and we are pleased to have been able to enhance that in the Bill.
Lords amendments 49 to 52 would implement recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in another place. We are very grateful for the Committee’s scrutiny of the Bill. I do not propose to refer to the amendments in detail, but I shall be happy to respond to any specific queries.
Lords amendments 53 to 64 deal with the issue of retail exits, which we have discussed previously in the House. The Bill seeks to introduce a range of reforms that will enhance and extend competition in the water sector. The Government believe that the development of competition in the sector will bring real benefits to customers. They listened to, and acted on, well-argued contributions to the debate on market reform, especially the calls for incumbent water companies to be able to choose to exit from the non-household retail market.
I think it would be appropriate for me to expand on the retail exit amendments, as the House is not familiar with the clauses involved. The amendments differ in some crucial ways from amendments on the subject that Members have seen before. When drafting the amendments, we were particularly careful to ensure that customers were protected, both the non-household customers who will be transferred to a different retailer and the household customers who will remain with the incumbent. Non-Government amendments tabled by Members here and in another place have not reflected those safeguards fully.
The Lords amendments relating to retail exits contain three core principles. Exits must involve non-household customers only, they must be undertaken voluntarily, and they must ensure the ongoing protection of customers. Any exit will be possible only with the consent of the Secretary of State. Other amendments that the House has considered did not grapple with those key issues. These amendments create broad, permissive powers in what will be a very complex area. Further work will be required to consider the practical implications of exits, and to develop the detailed policies that will underpin the use of the powers. We will therefore be consulting widely with all interested parties as we develop our approach and produce exit regulations.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
May I start by thanking the Minister for his kind comments?
As it is some time since the Bill was debated on the Floor of the House, I want briefly to refresh the memories of Members on it. It includes many important reforms that attempt to build on three important reviews taken forward by the previous Government: the Pitt review on flooding, the Walker review on affordability, and the Cave review on competition.
Throughout the Bill’s long passage through Parliament the Opposition have been supportive. In the Commons we voted for it on Second Reading and on Third Reading. In the other place, although we raised legitimate concerns and challenged the Government, again we remained broadly supportive of the Bill. We have backed measures to increase competition. We have supported measures that will provide a statutory basis for agreement on flood reinsurance, providing affordable insurance to households who would have otherwise not been covered. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) pointed out on Third Reading, there still remains even now a major hole at the heart of the Bill, and at the heart of the Government’s water policy: the absence of any serious attempt to tackle the impact of rising water bills on household budgets, which is adding to the cost of living crisis.
Unfortunately, the Government have failed to back a new national affordability scheme that would have ended the current postcode lottery in which companies choose whether to offer a social tariff and set the criteria for eligibility. Last year the industry made £1.9 billion in pre-tax profits, of which they returned £1.8 billion to shareholders, yet fewer than 25,000 people are eligible to benefit from social tariffs offered by just three water companies. In many ways, therefore, the Bill represents a missed opportunity and remains seriously flawed, despite its being improved by amendments made in the other place.
Although we will not vote against any of the first group of amendments, that does not mean that we believe that the Bill could not have been made stronger and more effective through the adoption of our amendments. We are where we are, as they say. While, as the Minister pointed out, most amendments in the group present a series of technical and drafting changes, amendments 32 and 33, amendments 49 to 52 and amendments 53 to 64 make significant changes to the Bill that was debated in the Commons.
Amendments 32 and 33, which were originally introduced in Committee by Lord Grantchester, give a new role to the Consumer Council for Water. They will require Ofwat to issue rules that will mean that the CCW must be consulted by water and sewerage undertakers on all charges schemes. That will allow the CCW to play a role at an early stage in the charges process and will enable it to flag up problems, before the relevant bills start arriving on customers’ doorsteps and further problems occur. For example, as Lord Grantchester pointed out in Committee, the CCW had previously challenged the charging plans of some companies that restricted half-yearly payment options for those on direct debit payments. Some customers prefer to pay on a half-yearly basis, as it better enables them to manage their money.
Although we welcome the amendments, which we promoted in the other place, it is a pity that the Government have not gone further by accepting our argument that we need to tackle the impact of rising water bills on household budgets. As I said, the Government could have backed our plans for a new national affordability scheme that would have ended the current postcode lottery in which companies choose whether or not to offer a social tariff, with no minimum standards in place to ensure fair and effective affordability measures.
Amendments 49 and 50 introduce parliamentary scrutiny for any regulations that the Secretary of State may deem fit to introduce under clauses 37 and 39. The amendments, which were introduced at a very late stage—I think on Third Reading in the Lords—mean that the affirmative procedure will now apply on the first exercise of those powers. That is quite right, especially given the importance of the regulations in question. It is a pity, however, that the Government have been forced into this position and have had to be pushed into introducing the amendments by Labour Members and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place. That Committee made firm recommendations in this regard, and has rightly argued that the Secretary of State would have enjoyed so-called Henry VIII powers over many parts of the Act if the Bill had remained unamended, so Parliament is right to assert its right to scrutinise the relevant regulations as and when they see the light of day.
Amendments 53 to 64 deal with retail exit. I want to put it on the record that we have also backed measures in the Bill that increase competition to support businesses that wish to enter the retail market for non-domestic consumers. The measures are similar to those that have been a success north of the border; Scotland became the first country in the world to introduce competition to the non-domestic water market in 2008. We find it odd, however, that the Government have repeatedly dragged their feet in relation to allowing such businesses to exit this market. Without our persistence, which was shared by peers on the Government Benches, the Government’s original proposals would not create a market at all.
Retail exit enjoys a great deal of support, including from Ofwat, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and some of the major water companies. Indeed, in Committee, amendments introduced by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), were not supported by the Government. In the other place, Lord Whitty commented that there was bemusement in all parts of the House as to why the Government were so resistant to the concept of exit in the new retail market, and introduced an amendment that would have allowed it. His arguments were not, however, supported by the Government, who gave the lame reason that such a measure would cause investor insecurity. On Report, Lord Moynihan introduced an amendment that would have gained our support, but he withdrew it on advice that the Government would introduce an amendment on Third Reading. Although we welcome the Government’s late conversion, we have to wonder why they resisted such a measure during most of the Bill’s progress through this House and the other place. Surely it would have been more appropriate if the amendments had been brought forward earlier, to allow adequate parliamentary scrutiny. Once again, however, we are where we are.
It is also right that, when and if regulations are brought forward by the Secretary of State, they will be laid before both Houses under the super-affirmative procedure. I pay tribute again to the work of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in highlighting the need for that even at the 11th hour of the Bill’s passage through Parliament.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
First, I welcome the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) to her new position, and pay tribute to her predecessor, the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I understand that they have performed a job swap. The hon. Gentleman has made a big contribution to this debate and, in the past, to the work of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I can only apologise to both Front-Bench teams that there are not more colleagues from the Committee here today. The reason for that is that we are undertaking a farm visit this afternoon. I had to give my excuses and will be joining colleagues later for the completion of the visit today and tomorrow. It would be churlish of me not to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and welcome both the outbreak of common sense in the other place and in the Department and a very welcome and worthwhile amendment.
I shall briefly go over the deliberations in the Select Committee and the earlier proceedings in this place. In our report on the draft Water Bill, the Committee strongly recommended that the Bill should include provisions to enable incumbent companies to exit the retail market voluntarily. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge mentioned, the Committee tabled a new clause in my name on Report to provide for retail exit. Also, during the course of the inquiry both regulators—Ofwat and the Water Industry Commission for Scotland—the incumbent companies and new entrants were united in calling for the Bill to include an exit route. WICS provided a welcome and helpful explanatory note, and I hope the amendment it proposed during the Commons stages of the Bill will bear fruit today.
Dan Rogerson
First, may I welcome you to the Chair, Ms Primarolo? I thank the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) for their contributions today, and the latter for the contribution she has made as Chair of the Select Committee, both throughout this process and long before any Bill was formally considered in both Houses.
The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge raised a number of issues and returned to the issue of affordability. The Government have made it clear that the best thing we can do on affordability is keep bills low for everybody by having a robust regulator and setting out to that regulator the policy framework to which we aspire in order for things to happen. The regulator has taken good action to explore with companies what they can do to keep bills lower; that is the trend we are seeing into the next price review period, with some companies bringing it forward into the current period as well, to the benefit of all consumers. Of course, this Government took action to deal with the acute situation in the south-west, where bills were much higher than everywhere else in the country. The hon. Lady rightly points out the contribution that social tariffs can make and the fact that three companies have introduced them. Other companies are bringing them forward in the next year or so, following consultation with their customer base. It is important that that consultation takes place, because introducing social tariffs involves a funding mechanism.
The Opposition have talked of a national scheme, but they did not introduce one when they were in government. We can continue to debate that, but my concerns with such a scheme, and those of the Government, are that the situation in each water company area is different. Therefore, one scheme mandated across the whole area will have different impacts on different customer groups across those water company areas and may have perverse impacts on the bills of some, given the different demographics and mix of bill payers. We are not convinced of that approach, but I welcome the Opposition’s support for social tariffs where they have been introduced.
The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge raised the issue of parliamentary scrutiny, as did the Chair of the Select Committee. We have listened to concerns and examined the use of the affirmative procedure where necessary. When we get into the realms of the super-affirmative procedure I bow to those with more experience of the range of options at the House’s disposal and how such a procedure might be used. We feel that the affirmative procedure is the correct one to take things forward, but we very much welcome the work done by the relevant Committee in another place to make suggestions on how to ensure that Members of both Houses, and those observing our deliberations externally, will have confidence that we have got things right.
I spoke earlier about the position on retail exits, but there are a couple of further things to say in response to the two speeches we have just heard. First, the Government’s position has never been that such exits should never happen and that we would never make proposals for them. We said at earlier stages that we had concerns, given the range of opinions held across the industry. Both regulators have supported such provisions throughout, whereas the Consumer Council for Water had a much more nuanced position. Some companies were very concerned about it, as were some investors, particularly with regard to pressure for the forced separation of companies. We know that investors would be concerned about that, and we want to see continuing investment in improving resilience, which is a key feature of where we are going with our programme. We are very concerned about the position of household customers, who will not have the options under this Bill that non-household customers have.
With that in mind, we have introduced amendments that take heed of arguments made by Opposition and Government Members, as well as people outside the House, and which put in place safeguards that make sure that all customers are protected throughout any process of change. There will be further consultation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton has said, which is crucial, and the question of forced separation, for example, can be addressed. On that basis, the amendments introduced by the Government allow us to move forward on the potential for retail exit in a measured way. That is the difference between the earlier debates on the Bill and where we are now. I thank the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge for her contribution, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and the Committee for the work that they have done.
Miss McIntosh
I am most grateful for what my hon. Friend has said, but would he clarify the enhanced affirmative procedure?
Dan Rogerson
When the House considers options on the enhanced affirmative procedure there is a range of processes that can be used, but we believe that the affirmative procedure is the correct one with regard to most of the changes that we have discussed this afternoon. I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the discussion on this group of amendments. I hope that the House approves the amendments and that we can agree the changes made in another place.
Lords amendment 15 agreed to.
Lords amendments 16 to 30, 32, 33, 43 to 64, 101 to 103, 107 to 147 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendment 142.
Clause 8
Bulk supply of water by water undertakers
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
The Minister will move Lords amendment 1 formally. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Minister, I did not intend to cut you off. I meant to say that the Minister will move Lords amendment 1.
Dan Rogerson
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am delighted that the Chair has such confidence in what happened in another place that she does not need to hear anything further.
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 14, 31, 34 to 42, 65, 66 and 104.
Dan Rogerson
As you have shown, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are many amendments in this group, so I shall try to make my explanation as brief as possible, as I sense that that will be popular.
This group of amendments was tabled in the other place to build on and strengthen further the existing environmental protections under the Bill and to provide reassurance regarding the timetable for abstraction reform and its relationship to the upstream reforms in the Bill. In particular, this group of amendments reinforces environmental protections under the bulk supply and private water storage regimes, improves the resilience duty and the strategic policy statement, and places a new duty on the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with a progress report on abstraction reform.
This group also contains a number of minor and technical amendments. As before, I will not dwell on them, but I am happy to consider any points that hon. Members wish to make. The Government welcome the scrutiny that the Bill has received, and we have listened carefully to all the speeches made in this House and another place. Protection of the environment is close to my heart, and it is important to the Government too. Indeed, one of the Bill’s main objectives is to increase the resilience of our water supplies to ensure a future in which water is always available to supply households and businesses without damaging the environment. I am therefore delighted to bring back a number of important amendments that will ensure the continued protection of the environment.
First, the Government have strengthened environmental protections under the bulk supply regime under clause 8. There are already several bulk supply agreements in the current system and there is a number of environmental protections in place. However, we have listened to the concerns raised on this issue during the passage of the Bill and have enhanced those protections accordingly. Ofwat can only order, vary or terminate a bulk supply agreement at the request of one of the parties, and after consulting the Environment Agency or Natural Resources Wales. Our amendments strengthen the consultation requirement by clarifying the fact that Ofwat can take environmental considerations into account before ordering, varying or terminating a bulk supply agreement. The amendments add a requirement for Ofwat to consult the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales before it issues the codes in this area.
Angela Smith
I thank the Minister for introducing the second group of amendments, which relate to some very important provisions in the Bill.
Lords amendments 1 to 14 are largely drafting amendments, but they include some important additions to the Bill. Lords amendments 1 to 3 detail the efficient use of water resources and take into account the effect on the environment of water use, with particular reference to what constitutes a bulk supply agreement with water undertakers, and the effect of such agreements on the environment. Lords amendments 1 to 14 and Lords amendment 31 give a greater role, as the Minister acknowledged, to the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales with regard to the effects on the environment of bulk supply agreements. We welcome the strengthening of the role of these two bodies to provide environmental expertise and to prevent bulk supply agreements from damaging the environment.
Amendments 34 to 42 relate to social and environmental safeguards more generally, and amendment 38 in particular requires that the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers “must” have regard to social and environmental matters when compiling their statements to Ofwat, thereby strengthening the requirement in the Bill. The change from “may” to “must” have regard is a major concession by the Government. Given the importance of securing environmental safeguards at the heart of all aspects of water management, one can say only that it is surprising that the Government did not make that amendment of their own volition, rather than as a result of facing pressure from Members of both Houses on the point.
It is important to put on the record our deep disappointment that the Government have not gone further and recognised the need to make the Bill stronger and more effective by making sustainable development a primary duty for the regulator, as is the case with other regulators. We believe that resilience and the associated term that the Government use here—“the efficient use of water”—are not good enough. In the water White Paper, the Government said that they would carefully consider the case for that, and many environmental organisations are concerned that Ofwat does not have the necessary powers to prevent environmental damage and damaging water exploitation. That is particularly important in the light of greater competition, where companies will be looking to maximise efficiency however they can. Without a tough regulatory duty, that could come at the expense of the environment. My question to the Minister about the Government’s failure to grasp the opportunity presented by the Bill to strengthen regulation in this regard is this: why have they failed to respond to this vital issue in a robust manner and safeguard our environment?
On water abstraction, the Government’s White Paper, “Water for Life”, published in 2011, set out the case for a comprehensive reform of abstraction licences, suggesting that the current licensing system was outdated and in need of urgent reform to deal with increasing pressure on water resources—an issue with which we are all now familiar. Pressures develop because of population change and climate change. The Government tabled an amendment requiring the Secretary of State to publish a report on abstraction reform within five years. That is in the context, however, of the Government’s decision to allow the introduction of greater competition in the upstream market to take effect before reform of the abstraction regime.
We, along with leading environmental experts, are concerned that without comprehensive abstraction reform, upstream competition could incentivise existing abstraction licence holders to sell their water to water companies, even when the catchment is already over-abstracted or over-licensed. In response, the Government have said that the Environment Agency is adequately placed to review and/or change abstraction licences. We do not agree with that assessment.
In his response to their lordships’ amendments, Lord De Mauley said:
“The Environment Agency will soon use its powers to revoke or vary abstraction licences without compensation where they are causing serious damage to the environment.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 February 2014; Vol. 752, c. 163.]
However, following budget cuts, the Environment Agency has cut 600 staff since 2010, so surely the Minister must concede that the Environment Agency will now have less capacity effectively to discharge its duties in that respect. What will be the priority for this smaller, rather emaciated, Environment Agency—flood defence schemes or attention to abstraction reform? Given its much reduced resource, is the Minister confident that the Environment Agency can manage all its duties effectively?
Under the new market conditions created by the upstream market reforms in the Bill, more water could be abstracted from water courses than is sustainable or suitable for local ecosystems. We support the amendment for upstream market reforms to allow new water undertakers into the market, but we still think it wise for the Government to deliver progress on abstraction reform, running concurrently.
We asked the Government to bring forward reformed abstraction licences on the same day as the upstream reform measures in the Water Bill come into effect, but they have unfortunately neglected to do so. Instead, under amendments 65 and 104, the Secretary of State is required to produce a report on progress made on water abstraction reform within five years of the Bill being passed, as the Minister indicated. We do not oppose that amendment because it is better than nothing, but it is unsatisfactory overall, because unsustainable water abstraction could continue for some time after the Bill has been passed—before DEFRA effectively addresses the issue.
In conclusion, why are the Government reluctant to commit to ensuring that the abstraction reforms run concurrently with the upstream marketing reforms? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer on that point.
Miss McIntosh
I shall make just a few comments. Over the last three years, events in Yorkshire have certainly shown the unpredictability of the weather, which can swing from a real flood to a virtual drought within a matter of weeks. The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), whom I see in his place on the Opposition Front Bench, and my hon. Friend the Minister sat in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee when we debated these issues—both at the pre-scrutiny stage and when the amendments to the Bill were tabled. It was a constant theme of the Select Committee to call for the implementation of abstraction reform—certainly by 2022. If I understand the Minister correctly, he is saying that this will happen within five years of the Act being passed, whereas we asked for it within seven years. It looks as if we are on course.
Personally, I would have made the case to include abstraction reform within the context of the Bill. I hope this does not come home to roost in the intervening five, six or seven-year period, but given the climatic changes and swings in weather patterns that we have seen, I hope we do not rue the day that we failed to include abstraction reform in the Bill. I understand that there was no appetite for it and that the Department felt, as I am sure the Minister will confirm, that doing so would have brought an inevitable delay to the Bill.
The reason abstraction reform should be included, and the reason I welcome this group of Lords amendments, is that the current system of managing abstraction of water from rivers and aquifers was introduced in the 1960s and is woefully out of date. It does not effectively address the severity of pressures on water resources due to increasing demands from a growing population and an increasingly varied climate. The Environment Agency has mentioned that in a number of areas, including my own, it cannot, for understandable reasons, afford the upkeep of existing flood defence banks. Farm land in those areas will be prone to future floods.
Water from rivers and aquifers has many uses, and there is a fine balance between industrial and non-industrial use. I visited the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), which I had the privilege of representing as an MEP for 10 years, to see the difficulties that many industrial users such as jam manufacturers and others experienced in a climate that they were not used to. Essex has on occasions been compared to Egypt in respect of the amount of water fall that it receives. The weakness in the current system means that it could start to constrain economic growth, reduce the resilience of the water supply and lead to environmental damage.
Dan Rogerson
Once again, I thank hon. Members for their contributions. It is fair to say that we have a great deal in common, although with slightly different emphases in aspects of debate both today and during previous outings. The crucial issues concern the interaction between what is in the Bill and what is not with regard to abstraction reform and the parallel process, so I take this opportunity to reassure the House that the Government are fully committed to abstraction reform, as our amendment tabled in the other place demonstrates.
Further illustrating that commitment, the Government’s consultation on our proposals for reform of the abstraction regime closed on 28 March. We are analysing the responses, a summary of which we will publish later this year. The proposals in our consultation document demonstrate how seriously we take abstraction reform, as well as the complexity of reforming such a long-established regime. As has been said, it is crucial that we get that right and give people an adequate chance to express their opinions and for those to be taken into account. Our proposals reflect how important abstraction reform is for people, as well as for the environment, and the fact that organisations and individuals throughout the country need access to water to run their businesses.
The Government want to see a real improvement in the quality of water bodies throughout the country, and that means that we must take action to reduce over-abstraction that damages the environment now, while continuing to protect the environment and ensuring access to water in the more challenging conditions that we will face in the future. Abstraction reform and upstream reform are both designed to help to achieve that goal. The intention is for them to be entirely complementary, both in design and in implementation. Both are part of the Government’s wider agenda for securing the long-term resilience of our water supplies and the water environment, as set out in the water White Paper. The upstream reforms in the Bill are important because they will build resilience in the sector, bringing in new thinking and innovation to drive efficiency. Upstream reform will help to keep bills affordable and benefit the environment. We estimate that these reforms will bring benefits of up to £1.8 billion over 30 years.
As I have said, the report to Parliament on progress with abstraction reform will provide the opportunity to update Parliament on the preparations for the implementation of both abstraction reform and upstream reform, and how the two are being closely aligned. There is therefore no question about our commitment to abstraction reform, and no case for delaying implementation of our upstream reforms.
On the points made by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), we are carrying on the process begun by the previous Government of looking at the reform issues, and we seek to demonstrate that this is an ongoing commitment. There is much support across the House for taking these matters forward, so we can have confidence that the two processes can be aligned.
We considered the sustainable development duty in depth. The Ofwat review recommended that that not be included because it was not necessary. I have sought throughout to make the point that we can integrate the desire for sustainability in the resilience duty, and that is what we did during the Bill’s passage through this place. That move was welcomed by the non-governmental organisations that originally called for the sustainable development duty. In another place we have further drawn out the emphasis on water efficiency. Water efficiency is important not just for environmental reasons—although they are crucial and we want to see the responsibility to improve environmental quality returned to water bodies—but to ensure that we have the water resources that we need to deliver the growth in the economy, allow businesses to grow and to prosper, and deal with the challenges that we face in the future.
Another issue that was raised was the capacity of the Environment Agency to use the powers that it has now and to take forward the regime without compensation. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge rightly said that that capacity is now at its disposal. Indeed, the Environment Agency gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee and was quite clear that it has the resources to undertake such duties. It has been undertaking work to return water to the environment to bear down on unsustainable abstraction, and it will continue to do that. It is something on which it will remain focused. This is crucial in respect of our consideration of sustainable development in that, unlike other regulatory regimes, there are multiple regulators of the water sector. We have the Environment Agency, which has a great focus on that particular activity, Ofwat and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. The regime is slightly different from that in other utilities.
My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee was right to make it clear that we need careful consideration of the abstraction reform process, and it is very much the Government’s position that we will provide the opportunity for such work. Were we simply to have put in the Bill some sort of broad enabling power, it arguably would not have had the consideration that it will get as primary legislation in a future Bill, and that is absolutely right in terms of taking forward that process. On that basis, I hope the House will support the amendments made in another place.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 14, 31, 34 to 42, 65, 66 and 104 agreed to.
Clause 51
The Flood Reinsurance Scheme
Dan Rogerson
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 67.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
With this we may take Lords amendments 68 to 100, 105 and 106.
Dan Rogerson
This group of amendments is mainly to do with flood insurance measures, and includes the Government’s response to the recommendations on flood insurance from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It also includes a small number of minor changes.
Lords amendments 70, 75, 81 to 83 and 91 to 95 are in response to the Delegated Powers Committee’s recommendations on the flood insurance measures. The amendments include changing the scrutiny procedures so that the affirmative resolution procedure is used for all regulations—in certain cases on first use only—and placing some definitions in the Bill.
We agree with the Delegated Powers Committee that the definitions are important. However, it was not possible to include all of them in the Bill as they require further consultation and, in the case of “relevant insurer”, have separate meanings for Flood Re and for the flood insurance obligation—the alternative proposal. By defining those terms in regulations that will be subject to the affirmative procedure, Parliament will be able fully to scrutinise these definitions in due course.
The Delegated Powers Committee also recommended that the powers to make regulations to provide for the sharing of council tax data should be subject to the affirmative procedure. However, to meet the commitment to establish Flood Re in 2015, we need to release the council tax information as soon as possible after Royal Assent to ensure that IT systems can be put in place. Lords amendments 77 to 79 place that data-sharing power in the Bill. I hope that hon. Members will see that that is necessary owing to the challenging timetable to deliver Flood Re. Lords amendments 74, paragraph (ab) to amendment 93 and amendment 100 make consequential changes based on the new power. Although that power does not mandate the release of data, the Government are committed to doing so. They also give a power to add to the list of data releasable in the future. If we do that, the powers also allow for the application of a criminal sanction—for example, where the additional information is of a particularly sensitive nature warranting the protection of a criminal sanction for misuse. It is right that we have powers to protect the release of public information, but the sanction is not automatic and we will consider whether one is necessary following consultation.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I am intrigued by and interested in this amendment, not least because so many of my constituents—perhaps the majority of them—live in flood-risk areas. Will the Minister say a little bit more about what he envisages the Secretary of State will require to be provided to residents in terms of mitigating risk? This is an interesting idea, but my question is about the breadth of that information and whether it will include particular providers of certain solutions.
Dan Rogerson
The first thing that will be taken forward is information that a policy has been ceded to Flood Re. It is important that people should know that, as the scheme has a life span and the whole direction of policy is to protect more homes and to move to a post Flood Re period in due course. What exactly that information will take forward is a matter for discussion with the industry. When it comes to particular technologies or particular things that may help in certain circumstances, there are experts out there who offer that advice to policyholders. The Government’s current repair and renew scheme is in operation. There is also a body of work out there involving local authorities, which is giving people confidence in what might be done to support them. It is not our intention to be too specific as we consider this measure in the Bill.
I am sure that, like my hon. Friend, other Members will welcome this amendment, because it reflects our belief that it is important that policyholders whose buildings, contents or combined insurance policy are ceded to Flood Re know about their flood risk so that they can take simple steps to manage it. I am talking about signing up to free flood warnings as well as investigating other longer-term options.
To plan for the future, households also need to understand the likely impact of the transitional nature of the Flood Re scheme which is subsidising their premiums. Members should note that it is expected that standardised information will be sent to the customer by the relevant insurer that is ceding the policy to Flood Re, as that maintains the relationship between insurers and their customers.
Lords amendments 84 and 85 provide the power to define in regulations the meaning of “flood” and “flood risk” and are as a consequence of the amendment that I have just described.
Lords amendment 96 addresses the risk that secondary legislation made at the end of the life of Flood Re could be classed as hybrid. I can assure Members that, in any event, we have every intention of carrying out a full consultation before making that secondary legislation to ensure that any private interests are properly considered.
There are also a small number of technical changes made by the Lords amendments to the Bill. They cover the definition of the “eligibility threshold” and are intended to ensure the flood insurance measure is legally enforceable, as the risks relating to flooding are not calculated consistently across the various insurers.
On another matter, the Lords amendments to clauses 56 and 71 on the period of operation of Flood Re ensure that employment contracts within the scheme are transferrable.
Turning finally to the subject of sustainable drainage systems, we have also corrected an error to schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to ensure that unused bond funds, called in by a SUDS approving body, can be returned to the right person.
Angela Smith
As the Minister has explained, this group of amendments relate, to the provisions in the Bill on flood reinsurance. Again, we will support the amendments, which we believe have materialised primarily because of pressure from a wide range of Members in the other place and from the official Opposition. However, we believe that more could have been done.
In many ways, this is yet another example of a missed opportunity to produce effective and robust legislation. We support the Flood Re scheme and believe that it is important that affordable cover is made available for those who are struggling and are at greatest risk from future floods. It is also important that the policy should be underpinned by the principle of minimal impact on wider bill payers, so it is important that the levy agreed between the Government and the industry remains equivalent to about £10.50 for each UK household with both buildings and contents insurance in place.
We also welcome the fact that Flood Re is designed to be progressive, with the benefits targeted on lower income households, but we are disappointed that the Government could not support Labour’s amendment in the other place, which would have at least enabled parliamentarians to shine a light on the potential problems created by the arrangements for leasehold and tenanted properties. As Lord Whitty pointed out, there are complicated qualifying or excluding conditions surrounding the ownership and occupation rules under the scheme.
The rules could also have an impact on the private rented market, as there is a fear that single property landlords, for instance, might find that their exclusion from the scheme means that the cost of insurance eats away at their capacity to invest in their properties. As Lord Whitty pointed out, the consequence could be increasing levels of dilapidated housing stock with potential impacts at a neighbourhood level. The only option that might be open to the landlord to raise funds for improvements could be to raise rents or the service charge, so tenants might suffer indirectly as a consequence of being excluded from the Flood Re scheme. The risk is clear: the number of new landlords prepared to invest and buy property will diminish in the areas that are affected. Given the housing crisis facing the country, that is not a welcome prospect.
Although we recognise that the actuarial calculations for Flood Re are delicate and depend on various assumptions, we feel it is important that Parliament understand, the position. Labour’s amendment would address that by ensuring that a report was made available so that Parliament could see for itself the consequences of including or excluding different combinations of property before taking the Flood Re scheme forward via statutory instrument.
We also feel that the Government have failed to grasp the importance of using reliable scientific evidence on the potential impact of climate change when making estimates of the current and projected number of properties eligible for inclusion in the Flood Re scheme. That is perhaps not surprising, given that the Secretary of State has been known before now to deny the reality of climate change, but the threat, as most of us agree, is real and we need to be sure that the scheme will operate effectively within its 25-year span and will be adaptable to weather conditions resulting from climate change. If they are to adapt effectively, it is crucial that households can access information that identifies current and projected estimates of the number of people eligible for the scheme.
It is entirely sensible that we should seek the advice of the Committee on Climate Change to inform as accurately as possible our calculations on the challenges that the Flood Re scheme will face over time. Only then can households truly take the necessary action to minimise risk. The Government have tabled amendments providing information on transitioning from Flood Re to risk-reflective pricing, which Labour has been arguing for throughout the passage of the Bill.
Flood Re cannot operate on a static basis. It needs to respond to changing weather patterns, and we continue to believe that the Secretary of State should take advice from a credible expert source. Lord Krebs, chair of the adaptation sub-committee, has indicated that he would be willing to take on that role. However, our amendments, along with others on access to the national database and the right to appeal, were not accepted by the Government. We think that is short-sighted, but we support the amendments in this group and will continue to engage positively on this important issue.
Miss McIntosh
When we took evidence on the insurance aspects of the Bill during the Select Committee’s scrutiny stages, we were told that the package on Flood Re stood as a whole and that we could not consider any exceptions—not small businesses or leaseholders, or anything else, and certainly not band H. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will permit me a wry smile as I see that some of those exceptions have been included.
I hope that my hon. Friend will clarify the position on leaseholders. I—like many others, I am sure—have been contacted by constituents asking me to consider the implications for an owner who buys a leasehold property, as my constituents did in their block of flats. Apparently, the cost under Flood Re of the flood insurance alone will run to thousands of pounds, which they cannot afford and which they believe will affect their ability to resell those properties. I would be grateful for an explanation of where we are on that.
I understand that my noble Friend Lord de Mauley confirmed in the other place that domestic contents policies will be available to all under Flood Re, regardless of whether the properties are leasehold or freehold, rented or owned-occupied, except for properties in band H and those built since 1 January 2009. I have seen on many of my flood visits around the country that tenants on low incomes are often the first not to take out an insurance policy for their contents. The cost is therefore greater when they have to replace many of their possessions, some of which are of course priceless and cannot be replaced. Will domestic contents policies indeed be available to all?
Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm the intention behind the exception for band H properties? It seems bizarre. We are going to exclude from Flood Re leaseholders who are perhaps on lower incomes and often in smaller, more affordable properties, but people in band H tend to be wealthier and in a better position to afford insurance. I want to understand the situation so I can explain to my constituents why these exceptions have been considered.
I know that the date of 1 January 2009 was taken as the benchmark, but did the Department ever look closely at why that was a good date to choose? With hindsight, should it perhaps have been 1 January 2012 or 1 January 2013, when we first began closely to scrutinise these issues through the proposals from the Department and the work of the Select Committee and others in this place?
It would also be helpful to understand the position for small businesses, particularly farms. If the farmhouse itself has been flooded, will that be covered in the provisions of Flood Re?
Andrew Percy
I intend to make only a short contribution. The Minister probably heard most of what I said in Committee, but if something is worth saying once, it is worth saying three times, so I will do so.
I begin, as I did in Committee, by welcoming Flood Re, which is important. I pay tribute to the Government for getting us here eventually. It is incredibly important for my constituents and those of my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), who is here for this important debate. I am grateful and delighted that we have a scheme up and running to ensure that insurance cover will continue.
I am still concerned about the scheme’s limitation to properties built before 2009—a point that is often made by my constituency near neighbour, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). Many people in my constituency and constituencies nearby who bought their properties in good faith post-2009 have struggled to obtain insurance. I am still concerned that major developments on flood plains are continuing, including the Lincolnshire Lakes project near the River Trent in my constituency, where the proposal is to provide up to 10,000 properties in a major flood risk area on the River Trent’s natural flood plain. I have called on the developers to put a hold on that until we know where we are with flood defence funding for the Humber catchment area, but unfortunately that has not enjoyed the support of local Labour councillors, who accused us of scaremongering in trying to prevent that building on a flood plain. That is a concern because I am worried that the properties will be built but will not be covered by Flood Re and that there will be a whole set of other problems.
When I was in my constituency on Friday, visiting Hook church, which was launching its new heritage boards, I was approached by a single-property leaseholder who is concerned about whether he will qualify for Flood Re. He is not a major investor, but an individual who is using the property as a pension pot. He has been rejected for flood insurance yet again because of the flooding in Goole two years ago, and he is worried that he will not come within Flood Re. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) about the need for clarity.
I welcomed amendment 72 when I intervened on the Minister. Informing residents that they are indeed part of Flood Re and providing practical advice on their exact flood risk and how they can deal with it are important. The Minister mentioned the renewal and repair grant, which is an excellent proposal. Providing people with the means and advice on how to protect their properties is important, and funding is required. Whether or not there is funding, there is a big job to be undertaken to ensure that residents are properly informed about their flood risk and how they can protect their properties.
Many residents have it in mind that the only way to protect their property is through every-increasing defensive banks in our area, and that may be true, but it is not the answer to everything, particularly as my constituency is so low-lying. Much of it is below high-tide level, so it is impacted not only by tidal and river flooding, but by surface water flooding. Getting information to residents to ensure that they know how to protect their property is vital. I welcome amendment 72 and look forward to establishing in more depth what information will be provided on flood mitigation measures.
The Minister mentioned the renewal and repair grant. I hope that it is in order, Madam Deputy Speaker, to raise that while I am on my feet. Many of my constituents are trying to use the grant, but there seems to be confusion about whether they will be able to access it if the Environment Agency has come up with community improvement schemes. That is a particular issue for one of my communities because the Environment Agency, after pressure from many of us, has come forth with a scheme that will be in place next year to raise defensive banks at Reedness in North Yorkshire. It is not now clear whether those properties will be eligible for a renewal and repair grant. They will still be at risk of flooding and, in the spirit of amendment 72, which is about providing people with more information on how to protect their properties, it is important that they still have access to the grant. It is not their fault that their improvement scheme will come forward more quickly than other schemes. I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am in order by linking the matter to amendment 72. I can see from that near-thumbs up that I am straying, so I shall move on.
Right of appeal is another issue that I spoke about in Committee. We need a mechanism of appeal for residents who are judged to be outside Flood Re. We know from the debates in Committee and elsewhere that that will be a very small number of people, but they are an important group all the same. It is important to have a mechanism that allows people to understand why they have been drawn outside the scheme, and they should have a right of appeal. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, I ask Ministers to consider this.
I do not want to say much more. [Interruption.] I hear some chuntering from Opposition Front Benchers—in support of my last comment, I hope. If the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) wants to intervene, I will gladly give way. No? Okay.
Andrew Percy
The hon. Lady tells me to sit down; that is a good way to work cross-party, if ever there was one. I will heed her advice, however.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to those few comments, particularly on leaseholders. This is an important issue for residents who have made small investments for their pension pots, or in lieu of a pension pot, and who may now be drawn outside the scheme. Other than that, I support the scheme and the amendments outlined by the Minister.
Dan Rogerson
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate, across a broad range of issues, and welcome their questions.
All three Members who spoke mentioned leaseholders. Let me put on record again the point alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh). All contents policies would be eligible for Flood Re, whether leasehold, freehold, rented or owner-occupied, provided that the properties were built before 1 January 2009 and are in council tax bands A to G. Leasehold houses will also be within the scope of Flood Re in terms of buildings insurance, provided that the leaseholder lives in the property and purchased the buildings insurance in their own name. Flats will be eligible provided that there are no more than three flats in the building and that the freeholder, or one of those with a share of the freehold, lives in the building and takes out the cover.
Miss McIntosh
My hon. Friend says that the scheme applies if there are no more than three flats in the building. Where we lived—the current residents now have the problem—there could be 12, 16 or 20 properties. These are small properties that tend to be more affordable and occupied by those with a mortgage. Residents have put it to me that the increases are unaffordable already. Insurance companies are extracting those increases from them when they renew their insurance policies in an area that they know has already been flooded at ground-floor level because of the properties’ proximity to the river. I urge the Government to revisit this, because it is not acceptable. I do not want to pander to the Opposition’s argument about the standard cost of living, because that would be inappropriate, but I do believe that the Government should make the insurance affordable by reducing the cost. They should take out the below-three number because they have to reflect what working families are living in.
Dan Rogerson
We believe that a significant proportion of the leasehold sector will fall within the scope of Flood Re if the properties are at the highest levels of flood risk. I should emphasise, however, that we expect that most properties will not need to be in Flood Re and will find better prices through normal routes. We have been assured that there is no evidence of a systemic problem with freeholders being unable to obtain insurance for their leasehold properties. Specifically, feedback from members of the Association of British Insurers, representing over 60% of the market, including specialist commercial property insurers, showed no expectation of a widespread issue in an open market. As for the small businesses that are outside the scope of Flood Re, we and the ABI will monitor the market over time.
Miss McIntosh
Will my hon. Friend hark back to the evidence the Select Committee heard from the insurance industry during pre-legislative scrutiny? We were told categorically that, if there is a one-in-200-year event, the pot into which the subsidy will be paid, on which we all agree, will not be sufficient to pay out the resources, and it is generally accepted by the insurance industry that the Government will step in. Perhaps that is a different phrase from the one that my hon. Friend might use, but it means that the buck stops with the Government.
Dan Rogerson
We have been absolutely clear that, in such an event, the resources from the Flood Re pot would be significant and the Government would be involved in discussions about how that money would be used to help the people affected.
Although we have been focusing on Flood Re, my hon. Friend also asked about de-averaging. I want to use this opportunity to put on the record the fact that the Government’s charging principles on de-averaging are unambiguous. Ofwat must not allow de-averaging that is harmful to customers, particularly rural customers. Our charging guidance will follow soon. I am happy to commit, as I have before, to making it plain in that document that there must be strong, definitive boundaries for the scope of any de-averaging and that households in particular must be protected.
We should not, however, be over-simplistic. There is no doubt that there are areas where better cost reflectivity could have substantial benefits for the environment and the resilience of our water supplies. It must be right that the new upstream markets should reflect the environmental costs of supply and that there are economic incentives for business users that use large volumes of water.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole asked about the operation of current Government grant schemes. It might not be appropriate to go into that in detail now, but I would be happy to respond to correspondence from him on the specifics of how the scheme in his area is working.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to our debates on the Bill today and at various other stages in this and another place. I hope that the House will agree with their lordships’ amendments.
Lords amendment 67 agreed to.
Lords amendments 68 to 100 and 105 and 106 agreed to.
Immigration Bill (Money) (No. 2)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Immigration Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by a statutory body or recognised charitable organisation.—(James Brokenshire.)
Immigration Bill (Programme) (No. 2.)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Immigration Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 22 October 2013 (Immigration Bill (Programme)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
(2) The proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
(3) The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
Lords Amendments | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
|---|---|
No. 18 | 90 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments |
Nos. 16, 24, 1 to 15, 17, 19 to 23 and 25 to 36 | Three hours after the commencement of those proceedings |
Subsequent stages
(4) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(5) 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. —(James Brokenshire.)
Question agreed to.
Immigration Bill
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:23 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 305 / Noes: 239 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:53 - The House divided: - Ayes: 307 / Noes: 241 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:07 - The House divided: - Ayes: 304 / Noes: 240 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments 7, 16 and 24. If the House agrees to any of these amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal. I should also tell the House that Mr Speaker has selected the five manuscript amendments tabled today by the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather). Copies are available in the Vote Office.
Clause 60
Deprivation if conduct seriously prejudicial to vital interests of the uk
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 18.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 18.
James Brokenshire
The fundamental duty of any Government is to protect the British public and maintain the security of the UK against a range of threats. There is a small but very dangerous number of individuals who, despite having taken an oath of loyalty to become a British citizen, seek to threaten the security of this country. Those same dangerous individuals seek to exploit a loophole in our legislation preventing us from removing their citizenship if it would render them stateless, even temporarily, while they reacquire their former nationality. This Government have sought to address that issue, in line with our international obligations to protect the security of the UK.
Our proposals, previously debated in this House on 30 January, sought to extend the existing deprivation powers of the Home Secretary so that a naturalised British citizen who has conducted themselves in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK—I underline the high bar that has been set—can be deprived of their citizenship, regardless of whether it would render them stateless. We believe that is vital for the security of the UK and an important point of principle. It is not right that people who subvert our values and fight against our armed forces should invoke our protection and enjoy the privileges of British citizenship.
Many of the debates on this issue have focused on the use of the existing powers in the UK and overseas. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that the Home Secretary has long-standing existing powers to deprive a British national of their citizenship where that individual acquired it using fraud or where she is satisfied that doing so is conducive to the public good. Where fraud has been used, a decision can be made to deprive, which leaves a person stateless. Our proposals have built on the non-conducive powers to target a narrow cohort of naturalised Britons who are a real threat to our national security.
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
Is the Minister able to clarify the numbers involved and how the Secretary of State and, indeed, her predecessors have used those powers? The Joint Committee on Human Rights has repeatedly asked for those data, but has been unable to access them. I have asked similar questions and have also been unable to get the data, so could the Minister tell us how many people have had the power used against them?
James Brokenshire
It might be helpful if I explain that since the law was changed in 2006, 27 people have been deprived of their citizenship through different conducive powers. Twenty-six people have been deprived on the grounds of fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact, and one further person has been notified of the intention to deprive on those grounds. Perhaps that gives my hon. Friend an idea of the context in which the power is used. It is used extremely sparingly: it is not undertaken lightly and the Secretary of State considers its use extraordinarily carefully.
I recognise that the proposals that were suggested when the Immigration Bill was last before this House have, rightly, provoked a great deal of debate and discussion. It is important that the House understands the significance of the measures and that the other place has had an opportunity to consider them after our debate on Report. There has been much debate, both here and in the House of Lords, about the impact of leaving a person stateless, and there are concerns about those who cannot acquire another nationality.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Amendment (a) is certainly a helpful move on some, if not all, the concerns, but how will the provision be interpreted? For example, if somebody who is not a British citizen leaves another country and would otherwise have claimed asylum in this one, will that factor be taken into account? Will the Home Secretary be able to take into account the idea that a country may refuse to give citizenship because we had taken away their British citizenship? How will she make it work in practice?
James Brokenshire
It may be helpful if I say that the Home Secretary will consider the relevant nationality laws of a person’s country and that person’s circumstances, and she will make a decision based on whether, under those laws, the person is able to acquire another nationality. The test is whether there is a route under the law, but she will have regard to other considerations—for example, about practical or logistical arrangements. Those considerations will obviously vary from case to case, but she will consider them in forming a view. We have reflected that in the concept of the reasonable grounds. The Home Secretary will need to be satisfied about those reasonable grounds in determining whether the proposed power can be utilised.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
What happens if no other nationality is available? Does the Home Secretary simply give up?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman clearly makes the point about what we are seeking to achieve in respect of the concerns highlighted in the House and elsewhere, which is that if the Home Secretary cannot satisfy herself on reasonable grounds that the individual can acquire the citizenship of another state, she will not be able to use the power.
In this context, we are seeking to address the specific issue highlighted by the Supreme Court in the al-Jedda case, with which many right hon. and hon. Members are familiar. The case showed that the existing law was well within our international obligations, but we are seeking to act on the Supreme Court’s statement in that case about how to address the issue appropriately. We judge that the proposed provision is an appropriate mechanism for guarding our national security. It will ensure that what appears to be a loophole identified as a consequence of the al-Jedda case is not open to abuse and, building on the existing deprivation powers, it will therefore ensure that our national security is properly protected.
James Brokenshire
Various people are attempting to catch my eye. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper).
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying, and the House should realise that he is simply putting the law back to its position before it was changed by the previous Government. I listened carefully when we debated the issue on Report, and many of the concerns involved people who have no recourse to citizenship elsewhere being left permanently stateless. Government amendment (a) deals with the very real concerns of many hon. Members. It is a very welcome move that should be supported.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I pay tribute to him for his work on the Bill and for the steps he took, quite properly, to consider not only this issue, but the provisions more broadly. We will no doubt move on to those provisions in considering the Lords amendments. My hon. Friend highlighted the fact that the law was changed in 2002. In many respects, we are seeking to bring the law back more closely to the pre-existing position. The law was changed in 2002, and changed again in 2006. There is, therefore, a long history, with clear precedents to setting provisions that comply with our international and UN obligations on statelessness.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I want clarification about what the reasonable grounds are. Amendment (a) could be interpreted to mean that someone has to prove that no country or territory on the globe is willing to accept them as a citizen. That cannot be the interpretation of reasonableness in this amendment, can it?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman needs to understand that the particular concern—the gap that has been identified—relates to someone with dual nationality who surrenders their second nationality to prevent the deprivation provision from applying to them and to prevent the Secretary of State from using the powers as she can now do for dual nationals. The Home Secretary needs to consider such factors in considering whether she is satisfied that the relevant test set out in amendment (a) has been met. She would need to show such reasonableness, and that reasonableness might be tested in the courts, because whether her determination was reasonable would be justiciable or challengeable in the courts.
James Brokenshire
I can see that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) wants to make a second intervention, and I will then give way to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland).
Sarah Teather
I want to follow up the Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). The Minister said that the issue was about having a route in law to secure another citizenship, but he rather glossed over the practical barriers that many people face in obtaining another citizenship. Will he put on the record more information that might help those of us with concerns about amendment (a), as drafted, particularly about what constitutes an objection to the Home Secretary proceeding in relation to practical impediments to such people gaining another citizenship, rather than the provision necessarily being used as a route in law?
James Brokenshire
As I have said, the primary consideration is for the Home Secretary to research various materials and determine whether the individual could reacquire their former nationality, because that is what we are largely talking about in the circumstances of considering such laws. I am sure that she would also have to consider practical issues and the other surrounding circumstances. It is difficult to be specific, as individual facts and cases will no doubt be relevant to the provision. She will, therefore, wish to consider those other practical or logistical arrangements as part of her determination about whether there are reasonable grounds for the individual to secure citizenship from another state.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I want to press my hon. Friend on justiciability. Is he now satisfied that amendment (a) deals with the convention issue about deprivation of citizenship not being exercised arbitrarily, but proportionately? Does the amendment meet such tests?
James Brokenshire
Yes. My hon. Friend rightly points to article 15 of the universal declaration of human rights, which makes a point about protection against the arbitrary deprivation of nationality. We are very clear that the provision is not arbitrary. It is a very focused and proportionate power that meets not only those requirements, but our obligations under the UN convention on the reduction of statelessness of 1961, and the declaration made by the UK when it ratified that convention in 1966. We have considered our international obligations very carefully. We believe that the provision absolutely complies with the obligations that we have set for ourselves.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
All the examples that the Minister has used relate to cases in which he expects people to reacquire a nationality that they gave up to avoid having their British nationality taken away. If that is his intention, would it not have been better to table a much narrower amendment in which that was the circumstance in which the Home Secretary could consider withdrawing a person’s citizenship? That might have been more broadly welcomed in the House than amendment (a).
James Brokenshire
Amendment (a) was carefully framed and consideration was given to the comments of the Supreme Court in the al-Jedda case. Indeed, the amendment is more tightly framed than was suggested by the Supreme Court and is required by our obligations under the ratifying declaration that the UK signed in 1966. That speaks more widely about reserving the right in relation to statelessness, including where the person has conducted themselves in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK.
We have refined those broad terms in amendment (a) by requiring the Home Secretary to undertake the reasonableness test that I have highlighted. She must have reasonable grounds for believing that the individual whom we are seeking to use the powers on has the ability to obtain citizenship under the laws of another state. I argue that we have considered the matter carefully and framed the amendment appropriately to deal with the significant loophole that was created and that was highlighted by the al-Jedda judgment. We believe that it is important to close that off in the interests of national security.
James Brokenshire
A number of my hon. Friends are trying to intervene. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd), who has not intervened on me thus far.
Sir Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister. This proposal is predicated on the fact that the Home Secretary will act rationally and reasonably, but—[Laughter.] No, I do not see that as funny at all. I want to know how the people of Britain will know that the action has been taken in a rational and reasonable way, when it is obscured from public view, and is therefore challengeable.
James Brokenshire
I will make two points in answer to my hon. Friend. First, the decision of the Secretary of State would be reviewable by the courts. It would, therefore, be open to the individual to challenge the decision and the reasonableness of the Home Secretary’s determination. Secondly, I point him to amendment (b), under which there will be an independent review of the power, which will report after one year and then on a rolling three-yearly basis. That will provide clarity about how the power is being used and give the reassurance that he has sought to exact.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Will the Minister clarify the point that he has just made? Is he suggesting that there will be a right of appeal against a ministerial decision, or will there only be a right to undertake a judicial review, which of course would relate to process and not to the facts of the case?
James Brokenshire
There is the ability to challenge deprivation decisions. Many cases have been brought before the courts that relate to the Home Secretary’s use of the existing deprivation powers. That will continue to apply for the power and the amendments relating to the specific circumstances in which someone may be rendered stateless, subject to the Home Secretary’s being satisfied of their ability to seek the citizenship of another country. The existing challenge, process and procedures will continue to apply.
Mr Harper
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) because I respect her opinions on home affairs matters. It would not be appropriate to narrow the scope of amendment (a) in the way that she suggested. She missed the point that the individuals concerned are not always compliant and helpful in seeking a second nationality. Indeed, they often try not to do so. That is why the Home Secretary has to take a reasonable decision, taking account of the laws of the countries involved and the behaviour of the individual. If the amendment were narrowed in the way the hon. Lady suggested, I do not think that we would succeed in closing the loophole.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the point of an intervention is not to comment on a previous intervention, but to comment on what the Minister is saying. If he wants to challenge what the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said, perhaps he will try to catch my eye.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made his point. I am sure that he will make it again in the debate. He is right to underline the careful way in which we have framed the amendments.
James Brokenshire
I will take one further round of interventions, then I will make some progress.
Sarah Teather
Will the Minister comment on the time frame in which he thinks it is reasonable to expect somebody to obtain another citizenship? In the Government’s mind, would somebody be stateless for two years, five years or 10 years? Is there any sense of how long the process could go on for?
James Brokenshire
That is largely in the hands of the individual. When the power is exercised, it will be open to the individual to seek the citizenship of the other country. We are unable to compel them to act in that way. That goes to the heart of the problem that we have identified. It is open to the individual to seek the citizenship of the other country, so it depends on what action they take.
Dr Huppert
The Minister is being very generous; I am sure that there will be questions on later sections of his speech as well. It is possible for the Home Secretary to have reasonable grounds to believe something, but for it not to be the case. What will happen if somebody in the UK goes through the process, the Home Secretary believes that they are able to get citizenship from another country and they make a bona fide application for that citizenship, but it is turned down?
James Brokenshire
In those circumstances, the Home Secretary would have exercised her power to deprive, so the case does not relate to the specific power under discussion. Obviously, we are able to deprive somebody of citizenship, whether they are in the UK or outside the UK, under the existing powers. That is an important mechanism for maintaining national security and ensuring that the actions of an individual who may be involved in terrorism are addressed by restricting their ability to become involved in terrorism-related activity and by preventing travel that might be a key component of terrorism-related activity. That underlines the importance of deprivation as a means of addressing the very small cohort of individuals who would seek to do us harm.
James Brokenshire
I give way to my hon. Friend who has not intervened on me before.
Alok Sharma
I want to press the Minister on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) made. If the Home Secretary has every reason to believe that an individual could get the citizenship of another country, but the Government of that country say that they do not want them as a citizen, what will happen to that individual? Will he or she remain without citizenship?
James Brokenshire
If the individual is in the UK, which I think is the situation on which that comment is predicated, there is precedent for giving limited restricted leave to remain. That might impose specific conditions. It would also mean that an individual would not have the usual rights of a citizen to access public services and enjoy public benefits. In seeking to mitigate the risks, that of itself may be considered a significant and relevant factor.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I apologise for missing the Minister’s opening remarks, which I am sure were extremely important.
I and other Members have a lot of sympathy with what the Minister says and understand and support what he is trying to do, but we are concerned about the practicalities of what will happen if he takes citizenship away from someone and leaves them stateless. That was what upset the other place. Has he studied any other country that has a similar power, and what has he gleaned from that comparative study?
James Brokenshire
It is difficult to make general comparisons with other states, because of the different natures of the threat that countries face, the court judgments that have been made there and the international conventions that apply to them. However, other states do have the ability to render citizens stateless, and some have made protocols and reservations to that effect. Some people have sought to portray those states as somehow despotic, or—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is eager for me to get to his point, and I am happy to do so, but I do not think anybody would regard countries such as Belgium or the Republic of Ireland as despotic, and those states have reserved powers to make citizens stateless. Although it is difficult to make generalisations, because of the different treaties and conventions to which each country is subject, other countries have reserved powers to make individuals stateless in certain circumstances.
Keith Vaz
As usual, I have asked a question and the Minister has given me a straight answer, and I am extremely grateful. He mentioned Belgium, but what are the practicalities of what it has done? I accept that the power in question is used in other countries, but what happens when a citizen of Belgium has their citizenship removed and is left stateless? Is not the truth that they cannot go anywhere else?
James Brokenshire
I would hesitate to provide commentary on the laws of Belgium, the Republic of Ireland or other countries that have reserved this power. I have explained to the House this afternoon what would happen in this country if someone were left in those circumstances, and I hope that I have provided clarity.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Although I was not present for the beginning of the Minister’s speech, I have been watching the debate assiduously in my office.
In my constituency, there have been cases in which an individual has rightly been threatened with deportation by Her Majesty’s Government, yet their home nation state has categorically refused to take them back. I have constituents who have automatically lost their nationality by making an application in this country not for citizenship but for asylum. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) asked, what are the practicalities? Do we wander the world trying to sell those individuals to some accepting nation state?
James Brokenshire
It is not about that at all. I am sorry that the hon. Lady may have missed some of my earlier comments, although I appreciate that she has been watching from afar. As I stated earlier, the provision is about dealing with a small cadre of individuals who may have waived or surrendered their previous citizenship as a means of frustrating the Government’s attempts to guard our national security by using our existing deprivation powers. The Home Secretary would need reasonable satisfaction in exercising the power to deprive. It would then be open to the individual in question to take whatever steps they needed to take to regularise their position. We are closing a gap that the Labour Government left us by virtue of the changes that they made in 2002 and built on in 2006. The Supreme Court highlighted that gap in the al-Jedda case. Our proposal is intended to guard our national security.
We recognise the comments that have been made here and in the other place, but Lords amendment 18 would prevent deprivation of citizenship from being pursued in the case of an individual who had no recourse to another nationality. Every country operates its own nationality law, and there are a range of requirements and eligibility criteria. As part of the “reasonable grounds” consideration, the Home Secretary will of course consider whether there are any legal points that would prevent an individual from regaining their former nationality. The individual in question will retain a full right of appeal, which will be to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. The courts will be able to consider whether the Home Secretary was correct to conclude that there were reasonable grounds to believe that that person was able to become a national of another country or territory under its laws.
As the Government have stated in both Houses, the proposal to extend the Home Secretary’s powers to deprive citizenship is an important and timely measure to strengthen the security of the UK. It has rightly been subject to substantial debate, and to scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and Members of both Houses. We do not agree that a small Committee from each House would be the right place to consider the matter. It would not have access to the appropriate closed material to make further assessments beyond what has already been discussed in the House. Having such a Committee would also cause unnecessary delay, leaving a loophole to be exploited and creating a barrier to effective action for a considerable number of months, if not years. It is important that we close the loophole in a timely way, which is why the Government have decided to proceed with a narrower measure than we had originally proposed in preference to allowing delays for a Committee to consider the issues.
Sir Richard Shepherd
Is the Minister saying, then, that the person deprived of their citizenship will not know the reasons for that, and that the only course of court action will be through SIAC, which is a secret court? We will therefore never know whether the deprivation was justified.
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend will gain satisfaction from the judgment that SIAC will make in each individual case. He will be familiar with debates that we have had on other legislation and with the challenge for any Government of how to handle sensitive material. He will also know the existing case law on the gisting of some material, and that is a matter of active consideration by the courts. I therefore think that the public, the House and the country can be satisfied that if SIAC has considered a matter, it will have done so appropriately and reached an appropriate outcome in respect of the actions by the Secretary of State.
Glenda Jackson
Will SIAC have the information from the individual’s home Government? For example, will there be a requirement on the Chinese embassy—I cite China because it is the first example that comes to mind—to furnish evidence as to why it is refusing to allow its former citizen to regain their nationality, and will that information be furnished to SIAC?
James Brokenshire
It is difficult to comment on individual circumstances and cases. The Secretary of State will need to show that her judgment was reasonable in bringing forward and using the power that we are contemplating, if the amendment is accepted, and it would obviously be open to the individual to present evidence to SIAC in non-closed circumstances regarding their situation, and to challenge that decision. That right of challenge is obviously protected by provisions in the Bill.
James Brokenshire
I will draw my comments to a close, as I have been generous to hon. Members across the House.
In conclusion, this power is narrowly drawn and aimed at addressing a real and current threat posed by a small number of individuals. The Government have taken steps to listen to the concerns of both Houses about statelessness. We are committed to taking proportionate action to protect the public and remove the privileges of British citizenship from those who abuse it. That is what these provisions do, and I commend them to the House.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I support the Lords amendments. Having listened to their lordships and to contributions from Members across the House, and having noted the keen interest there appears to be in this debate, I hope that the Minister will reflect on what he has said and support the Lords amendments in due course.
I will start with a quote:
“If we identify someone as a person proposing to commit a serious terrorist offence, for example, surely the obligation is on us to deal with that person. If we simply deport him, we shall be handing on—in my submission, irresponsibly—this terrorist problem to another state which may not have the same capability of dealing with it as we do. It cannot be a proper response to the terrorist threat to refuse to deal with it ourselves”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 October 2002; Vol. 639, c. 277-78.]
That was the late Lord Kingsland who spoke in October 2002 as Conservative shadow Lord Chancellor when these matters were debated in relation to nationality. At that time, the then Labour Government determined that statelessness should not be part of the legislative framework, and that prompts the question why have the Government brought forward this proposal at this time?
I think the Lords did a service to Parliament in providing it with an opportunity to discuss this proposal again, and I remind the House that the Lords voted by 242 votes to 180 to ensure that the amendment was accepted in another place. Among those who voted were a large number of Labour peers, and it is fair and proper that I report that to the House. There were also many others, both Cross-Bench, from the Government Benches and among the Bishops, who voted to ask this House to consider the matter again. Those included Lord Judge, a former Lord Chief Justice, and Lord Hannay, a former senior diplomat, as well as such Liberal Democrat notaries as Lord Lester, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, Lord Oakeshott and Baroness Neuberger, and also the notable former Foreign Secretary Lord Howe of Aberavon. That group of peers did not vote for the amendment to cause trouble for the Government; it is a group of peers who take an interest in this matter and have reflected on the Government’s approach. Whatever else can be said, the Home Secretary did not convince the other place that her measures were right and proper. In fact, the charitable view is that the Home Secretary has made a mess of this matter. She has tried to rush the proposals through.
Mr Hanson
The Minister says no, but the Home Secretary brought forward the proposals on 30 January on Report, after they were tabled on 29 January. We had to table a manuscript amendment on Report, which we withdrew because we wanted to take legal advice. That legal advice led to a cross-party Lords amendment, moved by Lord Pannick, to ensure proper consideration of the proposals in Committee.
The Lords amendment is reasonable. It asks for the establishment of a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on the complications of the removal of citizenship and the issues raised by Members across the House. From discussions I have had with the Minister, I know he is concerned that that would lead to delay, but I hope I can reassure him. Through agreement outside this House, we could, if the Lords amendment was accepted, give a time scale to that consideration to ensure that we have detailed examination and, effectively, pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposal, so that we can take the concerns raised in another place seriously, look at what points are being made even today by Members of this House and come to a consensus on this extremely serious issue—the removal of citizenship from individuals.
I think we can come to an agreement whereby a proposal is considered and completed perhaps, dare I say it, by the summer recess. I do not want to pre-empt the Gracious Speech in a couple of weeks’ time, but it will undoubtedly include a criminal justice Bill. Measures could be introduced at that stage and looked at in detail.
Dr Huppert
The shadow Minister is talking about the process and that is very interesting, but can I press him on the Labour party’s view on the policy principle? Some of us, including some Labour Members, voted against the measure on principle. He says that it may be a positive thing to have this sort of deprivation. His party abstained, with Whips quite forcefully stopping people voting. What is the Labour party’s position on the principle at stake?
Mr Hanson
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will come on to that point in a moment. We abstained on 30 January because we wanted to ensure that we gave proper consideration to this matter, and we supported the amendment in another place to ensure that we did consider this matter. My noble Friend Baroness Smith of Basildon signed the amendment before the House today. We want to support the amendment today and return it to the Lords.
The Labour party and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) will not do anything that puts the security of the United Kingdom at risk. I want to ensure that we do not remove citizenship without a proper right of appeal. I want to ensure that people know the grounds of that removal of citizenship and that the consequences are considered. I want, with the Minister, to tighten up how the Government intend to exercise that power. How do the Government intend to ensure that what is “reasonable” is deemed to be reasonable? I want to give the Minister the opportunity to explain that. This is a serious matter that needs proper parliamentary scrutiny. We have had a very short time in another place and one day in this House to consider this matter. We need to look at it in much more detail and we need to take evidence. A large number of people outside this place have raised concerns and we need to ensure, and not just in one-and-a-half hours, that the Minister justifies the opportunity and practice over a period of time.
Mr Harper
The more the right hon. Gentleman speaks, the more confused I am about his position. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary tabled the amendment in January, so more than three months have passed since she put this provision before Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman has now said, notwithstanding the fact that the amendment says the Committee will serve for the duration of the Parliament, that it could all be sorted out before the summer recess, which is only two months away. What does he expect to learn in the next two months that he has not learnt in the past three?
Mr Hanson
I think both Houses of Parliament should have an opportunity to take evidence, as happens during pre-legislative scrutiny, and I am not the only person who thinks that. Moving the amendment in the House of Lords, Lord Pannick said:
“A Joint Committee is required because Clause 64 was added to the Bill very late in the passage of the Bill through the other place—that is, 24 hours before Report and Third Reading…so there was no pre-legislative scrutiny of this proposal, no consultation and no opportunity for consideration by the Public Bill Committee of the other place. The absence of pre-legislative scrutiny and proper consultation is especially unfortunate in a context such as this.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 2014; Vol. 753, c. 1168.]
The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) may want to steamroller the Bill through, but I think it important that we get it right.
Glenda Jackson
There is a great, gaping hole in the Government’s argument. However much the Minister may speak about the powers of the Home Secretary, no British Home Secretary in the House of Commons has ever had the power to impose on a sovereign nation state laws governing whom it should or should not take back, and to whom it should or should not give a passport and citizenship.
Mr Hanson
My hon. Friend has anticipated some of my own arguments. Like the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), I think we need to examine important issues relating to both the deprivation of citizenship and the impact on terrorism prevention. The Minister is seeking to delete the amendment in order to prevent potential terrorist action. I want to test him on that, potentially during scrutiny in the Committee, but also in the House today.
If citizenship is removed from an individual who happens to be outside the country, we shall have given up all jurisdiction over that individual, who could be returned to the United Kingdom by a third-party country that did not recognise him as having citizenship of that country. As Lord Kingsland said in 2002, he will not be the responsibility of the United Kingdom, but will still be potentially able to undertake activity that the Minister would not support, as a result of the Minister’s own actions.
James Brokenshire
I am somewhat confused by what the right hon. Gentleman is now saying. Does he not support the Government’s existing use of the deprivation powers to deal with counter-terrorism?
Mr Hanson
The Minister should reflect on that. He will know that the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 specified just two grounds on which citizenship could be removed: it could be removed from those who had gained it through fraud, and it could be removed
“if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person has done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of…the United Kingdom”,
provided that the revocation of citizenship did not render the person stateless. That is the point, and that is the position that was taken by the Labour Government in the 2002 Act, about nine to 12 months after the horrendous events of 9/11. Surely, if we made that judgment in 2002, at the height of concern about the impact of 9/11, the Minister will be able to back it up in 2014. If he cannot, let him justify that to a Joint Committee. Lord Pannick said in another place:
“The Joint Committee will also want to consider whether the benefits, if any, of the proposed new power justify the… international implications.” .”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 2014; Vol. 753, c. 1169.]
How can the British Government lecture others, or promulgate international law, when the Bill proposes the establishment of circumstances which, in my view, would break international requirements across the board? The Minister says that that is not the case, which is a view that we need to discuss.
Jeremy Corbyn
I agree with what my right hon. Friend has just said, but is not one of the fundamental problems the fact that what the Government are doing has about it more than a whiff of Executive decision making on major issues to which there is no simple legal remedy? The Government are trying to avoid a court process, and to give powers to an elected politician over an independent judiciary.
Mr Hanson
I am grateful for that because my hon. Friend anticipates the concerns we had and that we raised in the debate on 30 January. The proposal then from the Minister was that the Home Secretary could determine, on reasonable grounds, the deprivation of citizenship. There was no judicial oversight promised. The Minister has today brought forward amendments (a) and (b) which would provide for a review. I do not happen to think they go far enough. I think we need to stick to the original idea of an examination by a Joint Committee. The Minister, however, has brought forward those amendments which move slightly from his original proposal of some six or seven weeks ago. Why has he done that? He has done so because he has been roasted in another place and, this proposal having been considered by Members of that other place, has lost the vote quite considerably. Yet today we find that, rather than listening to those concerns, the Minister wishes to vote down this amendment and has brought forward proposals that, again, I think do not go far enough.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd), when I hear phrases such as “review by SIAC” I shudder on the question of process, but I am interested to hear what the right hon. Gentleman would say to my constituents who want us to move quickly on all immigration issues—who say we are not moving fast enough, we are not making change quickly enough. What is the relative merit of his proposal to support Lords amendments that would delay enactment as opposed to the Government proposal to see and review the impact after enactment?
Mr Hanson
That is a legitimate question, and it is one that deserves an answer. The point I would make is that we are legislating. If we legislate for this and if it goes back to the other place in the form the Minister has brought forward, it will be enacted: it will have Royal Assent within a matter of, presumably, days. We will therefore have one year of operation between May or June 2014 through to May or June 2015. That is fair enough. We will then review it and make changes. All the concerns raised by Members today would potentially be applicable in that 12-month period. The argument I would make is that if we accept the amendment that has been considered by the Lords, we can look at this, get it right and ensure that the concerns that have been raised not just here today but by Members in another place are dealt with. The measures that are taken will then have the full confidence of both Houses of Parliament. At the moment, given the vote that was taken in the other place—242 in favour and 180 against— the proposals the Minister brought forward previously do not have the support and confidence of both Houses. The removal of citizenship is such a challenging and extreme measure to take that it must have the confidence of both Houses of Parliament.
Mr Buckland
I listened with interest when the right hon. Gentleman talked about his fear that the UK would be in breach of its international obligations in relation to statelessness if the Government’s proposals went through. Which particular international obligations does he think the UK would be in breach of?
Mr Hanson
I am trying to ensure that we propagate good practice. There are many states that currently remove citizenship from individuals. It has happened in Iraq and it has happened in other countries before, and we have been critical of that. We are trying to ensure that any action taken by a Government, particularly when it is one of Executive power by the Home Secretary, is supported by both Houses of Parliament.
Let me give the hon. Gentleman the opinion of international lawyer Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, who says that:
“any state that admitted an individual on the basis of his or her British passport would be fully entitled to ignore any purported deprivation of citizenship and as a matter of right return that person to the UK.”
That was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson). We need to consider this in considerable detail.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
The shadow Minister did say that this was in breach of our international obligations, but he now says it is only a matter of good practice. He has quoted another international jurist and many Members from the other place, but we are the elected Members. Some of us have come to this debate to try to make up our minds. If we could hear more of what the right hon. Gentleman thinks of the principle of the Bill and the arguments around it, we could make a decision today, and I for one would enormously appreciate that.
Mr Hanson
I could do worse than to cite what Lord Deben, a Conservative peer, has said—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman looks as though he lacks concern about this, but I am expressing a number of concerns that have been expressed, both in this House and in—[Interruption.] My view is that we need to ensure that if we take this step, we do it in an effective and appropriate way that does not damage the credibility of the anti-terrorism case. Removing someone’s citizenship is an extreme measure and it has to be done in a way that is appropriate. The Minister has not made it clear to me that the “reasonable” judgments of the Home Secretary—[Interruption.] If the Parliamentary Private Secretary would like to join in the conversation, he could go to the Back Benches and do so. For the past three months we have received wodges of legal advice and wodges of views saying, “This is not practical, it will not be effective and it will damage our attacks on terrorism.” The Minister is asking us to take things on trust, but the other place has determined that it wants to examine these issues in detail, argue them and test the Minister on them, and that is a fair proposal.
Lord Deben, a Conservative colleague of the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), has said that
“to take away someone’s citizenship, it is not reasonable to say that you assume that they can get another country’s citizenship. It is only reasonable to say that you know that they have another citizenship; anything less than that is wrong. It may not be convenient, but it is not right.
We have been the signatory to and the driver of much of the international law that seeks to reduce statelessness to its minimum. I fear that in this particular case, we may, for very good reasons—in seeking to close loopholes…do something which will do great injustice to a very small number of people.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 March 2014; Vol. 753, c. 213.]
That is what we need to test by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament and that is what we need to test over the next few weeks and months, which is why the other place has given its support. Justice, Liberty and the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, among others, have made cogent arguments as to why we need to consider this in detail. We need to examine it, and I support the retention of the Lords amendment and hope the House will do so.
Sir Richard Shepherd
I am greatly concerned about this measure, and I will just make some observations. The Minister referred to the power that the Home Secretary used to have in relation to something being not conducive to the public good. Its removal created a real difficulty for Governments, but my concern is not the difficulty for Governments; my concern is for the British common law system. This is not about the European Court of Justice—its rulings or anything else. The issue of concern to me is: what is our process?
I believe, and this was fundamental to our legal system, that a person should know the reasons they are to be aggrieved, but that is not possible under the Bill. He or she will not know the reasons they are being deprived of citizenship, so they can make no case that can be held to be valid, because they do not know what they are challenging—or they will claim they do not know what they are being challenged with. We do not know and the public do not know, so this violates one of the first principles of our legal system—our common law system. I want the House always to remember that our common law system in England has been absolutely essential to our liberties, freedoms, standing and our sense of who we are.
I understand the difficulties that Governments face, as there are a lot of wicked, evil people out there, but the answer has always been to prosecute. We are told, “Oh we can’t prosecute because in a prosecution we may have to reveal our sources.” This is the nightmare situation that the world in which we now live is facing: we are not to know, we cannot know and we cannot challenge. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission is one of the most monstrous extrusions on the national scene, as not even the solicitor representing the accused or the person who loses their citizenship knows the reasons their client is there. Gisting? Well, all those rules that have been put in place essentially deny open justice using the argument of national security.
I have been a Member of Parliament for 36 years, and I look back over the decline of our sense of who we are, what our system is, and our freedoms and liberties, which are concentrated in the concept of the common law. I did not invent it—we did not invent it—it came from the movement of the people of this country over hundreds of years and the development of our legal system. Year after year, in a way that one could never assume would happen, Governments have gone out searching for new measures to conceal the openness of what justice should be. We, as citizens of this country, have a right to know why people are charged. That is why we have an open court system, so that we can judge whether the measures are competent, reasonable or truthful to the purpose of our nation. That is why I cannot support the very notion that so much power should be concentrated in one individual—a Home Secretary—whether good or bad, that they may make decisions of this nature without our being able to challenge whether they are valid, true or right. I want the House to stand up for who we are and what our system of justice is—and it is not secret justice.
Pete Wishart
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd). What a powerful case he has made about the closed process of justice, which has become a feature of the Government as they proceed on issues of national security.
When the Government first came to power, I cheered them on, as they practically went around deconstructing Labour’s anti-civil libertarian state, which we all remember: identity cards; the national database; pre-charge detention. I cheered the Government on when they did that, but they have now constructed a closed process with a lack of justice—all the things that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills powerfully expressed. We have created a new anti-civil libertarian state, helped by the Liberal Democrats. This is not the type of justice, society, country and community that we want. We are better than that. Yes, we need to balance national security and civil liberties, but this is another Government who have got it wrong.
The plans were roundly monstered in the House of Lords, as they deserved to be. If one looks at how many Lords supported the amendment and spoke against the measures, we find one former Director of Public Prosecutions, a former Supreme Court judge and even 23 Liberal Democrat peers. The measure was defeated by 242 to 180 votes in the House of Lords, which demonstrates wide-ranging opposition and great concern about proceeding in this way.
The Lords amendment does not even seek to delete the clause. I wish that it did. I do not have a vocation like Labour spokespeople. I think that this is a bad measure, and I voted against it in principle because it is fundamentally wrong to remove the citizenship of people of this country just because they are suspected of being terrorists. That is absolutely wrong—I make no bones about that—and I wish that the amendment deleted the entire clause. However, it does not do so; all that it seeks to do is to set up a Committee of both Houses to look at the implications of the measure and see whether we are doing the right thing.
We have not had a chance to look at the measure properly in the Commons. It was introduced on Report without our having any opportunity to consider its value or implications and what it meant in the context of the Bill. The Lords had a little more time; we have an hour and a half to consider what the Lords said, to look at the measure again and, I hope, to make the right decision. The amendment does not ask us to reject the measure; it just asks us to look at it again.
Panicked by the Lords defeat, the Government have introduced their own amendments, which would provide a review once the measure had been implemented. That is closing the stable door after the horse has left without its passport, having been deprived of its citizenship. It is too late to do anything then. We have to take a look at how the measure would impact on what we are trying to achieve and secure before we effect any legislation rather than afterwards.
Mr Harper
Let me first remind the House what we are asking it to do today—to disagree with the Lords in their amendment. I have a reason for saying that. I listened carefully to what the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), the shadow Minister said, as he carefully avoided setting out his party’s view and quoted lots of other people back at us. His proposed solution was to spend the next two months before the summer recess coming to a rapid conclusion. I think that he accepts that there is a legitimate national security issue here, but what he said does not reflect what the amendment says.
Paragraph (2) of Lords amendment 18 talks about nominating a Committee that would serve
“for the duration of the present Parliament”,
with no deadline to reach a conclusion. I repeat what I said in my intervention on the right hon. Gentleman. I accept his point that there was not much time between tabling the amendment and the Report stage in this House. It is a perfectly fair point that we had discussions before the issues were discussed in the House of Lords. However, three months have elapsed and these matters have been considered in the other place, and I really do not understand what we are going to learn in the next two months that we have not been able to learn in the past three months.
Mr Hanson
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the proposal is that the Committee shall serve for the duration of this Parliament. I was trying to be ever helpful by offering the Minister the opportunity that we could, through the usual channels, determine to examine these matters in a reasonable time. We could set that time informally even if the Committee did serve for the duration of the Parliament.
Mr Harper
I accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but that is not provided for. The Committee regulates its procedure. Nothing here talks about the balance of party members on the Committee. The Chairman of Committees in the other place will nominate the members from the House of Lords, and the Speaker of the House of Commons will nominate those from this place. There is no provision in the amendment to do what the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
If a Committee of members of both Houses considers the matter at length, it will produce a report. If we accept for the sake of argument that it manages to agree on the right outcome, it will only produce a report that will inform a further debate in this House. Members of this House will still be required to take a decision. We will still be required to weigh up the arguments that my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration so ably laid out before the House today and the Home Secretary did in January. We will still be required to consider the arguments that the shadow Minister did not put before the House; he simply recited the views of others. We will not be freed from the responsibility of taking a decision. It is the “kick the can down the road” amendment, which allows the House to avoid taking a decision.
These are difficult issues. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd), whom I respect hugely on these matters, but there is a balance to be struck between defending the liberties of our citizens and protecting us from terrorism. I do not reach easily for the national security argument. I was pleased when I was elected to the House to vote against the provisions for 90-day pre-trial detention. But this is a proportionate and limited proposal. I supported the previous measure. The Home Secretary has listened to the debate on 30 January in this House and to the debate in the other place. Amendments (a) and (b) do two things. First, they ensure that we are not left with a situation of someone left unable to seek citizenship. She has to have reasonable grounds for believing that they are able to, and that addresses many of the concerns raised previously by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who set those out on 30 January.
A review mechanism is now in place, whether by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation or another independent person, which will enable the House to look quite quickly, after an initial one-year process, and then every subsequent three years, at the actual implementation of the legislation in practice, so enabling us, if there are issues, if some of the concerns set out by my hon. Friend for Aldridge-Brownhills or others come to light, to enable the House to amend the legislation. The concern that the Home Secretary set out with the al-Jedda judgment leaves a gap in our legislation, which leaves us vulnerable to those who would do us harm.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Given my hon. Friend’s expert knowledge on this subject, can he give the House some indication of how many people this treatment might be applied to? Are we talking about very few people?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend the Minister set out how many individuals had been deprived of their citizenship on non-conducive grounds, so not using this power, since 2006, and it was 27. It is not possible to know in advance, but we are talking about very small numbers. We are talking about people who conduct themselves in a way that is seriously prejudicial to our national interests. It is a small number of people, but it is a small number of people who mean to do us serious harm, but whom we are not able to prosecute.
This is a proportionate use of the Home Secretary’s power. It is reviewable by the independent judiciary, so there is a check and balance in place. We have to ask ourselves whether we want to leave ourselves open to this vulnerability, exposed by the Supreme Court. We are, as I said, only putting the law back to what it was before 2002. I do not think that any of the scenarios set out by Members happened before 2002. I urge Members to disagree with the Lords in their amendment and to put amendments (a) and (b) on the statute book when we vote this afternoon.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call anyone else to speak, let me say that we have a very short time in this part of the debate, so I urge Members to be brief in consideration of their colleagues.
Fiona Mactaggart
I will be brief. I spoke in 1997 in the debate on the formation of SIAC, and I was wrong. I thought that the changes that were being made from the previous system were sufficient to protect people who are accused of terrorism. I reminded the House then that the previous arrangements had been used against not just people who wanted to blow up our country but journalists and others such as Mark Hosenball. One reason why we need to have a publicly accountable system, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd), is that, without it, there cannot be a guarantee that a Home Secretary will not end up doing the same again.
I said in the debate about the formation of SIAC that transparency is the most effective protection against terrorism. I am really concerned that this arrangement not only risks creating statelessness but depends on a grossly untransparent system. I think that we should adopt the route that the Lords has offered us: yes, it is kicking the can down the road, but it is stopping and thinking so that the can is not mashed, thus destroying the reputation of our country.
Dr Huppert
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). I pay tribute to her for her acceptance that SIAC was an error and a big problem. Indeed, it is rare in this place for any of us to admit making a mistake. The encroachment of secret justice started with that commission and has continued in a number of other ways.
In the interests of time, I will not go through all my concerns. I have expressed them on a number of occasions in debates in the main Chamber and in the Home Affairs Committee and in discussions with the Minister. The reasons for my concerns remain the same, which is why I was proud to oppose the measure when we discussed it previously, and acted as a teller for the other side. It is a shame that more people did not join us, and I pay tribute to those who did, especially those Labour Members who braved the wrath of their Whips to fight their way into the Lobby, where we saw some interesting rows. It is also interesting to see people who voted for it on that occasion now opposing the principle. I still oppose the principle. There has been much more debate, both in the other place and on the Home Affairs Committee, which has helped to clarify how the measure might work. The Select Committee’s report on counter-terrorism is due out shortly, and I hope the Minister will look carefully at what it says. Obviously, I cannot presage its comments on anything, but I am sure that he will be interested to see it.
There are many issues relating to what happens if somebody is stateless in this country. If we end up leaving someone stateless because they cannot get the passport that we thought they could apply for, we have taken somebody who is apparently dangerous to us and prevented them from leaving the country. That does not seem a great success to me. There is also the issue about what happens if they are overseas. It also fosters the idea of two classes of citizen—people whose citizenship can be taken away without them being convicted of something and those who cannot have it taken away. It is about how the legal process works and much, much more.
In the interests of time, let me talk about the Government concessions, which I welcome. They are a step in the right direction, but they do not go far enough for me. There are two of them. I welcome the concession about the independent reviewer, and I was pleased to hear the Minister imply that it may be the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, for whom I have huge respect. I would be more encouraged if he, rather than others, was taking on the role. I understand that no decision has yet been made. Will the Minister clarify whether the reviewer will look at specific cases, or just the overall process? Will they be able to trigger a review if a particular case has gone wrong? Will they have full access to all the information that SIAC has? If the independent reviewer does not have all that information, it will be hard for them to make a proper judgment.
Let me turn to the other amendment about reasonable grounds for belief. I welcome this step, because it addresses the key issue of avoiding statelessness. We should all be very concerned to avoid anything that will leave people stateless. My concern is about how certain we are. It was helpful to hear the Minister say—I ask him to correct me if I misquote him—that if someone wanted to claim asylum from a country, that would be deemed to mean that the Home Secretary could not act. If it was not possible to get the citizenship without travelling and the person was stuck in this country, that would be an issue.
I am still concerned about the appeal rights and about what will happen if the Home Secretary makes an error. What will happen if she acts reasonably, but it turns out that she is wrong and someone cannot get citizenship? That would be very alarming and I hope that the Minister will consider the issue and perhaps even tighten this up in the other House.
John McDonnell
It is a disgrace that we are talking about civil liberties and yet we have only nine minutes left, the debate in the Lords ended only 18 hours ago, and the amendments land before the House when it is likely to rise early next week because of insufficient business. Our job is responsibly to look after our constituents’ interests, which means both their human rights and their protection and security. Not one of the amendments we are considering is capable of doing that as a result of this bouncing of the House. I have been in this place only 17 years now and the worst civil liberties violations have occurred when the House has been bounced into urgent decisions. That is what is happening today and I resent that.
I resent it on behalf of my constituents. The practicalities of the provisions mean that we will deprive some of their citizenship and, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) has said, we will do so in a way that will not even allow them to answer the charges themselves. That is the SIAC process, which I voted against all those years ago.
What are the practicalities of depriving someone of their citizenship when they are a threat, particularly if they are abroad? In the other House there was a discussion about the comity of interest between individual states. What are we to do? Will we deprive a suspected terrorist of their citizenship and leave them as the responsibility of another state? Will that protect our citizens’ interests, if that person can then roam free to take action against this country? That is not fair, just or based on human rights, and it does not practically tackle the issue of security.
Their lordships want time to set up a Joint Committee to give this difficult area of policy the detailed consideration it needs. The Minister referred to the Government’s proposed review as independent, but the amendment makes no reference to independence. The reviewer will be appointed by the Government, not by an independent process. In addition, the Secretary of State will have a veto over what is reported to the House and that applies not just to national security but, as the amendment says, to public interest. Public interest has been used in this House by successive Governments to avoid embarrassments and to avoid providing the House with information on which we can make considered judgments.
The Government’s amendments are not acceptable. I do not think they resolve the concerns that the other House has raised and I hope that that place holds firm so that we can negotiate a proper process. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) that we need a reasonable process within a limited period of time to allow us to return to the House to consider proper proposals that protect civil liberties while, just as importantly, protecting the security of our constituents.
Mr Buckland
I feel like I am in an episode of “Just a Minute”, Madam Deputy Speaker, but here goes.
I support the Government’s amendments, as we must focus on the issue. This is not some descent into despotism; all we are talking about is a return to the law as it stood before 2002. We are not even talking about the principle of statelessness, because the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 allows for a person to be stateless when that nationality has been obtained by fraud. We are talking about only a very small cohort of people who pose a serious threat to the safety of the citizens we represent.
It is important that the Government ensure that they do not end up with decisions being made in an arbitrary or disproportionate way, which is why the provision about reasonable grounds is important and goes a long way towards answering that point. The report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a Member, correctly said that the decision to deprive people of their state per se does not breach any international conventions. That is the case that was not properly answered by the Opposition.
In the seconds I have left in which to speak, all I can say is that the Government have moved a significant way and that that allows me and others to support their amendments and reject the Lords amendment.
James Brokenshire
It is worth outlining again at the outset the purpose of the Government’s amendments, which is to close a gap that has been highlighted by the Supreme Court, to guard our national security and to deal with a very small number of individuals who put this country’s security at risk. It is only to deal with those very serious cases of people whose conduct meets the requirement of being
“seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK.”
It is important to understand the context and how the Home Secretary, in exercising the power based on the amendments, must have reasonable grounds to believe that under the laws of a country or territory an individual is able to become a national of that country or territory. We have listened to the points that have been made about statelessness, and the amendments address and significantly close the issues that have been highlighted in the other place.
On scrutiny, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) said, the matter has been considered by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as well as in the other place, so it is not correct to say that it has not been subject to careful consideration in the other place and by Members of this House, or considered in detail. That was incorrectly suggested by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who spoke for the Opposition. He has made various assertions that in some way the provisions are not compliant with our conventions and obligations to the United Nations. I reject that. We do not accept that in some way the provisions that are contemplated in the amendments do not comply with our conventions. Indeed, we believe that they adhere more closely to our obligations.
James Brokenshire
I am afraid that I do not have time to give way.
We have reflected on the need for oversight and have provided for periodic independent reviews. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) asked whether David Anderson is an appropriate person. He is certainly someone we are examining and we want to have discussions, if the amendments are accepted, to consider his role in that context.
We take our obligations on statelessness extraordinarily seriously and in terms of common law the House has considered these matters in the recent past. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) has consistently made that point. There are challenges for the Government in what we are able to do to ensure that evidence can be provided appropriately in guarding our national security, and that gisting of facts and information remains available. It is important that the right of challenge exists, but it is also important that we guard our national security, which is why I commend the amendments to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the question relating to the draft Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Conditions) Order 2014. The Ayes were 313 and the Noes were 205, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Before Clause 60
Child trafficking guardians for all potential child victims of trafficking in human beings
James Brokenshire
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 16.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 24, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 1 to 5.
Lords amendment 6, and manuscript amendments (a) and (b) thereto.
Lords amendment 7, and manuscript amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendment 8, and manuscript amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendments 9 to 15 and 17.
Lords amendment 19, and manuscript amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendments 20 to 23 and 25 to 36.
James Brokenshire
This group covers the remaining aspects of the Bill. I will focus on Lords amendments 16 and 24 at the outset, which, as has been highlighted, infringe financial privilege.
Lords amendments 16 and 24 require the appointment of a guardian to represent the interests of children when there are reasonable grounds to believe that they are the victims of cross-border trafficking. The Government wholeheartedly share the noble Lords’ intention to protect and support that incredibly vulnerable group of children. Supporting victims, including children, is at the heart of everything that we are seeking to achieve through the draft Modern Slavery Bill. That Bill aims to tackle the appalling crimes of human trafficking, slavery, forced labour and domestic servitude. Those crimes are quite separate from the matters that are dealt with in the Immigration Bill. In our judgment, it would be wrong and unhelpful to conflate the two.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
Before I came to this place, I spent nearly a decade working with trafficked children. These matters are not separate at all, because many trafficked children come through the immigration system, and often the only state official they come into contact with is a member of the UK Border Agency. These matters are as one and the Immigration Bill is a fitting place to provide support and protection for such children.
James Brokenshire
I agree with the hon. Lady that immigration can be a relevant factor and that it relates to a number of the issues that are involved in trafficking. From visiting charities and meeting victims of trafficking, I understand the compelling stories and issues that they raise. However, at its heart, trafficking is organised crime. Sometimes, when it is viewed simply in the context of immigration, significant aspects of the level of organisation and criminality involved can be missed, as can trafficking within the UK. That is why we judge it important to recognise the broader context so that the solutions that are provided are comprehensive and address all the issues involved. The Government’s approach of seeking to understand that broader context and the organised criminality involved has gained support from non-governmental organisations, charitable organisations and others.
Lisa Nandy
I welcome the fact that the Minister is trying to look at broader issues of children’s welfare; perhaps I would welcome that even more from the children’s Minister.
There is a particular issue for children who come into this country from overseas concerning their immigration status. Quite often, the reason we do not get trafficking prosecutions and do not really tackle this awful crime is that we do not treat the victims properly. Children who are accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 do not have anybody with parental responsibility to instruct their lawyer, which is why this debate really matters.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention and for her genuine passion and concern for the welfare and well-being of an incredibly vulnerable group of children. We are taking forward our pilots of child advocates so that we can ensure that there is support for those children, and we must not take lightly our responsibility for protecting them. However, having tested the model of advocacy, we do not want to risk putting in place a model that would fail to deliver safety for that group in a practical way.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I am not sure there is a dispute between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on the issue. If the model that the Minister advocates were to go ahead, it would cover both trafficked children and those who are not technically trafficked but are pushed around and sold in this country. For many of us, the nub of the debate is whether the Government will meet the spirit of the Lords amendment, which is not only to give permission for the Government to go ahead with the pilots but to see whether the scheme will be rolled out universally when the results of the pilots are known.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention, for his work in chairing the Joint Committee and scrutinising the draft Modern Slavery Bill, and for the report that has been produced. The Government are considering that report carefully and will respond in due course.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there should not be dispute on this issue. There might, however, be a difference of emphasis—perhaps I might characterise it like that—between me and the hon. Member for Wigan on why I believe the Immigration Bill is the wrong place to deal with this issue in a broad sense. We are, of course, reviewing work on that initial assessment of when children present to different agencies, and the fact that EU children and non-EU children are dealt with differently in the system. We are examining that carefully and scrutinising the way the system operates at the moment. I hope I can reassure the hon. Lady by recognising that we should consider carefully issues such as initial identification and the way in which different agencies highlight children through that system, as well as the way the system operates and responds, and the different times taken to make an initial determination. It is important that such work is conducted, and it has been commenced by the Government.
In a practical sense, it is important to bring agencies together and to shine a light, as I characterise it, on crimes that have largely been in the darkness. Vulnerable individuals have not been highlighted and brought to attention, and we need greater recognition of the serious criminality involved, and the appalling exploitation and trade in human misery that underpins so many of the dreadful actions we see.
We believe that Parliament has already considered the draft Modern Slavery Bill, and that when the full Bill is presented that will be the right place to address the issues highlighted by the Lords. The full Bill will include an enabling power to ensure that we have the opportunity to test and assess fully the child trafficking advocate role through a trial, before setting in stone its specific functions. By taking that approach we will achieve what is essentially our collective ultimate aim: to give children who have been subjected to this appalling crime the best chance of dealing with the trauma of their experiences.
Mr Frank Field
I have two questions for the Minister on this important point. I do not think anyone disputes that it might be better for such provision to be part of the Modern Slavery Bill, but the question is about what the Government will transfer to that Bill. The measure passed by their lordships was not to interrupt the Government’s pilots—they are all in favour of those—but to ensure that once the results of those pilots are through, there will be a statutory basis on which to make the service universal when public expenditure allows that movement to occur. Can the Minister give the House that assurance?
James Brokenshire
As I have indicated, our intention is to introduce an enabling power. We will provide a statutory basis for the child trafficking advocate role in the Modern Slavery Bill, which we will be in a position to inform through the trials that are due to start in July. Our concern is that the Lords amendment as currently framed would put those trials at risk—we do not see how the trials could commence if the current provisions are maintained. I hope that by assuring the right hon. Gentleman about the Government’s intention to provide that statutory basis, he will understand that that enabling power will provide the underpinning for further work, which can properly be informed by the results of the trials that will start in the summer.
Mr Field
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because this issue is so important. He is proposing that, if we do not oppose their lordships’ changes, he is offering in return the trials and, when we have learnt from the trials, a statutory basis for the service. Is that what the Government want to be in the draft Modern Slavery Bill?
James Brokenshire
Clearly, having announced the trials at the end of January, I want to see them proceed. It is important that we test the service and the system, which is patchy and not as consistent as I want it to be. Equally, some local authorities provide good services and it is important that we recognise that and learn from them. We want an enabling provision in the draft Modern Slavery Bill to be the bedrock that provides the mechanism, which can be informed by the trials that I want to happen, that can be acted on and be the statutory underpinning that allows it to be developed through the experience of the trials. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will find that helpful in underlining the Government’s commitment not simply to provide a statutory mechanism through that enabling provision, but to deliver practical action. The most important thing is that we provide support, advice and guidance for this extraordinarily vulnerable group, and that we ensure they are supported through the system. That is what matters most.
James Brokenshire
The trials are intended to be conducted in 23 areas, commencing at the beginning of July. We have not, at this stage, set an end point for the duration of the trials, but I want evidence and feedback that can inform the consideration of an enabling power in any modern slavery Bill that comes forward. A statutory mechanism will ensure that the trials can commence and that we can learn and benefit directly from them, enabling a statutory underpinning of the optimum provision.
Lisa Nandy
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again on such an important issue. The statutory underpinning for advocates is welcome. I want to check that they will be provided for children who are suspected of being victims of trafficking before they have to go through the very difficult process and jump through those hoops to be deemed a victim of trafficking. It is that process that children find very hard to get through. Will advocates be provided at the point at which concerns are raised that the child may be a victim of trafficking, rather than at the point when they have been deemed by the system to be a victim of trafficking?
James Brokenshire
Under the arrangements, each child victim is to be allocated a person with specialist training and expertise in trafficking. They will provide dedicated support and guidance to ensure that the child’s voice is heard. That is often the biggest challenge when there are so many different obstacles, such as language and the trauma the child has gone through. It is intended that the advocates will provide a single point of contact through the care and immigration process and will be responsible for promoting the child’s safety and well-being. That is particularly important in relation to the risk of children being re-trafficked, which is a significant concern. Children have disappeared and the worry is that they have been re-trafficked into slavery.
The scope of the work is being developed further. I note what the hon. Lady has said about initial identification and support throughout the subsequent process. I would expect the trials to involve thorough and appropriate tests, in accordance with the optimal periods during which interventions can take place. I would also expect appropriate support to be provided for children who have come forward and are waiting for an initial assessment of the prima facie evidence relating to whether or not they have been trafficked. I recognise the genuine concern that has been expressed by Members and others about the provision of support, and I hope that my assurances will enable the House to support the Government in disagreeing with the Lords amendments.
Mr Frank Field
If a child was brought into this country and an immigration officer suspected that the child was being enslaved, could the child be referred to the advocate at that point so that the advocate would have a chance of separating the child and a slavemaster?
James Brokenshire
Let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman, and the hon. Member for Wigan, that all children who are dealt with by means of the national referral mechanism—with which the right hon. Gentleman will be familiar—will be provided with advocates as soon as they are identified as suspected victims of trafficking. We intend appropriate support to be provided as soon as children have been referred.
Let me now deal with Lords amendments 1 to 4. When the Bill left this House, clause 1 provided for regulations specifying, first, who would count as a family member for the purpose of removal and, secondly, the arrangements for giving notice of removal. The power to make regulations is exercisable by statutory instrument following the negative resolution procedure.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights asked why the original clause gave discretion over whether family members should be notified of removal when we had clearly stated during a debate that they would always be notified. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee believed that the definition of a family member should be in the Bill, and that delegation was inappropriate. The Lords amendments are designed to address all the concerns raised by the two Committees: they would insert in the Bill the definition of family members, the requirement always to notify them of removal, and the effect of the notice.
The Government have transformed the approach to returning families with children, in line with their commitment to end the detention of children for immigration purposes. Lords amendments 5 to 9 and 29 to 34 give legislative effect to our current policies on family returns by putting key elements of the new process into primary legislation. That will guarantee that the fundamental elements of the approach cannot be changed without parliamentary oversight and debate.
First, the amendments prevent families from being removed for 28 days after any appeal against a refusal of leave has been completed. That will ensure that they will always have an opportunity to consider their options and avoid enforced return. Secondly, we are placing the independent family returns panel on a statutory footing: its advice must be sought on how best to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in every family returns case in which return is enforced. Thirdly, we are providing specific legislative protection for unaccompanied children so that they are not held in immigration removal centres when we are trying to return them. Finally, we are providing a separate legal basis for pre-departure accommodation, independent of other removal centres. It will be used only for holding families with children and only within the existing maximum time limits.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) and others have tabled some manuscript amendments to Lords amendments 6, 7 and 8, which were debated in Committee and again on Report in the other place. I am sympathetic to her intentions and the intentions of those who have supported her manuscript amendments. However, although I understand the motivation, her amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment 6 and amendment (a) to Lords amendment 7 would widen the definition of families in the family returns process and apply the 28-day period during which a child, relevant parent or carer may not be removed or required to leave the UK to parents who do not live with the child as part of a family unit. They would also stipulate that we could only separate a child from their parents for child protection reasons.
These amendments do not reflect the Government’s returns process. We will always seek to ensure that families remain together during their return, but there are exceptional circumstances in which temporary separation may be necessary. For example, where there is a public protection concern or, indeed, a risk to national security, a dangerous individual might not be considered a threat to their own children but could be a risk to the wider public and we would therefore need to remove them as soon as possible, which might require a family separation.
Manuscript amendment (a) to Lords amendment 8 would mean no unaccompanied child could be detained under Immigration Act powers. Lords amendment 8 reflects the operational reality that unaccompanied children may need to be held for short periods in transit to a port of departure or at the port awaiting removal. These types of removal are rare, but if we do not hold children safely in very limited circumstances while they are travelling unaccompanied in and out of the UK, we increase the risk that they may come to harm by falling prey to traffickers or even absconding. Lords amendment 8 will ensure that detention is for the shortest possible time.
Lords amendments 10 and 11 deal with appeals, and the Government have reformed appeal rights in this Bill to reduce complexity and provide the most effective and appropriate remedy for all cases. Administrative review will provide a faster and cheaper way of correcting caseworking errors, but Lords amendment 10 provides further assurance. It requires that the Secretary of State commission the independent chief inspector within a year of clause 11 being commenced to prepare a report on administrative review. That report must address the specific concerns raised about the effectiveness and independence of administrative review. Lords amendment 11 makes a technical correction to clause 11(5), which provides that the tribunal may not hear a new matter that the Secretary of State has not considered unless the Secretary of State consents to its doing so.
Jeremy Corbyn
On the question of administrative review, is it not really a way of avoiding the inconvenience —from the Home Office’s point of view—of a proper appeal where the individual can be properly represented and the whole case be considered? Is it not just another example of trying to get rid of the impediments of any legal appeal system on behalf of the individual?
James Brokenshire
The administrative review process is already effective in identifying and correcting caseworking errors. From April to December 2013, 93% of these administrative reviews were completed within 28 days, and 21% of the administrative reviews requested resulted in the original decision being overturned. This shows that the review process can provide an effective way of correcting errors, and it does so in a speedy and efficient manner, so that periods of uncertainty are addressed. I do not think it does anyone any good to have long and protracted periods of uncertainty. Indeed, we are in the perverse position of having 17 rights of appeal, which are being reduced to four, to ensure that matters are dealt with effectively and appropriately, supplementing the administrative review process outlined in the Bill.
The Bill also requires landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants. That is dealt with in Lords amendments 12 to 15. The scheme includes statutory codes of practice giving the technical detail of how it operates. Lords amendments 12 to 15 address concerns of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to ensure that those codes have parliamentary oversight.
Lords amendments 25 to 28 deal with student accommodation. The Bill already excluded some student halls of residence from the proposed landlord checking requirement. We concluded that there was scope to go further and broaden the exemption for student accommodation. Educational institutions already have a duty to check the immigration status of their international students, and we do not want there to be double-checking of these persons. The changes therefore strike a sensible balance and minimise regulatory burdens on higher education institutions.
Lords Amendments 17, 35 and 36, which were proposed by Lord Avebury in the other place, correct an historical anomaly relating to the treatment of illegitimate children. Nationality law is complex, and anomalies arise, particularly as aspects of family life have changed since the time of the British Nationality Act 1981. In 2006, amendments to the 1981 Act enabled illegitimate children to inherit nationality from a British father in the same way as a legitimate child. Those amendments were not made retrospective. To have done so could have itself caused problems for individuals who were now adult and had made a life for themselves in a different nationality. These amendments enable illegitimate children born to British fathers before 2006 to register as British if they choose to do so, correcting a historical anomaly by providing a route to citizenship for those who want to take it.
Dr Huppert
I thank the Minister for the Government’s support for these amendments, which I tried to put in the Bill but encountered some technical difficulties. Will he join me in paying tribute to those who campaigned for many years to get this injustice changed? People such as Tabitha Sprague, Antonia Fraser Fujinaga and Maureen Box tried very hard, and the many thousands affected by this will be delighted that the Government are now fixing it.
James Brokenshire
I recognise those who have made the case for this change for some considerable time, and I am pleased that the Government have been able to support these amendments in the other place. I hope that this House will be equally able to support them here. It is important to recognise that they have addressed an historical anomaly and now allow that opportunity to the individuals affected of a route to citizenship that was not available to them before.
Fiona Mactaggart
The Minister rightly says that we are dealing with an historical anomaly, and that makes the case for introducing this part of the Bill and commencing it as early as possible. I hope that he can assure the House that he will put his foot on the accelerator to do that, because my constituent whose case prompted Lord Avebury to table these amendments is still stuck in limbo and, like other people, he would like to be able to remedy his situation.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that and I have certainly heard the points she has made.
I know that others wish to speak to their manuscript amendments, but let me just say that Lords amendment 19 clarifies that the Bill does not limit the duty regarding the welfare of children imposed on the Secretary of State or any other person by section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. Under section 55, the Secretary of State must make arrangements for ensuring that her functions in relation to immigration, asylum and nationality are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the UK. That duty continues to apply, and nothing in the Bill impinges on it.
Lords amendment 20 relates to some technical changes concerning the bank accounts measures. Lords amendments 21 to 23 respond to recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, ensuring that, where appropriate, affirmative procedure processes apply in respect of certain notices and certain aspects of the sham marriage provisions contained in part 4 of the Bill. I believe that the Lords amendments, with the exception of Lords amendments 16 and 24, improve the provisions, making them clearer and more workable in practice.
Mr Hanson
I, again, thank the Minister for his helpful introduction to the Government’s position on the Lords amendments. I am here to maintain Her Majesty’s official Opposition’s support for them and wish the Government to reflect on that again during today’s debate. I pay tribute to Baroness Butler-Sloss for tabling her amendments in the other place. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) for scrutinising the evidence for the draft Modern Slavery Bill. I have heard what the Minister said about the proposals on a pilot and the enabling power in such a Bill, but I remain unconvinced that that will lead to the action that we want and, indeed, the action that the other place has proposed for consideration.
Mr Frank Field
I hope that what the Minister has said does satisfy the other place, but if we vote against the Government motion tonight, it can decide. That is the advantage. I think that the Minister has satisfied us, but I would not want the other place and those who moved the amendments not to have the possibility to consider when they read Hansard whether they are satisfied.
Mr Hanson
My right hon. Friend makes a valuable point. As I said at the beginning, the vote was 282 to 184 in favour of the proposal. If we reject the proposal today, we are left with no proposal. We are left with a promise of a pilot and a Bill after the Gracious Speech, following the scrutiny rightly given to it by my right hon. Friend.
Dr Huppert
A few of us are slightly confused about the procedure, and the right hon. Gentleman has been here longer than I have, so perhaps he could help us. If the House were to accept the Lords amendment, the Lords would not discuss this again; whereas, if we rejected it, the Lords would have the chance to discuss it. Regardless of merit, is that not the right way round?
Mr Hanson
That is the right way round. The Lords expressed a clear view on the matter. The Lords will be able to examine the Government’s proposal when the Modern Slavery Bill comes forward. But we have a clear template today, and I want to see that enacted. If the Government accept this today, the proposal is a clear template. We have a number of proposals from Baroness Butler-Sloss, and I have gone through them today.
James Brokenshire
I think that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants to accept the Lords amendments because he feels that they are right, but that if he does so, it would not allow any further consideration by the Lords in terms of reflecting on what I have said from the Front Bench.
Mr Hanson
Their lordships have expressed their view clearly, and what the Minister has said today is known already. He announced that he had said in January that he would have pilots on the matter. The draft Modern Slavery Bill has been scrutinised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, and there is a template that we should support, and that is why I reject the Government’s proposal.
Mr Harper
I think that the right hon. Gentleman is missing the fact that the amendments are narrowly framed. They deal only with children who come to the UK from abroad. On trafficking and modern slavery, I have constant representations about not just focusing on people who come from outside the UK. The Minister has set out a sensible point. If we reject the amendments, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) has said, the other place has the option of sending them back to us again, and we can consider them again if it does not think that the Minister’s representations hold water. That is the right course of action.
Mr Hanson
There is clearly a common interest but a disagreement on procedure. If the Minister has a view about the impact of children being trafficked in the UK, such as in the case in Rochdale that he mentioned, he has the draft Modern Slavery Bill to contribute to those matters. But there is a clear will from the other place, which was supported on a cross-party basis, and I would wish to see that as the template for discussion today.
Mr Harper
One thing that would not be helpful is to put these measures in place and have a procedure that deals with foreign national children when the draft Modern Slavery Bill, expertly scrutinised by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, will put in place yet another process for children who happen to be UK nationals. It would be much more sensible to have one process that deals with all children who are victims of slavery. We should not make the system more complicated than it need be.
Mr Hanson
Imperative action is needed now. I have dealt with a number of Bills over the past few years and seen the Government bringing back amendments and amending their own legislation not six months after they introduced it. There is potential here today for a clear statement and clear action on the international trafficking of children. The pilots that the Minister brings forward can be undertaken.
Fiona Mactaggart
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Minister gave a commitment, which he has not done, that this comprehensive amendment, with all the powers for advocates included, would be in his proposed Modern Slavery Bill, we would not feel the need to press this to a vote? However, the Minister has not yet given that promise.
Mr Hanson
My hon. Friend is, as ever, correct. I have not yet had, following my intervention on the Minister, a closing date for his proposed pilot. We do not know what the outcome of that pilot will be. We have taken a principled position on the amendments from Baroness Butler-Sloss that there is scope for that to be done immediately. I am talking about not just us here, but UNICEF, Anti-Slavery International, Barnardo’s, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Amnesty International. An EU directive, which may not find favour with everyone in the House, says that we should consider that step. I understand that position, because 5.5 million children globally are trafficked each year. The UK Human Trafficking Centre identified 549 child victims in 2012. The national referral mechanism recognises 349 victims. A number of trafficked children face being sold into the sex trade and being exploited through work, cannabis farming, forced begging and sexual exploitation.
There is a need now to send out a strong signal that we want to take action on that in England and Wales. Trafficked children who arrive in Scotland value the care and support that they receive from their appointed guardians. That system works in Scotland, yet constituencies such as mine and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends still face real difficulties in that regard. Such a system operates not just in Scotland, but in many western European states, including the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. There are templates for a system and it is time that we put in place a legislative framework for it. I wish to see that undertaken and supported today.
In passing, may I say that I welcome the changes on residential accommodation that the Government have accepted from the other place? In particular, I welcome the changes on student accommodation. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) is in his place today, as he has pressed over the past weeks and months, in Committee, to me personally and to the Minister, a very strong case to ensure that all student accommodation was included in the Bill. It is good that, following the discussions in Committee and the representations from members of Sheffield university’s students union whom my hon. Friend brought to London, the Minister has accepted that point. The Minister will have our support on those Lords amendments that have been accepted on residential landlords, students and other areas, because they are important issues.
I look forward to hearing what the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) has to say on her manuscript amendments. The Lords amendment has our support, and I hope that it will have the House’s support in due course.
Sarah Teather
I have tabled a series of manuscript amendments today to seek clarification from the Minister. I hope that he will have an opportunity to respond to my points at the end of the debate.
Let me deal first with amendment (a) to Lords amendment 8, which is my principal concern. The ending of routine detention of children in the immigration system is one of the areas of which I am most proud in my record in government. The Government can be extremely proud of that and it has made a significant difference to many children’s lives. Many thousands of children used to be detained in the immigration system and there is significant evidence of the harm that that causes to children’s mental health.
It was very hard work to get to the 2010 agreement, which followed a painstaking process of negotiation, but it has made a significant difference. Trying to enshrine it in legislation is an extremely positive step and it is important that what happened before can never happen again, but with these issues the devil is always in the detail. I am not yet persuaded that the amendments, which we have not had an opportunity to debate as they were tabled in the Lords, have the detail correct.
I have a number of questions, which I have not been able to get answers to in private, so I hope that the Minister might be able to answer them today. I tabled amendment (a) because I do not understand why we would reasonably need powers to detain unaccompanied children in this way. As drafted, the Government amendments afford less protection to unaccompanied children than to those who have a claim as part of a family. If they are with their family, the family returns panel process is enacted. No such protection applies to unaccompanied children.
If a family needs to be held prior to deportation for a short period of time they are held in Cedars, which has Barnardo’s and specialist social workers working with it and has a carefully designed process to ensure that the welfare of children is paramount. An unaccompanied child who needs to be held for a short period of time will be held in a holding facility, and at the moment they do not have any rules for best practice. Successive Governments have held that question in abeyance and my colleague Lord Avebury has managed to drag out of the Government a commitment finally to try to bring forward some rules. I am very pleased to see that, but the conditions are very different from those in Cedars.
The amendments, as drafted, do not quite meet the Government’s guidelines. I acknowledge that there is currently no time limit for the detention of unaccompanied minors, so the 24-hour limit in the Government’s amendments is at least a step forward, but chapter 31 of the immigration and nationality directorate instructions states that
“detention will occur only on the day of the planned removal to enable the child to be properly and safely escorted to their flight and/or to their destination.”
Although the amendments imply that people could be held overnight, the rules do not suggest that, so I would appreciate the Minister’s response on that point. I see that he is dealing with a matter of whipping, so I do not know whether he heard me. Perhaps he can be refuelled from the Box to ensure that that point is answered.
Chapter 45 of the enforcement instructions and guidance states:
“Unaccompanied children (i.e. persons under the age of 18) must only ever be detained in very exceptional circumstances, for the shortest possible time and with appropriate care”.
The new clause inserted by Lords amendment 8 also contains the power for unaccompanied children to be removed without removal directions already being in place so long as the decision whether or not to give such directions is likely to be positive from the Home Office’s point of view. That does not seem to me to be very satisfactory.
The serious question is: why do we need to detain unaccompanied children at all? I have asked officials about particular cases in which this might apply, and they gave me the example of a Japanese student who wanted to come to the UK to study but found that the institution they were going to study at had suddenly been dissolved. We would need to put them on a plane rapidly, so we would have to hold them for a short period of time. The Minister gave the example of someone who might have to be detained for their own safety to prevent them from being trafficked. That makes me sigh, because it is a typical Home Office response. The Home Office always assumes that the natural reaction to any problem is enforcement, but our duty in this case is protection rather than enforcement. We tend to mistake those two things and it is a psychological trait of the Home Office always to assume that the answer is enforcement and that is precisely why it cannot always be trusted to come up with policy in this area.
Sarah Teather
I am sorry that the Minister is upset, but it means that he has heard me.
If an unaccompanied, vulnerable child turns up at a police station, the police do not put them in a cell, but get in touch with social services. Why can we not do the same for unaccompanied children who come here as migrants or to apply for asylum? Why do we need to detain them? Surely our duty is to protect them. There is plenty of legislation that allows us to do that, and I have not heard an example of detention being required as opposed to protection with appropriate powers of social services.
What really bothers me is whether this is a preamble to a more significant change in policy on the forced removal of unaccompanied, asylum-seeking children. Currently, the United Kingdom does not routinely remove unaccompanied, asylum-seeking children, but it is probably the worst kept secret that the Home Office wants to be able forcibly to remove more unaccompanied children, particularly to Albania and Afghanistan. My concern is that the Government’s amendment leaves wide open the possibility of a drastic expansion of forced removal of children. Instead of moving towards the ending of detention of children for immigration purposes, the clause could allow more unaccompanied children to be detained for the purposes of removal. I am desperately hoping that the Minister will tell me that my fears are ill founded, and I will be delighted if he does so. I hope that he can answer my other specific points about why we cannot simply involve social services and protect children in the small number of such cases instead of detaining them using enforcement powers.
My amendments to Government amendments 6 and 7 also relate to child detention and essentially ask for clarification and strengthening of our 2010 commitment not to split families to achieve compliance with the immigration process. The Minister will be aware that Barnardo’s, which works closely with the Government at Cedars, has produced a report stating that family splits are, unfortunately, sometimes used to effect enforcement of immigration provisions. We agreed in 2010 that we would not do that, and my amendments seek to strengthen that commitment and to make it clearer. In particular, there are sometimes cases when a parent lives away from the family temporarily. The obvious case is when they are in immigration detention, but similar cases are when someone has been sectioned, is in hospital or is in prison. I am worried that the legislation as drafted does not capture such cases or consider the best interests of children, and is not in the spirit of the agreement that we negotiated in 2010.
Finally, I tabled an amendment to Lords amendment 19 to clarify that the best interests of the child should continue to be a primary consideration in all cases involving children. The Joint Committee on Human Rights criticised the Government, saying that they have
“not explained how in practice the provisions in the Bill are to be read alongside the section 55 duty. Without such explanation there is a danger that front-line immigration officials administering the legal regime will be unclear about the relationship between the children duty in section 55 and the new tests introduced by the Bill which use different and unfamiliar language.”
Lords amendment 19 goes some way to meeting that concern, and I explored some of the issues in amendments tabled on Report. It confirms that it is necessary to take into account the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK, but I am worried that it does not go far enough because the section 55 duty applies only to the Home Secretary and not to the courts. My amendment makes it clear that consideration of children’s welfare should always be the primary concern. That is necessary because there is growing evidence that recent immigration rules are negatively impacting on decision makers’ understanding of what factors should be taken into account when considering the best interests of children. For example, research last year by Greater Manchester’s immigration aid unit into unaccompanied, asylum seeking children found that, in seven of 10 cases analysed, the Home Office failed to carry out any determination of the child’s best interests. Similarly, last year’s audit of Home Office procedures by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees highlighted the lack of any systematic collection or recording of information necessary to determine a child’s best interests. That includes the lack of a process to obtain the view of the child. This proposal simply tries to make sure that the Government do the things they say are their priority. At the moment, the Bill still leaves some confusion.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I want briefly to seek clarification in relation to international students and the changes that have been made to the Bill in relation to landlord checks. I pay tribute to Lord Hannay and others who have pressed this point in the House of Lords. I regret that students are included in the Bill at all, and I know that many Members on both sides of the House feel that they have no place in this debate.
The point relates to the changes that have given powers to universities to nominate students to occupy accommodation. That is a welcome move, and I am glad that the Government have accepted it. Speaking for the Government, Lord Taylor said in the other place that
“nominating is just the naming of an individual as being a student at a higher education institution…It is a form of vouching for the genuineness of the student’s immigration status. That is all.”
Baroness Warwick asked whether it would be
“legal and proper for the landlord to enter into that arrangement even though at that point, because of the time involved and so on, the potential tenant has not actually got their visa?”
This is crucial, because there is a brief period between being accepted into an institution and being enrolled during which many students sort out their accommodation. In response to Baroness Warwick, Lord Taylor said:
“Yes, absolutely: that is the case.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 April 2014; Vol. 753, c. 1056-1057.]
That involves a potential contradiction.
Will the Minister confirm in his closing remarks, or in intervening on me now, that an institution can nominate a person who has accepted a university place and has been given a confirmation of acceptance to study, but is awaiting a visa, so that they can confirm their accommodation before they have been issued with their visa?
Mr Harper
I am grateful to be called to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will make sure that I leave the Minister sufficient time to respond to the points that have been made. I will keep a close eye on you, and if you think I am not leaving adequate time, I am sure you will indicate firmly that I should sit down.
I support what the Minister said in rejecting Lords amendments 16 and 24. I very much want us to deal with those who have been trafficked and victims of modern slavery, but I want us to implement a system that will apply to all children who have been trafficked, and a system that works. I want that decision to be informed by the pilots that the Minister is conducting. That is because in England and Wales the local authority has the legal responsibility to look out for the best interests of those children. In some local authorities, that system works very well, but in many it does not. The legal position is clear, but what is important is not what the law says, by itself, but how it is implemented.
That is why I want to make sure that the Minister runs those pilots and looks at their results. He has clearly stated that he will make sure there is an enabling power in the draft Modern Slavery Bill and that the detail of how we bring these powers into effect can be informed by the pilots. He gave a very clear commitment at the Dispatch Box to use what is learned from the pilots to bring that into force. That is a sensible procedure. I agree with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field): I think there is no disagreement in the points made by him, by the Minister and by the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who has long experience of these matters. We all want to achieve the same thing, and I want to make sure that it is done in the most practical way possible.
I welcome the moves in amendments 5 to 9 and 29 to 34 to put on to the Statute Book the Government’s current policy on the family returns process. I previously gave some commitments at the Dispatch Box when this matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), and when the Bill was going through Committee, in saying that the Government would bring forward those amendments in the House of Lords. I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleague, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, were able to do so. That is a great step forward that locks these provisions into place.
The manuscript amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) are not helpful. The issue of an individual living in a household with the child is important. Otherwise, those who have no right to be in the United Kingdom but who happen to have a child here for whom they have no parental responsibility and with whom they have no contact will use that child as a legal tool to avoid being removed from the UK. What is worse, it would encourage people who have no right to be in Britain—a judge set this out clearly in his legal judgment on a specific case in which he jailed the relevant couple—to have children for the specific purpose of avoiding removal from the country. That is not in the interests of children or of the proper working of the immigration system, so I urge the House not to support the manuscript amendments.
James Brokenshire
This has been a useful opportunity to touch on a number of important issues. In some ways, we have strayed from the strict provisions of the Bill—understandably, I think—particularly with regard to trafficking and the protection of children.
On the pilots and the point of referral, I reassure the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) that the intention is to refer all children suspected of being victims of trafficking to the national referral mechanism. They will be allocated a child trafficking advocate at the point of identification. The advocate will be able to provide support as soon as the child is identified in those first crucial hours. I think that is the point the hon. Lady made. In other words, the child advocate will be available when a child has been identified and the intention is to make a referral to the NRM. I hope that gives the hon. Lady the assurance she seeks. I recognise that, during the initial hours in which a child is identified, they will be very vulnerable and questions will be asked about what should happen to them, so they will need an advocate to support them during that early phase. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to provide that clarification.
In response to the Opposition’s Front-Bench spokesman, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), I have clearly set out our approach to the enabling power. It is important that we crack on with the trials and get those pilots under way, so that effective support can be provided quickly—that children will benefit and that we have the statutory underpinning. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied by that and that he supports Lords amendment 16, although it deals only with cross-border cases and covers those up to the age of 21. There is clearly a difference between us. I hope that the House of Lords will consider the points made by the Government and recognise our clear intent and commitment to seek to provide such support.
I want to address head-on the point about student accommodation made by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who I know takes a close interest in the issue of support for students and in the sector generally. A tenancy can be offered on a conditional basis when the visa is processed, and we will deal with that point when making the necessary codes and regulations to implement the scheme. I am sure that he will take a close interest in that further detail when it is published after the passage of the Bill. I hope that that clarification will help him and the sector at this time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) highlighted several points, particularly about unaccompanied children. My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) commented on the short-term need—the period in which social services should respond to the arrival of an unaccompanied minor in the UK—and the provision is intended to cover precisely those circumstances. I echo the hon. Lady’s comments about the tremendous work done by Barnardo’s, and she was right to draw attention to the support it provides at Cedars, but that support is intended for a longer period. In relation to unaccompanied children, we are talking about hours, rather than any longer period. Cedars can obviously provide support for a period of days in certain circumstances, as she knows. No unaccompanied child can be detained, but the operational reality is that unaccompanied children may need to be held for short periods in transit to a port of departure or while waiting after their arrival.
We will always seek to ensure that families remain together during their return, although temporary separation may sometimes be necessary to ensure that a family can return safely. We would not separate a family solely for a compliance reason; it will be done only when it is considered to be in the best interests of children for them temporarily to be separated from their parent or when the presence of one of the parents or carers is not conducive to the public good.
On the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central on Lords amendment 19, the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the UK—
EU Ban on import of Indian Alphonso mangoes
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
If you were at Prime Minister’s questions today, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would know that I asked the Prime Minister about the EU mango ban, a decision taken by the European Union without consulting this House or British Ministers. This vote took place with officials. Last week I asked local residents who were affected by this to gather a petition so I could present it to the House, and in a very short time 329 local residents have signed it—people who regularly buy and eat mangoes and those who sell them. I present this petition today on behalf of Hasmukh Pabari, Darmesh Lakhani, president of the Belgrave road traders association, Joga Sandhu, Shahidullah Khan and Ratilal Patel.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Leicester East,
Declares that the EU ban on the importation of Alphonso mangoes from India is unjust, that petitioners are anxious about the hugely detrimental impact that this ban will have on the livelihoods of millions of people in, and on the economies of, both the UK and India, and further declares that there has been a significant lack of consultation with both the Parliament and the affected people.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs do everything possible to reverse this ban, to develop an action plan on how best to progress in this matter and to better communicate with the people affected.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001348]
Self-Build and Custom-Build
That this draft Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Conditions) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 9 April, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 313 / Noes: 205 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to have an Adjournment debate on the importance of self-build and custom-build housing, and particularly to do so in national self-build week, so may I start by thanking you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this debate in national self-build week?
Grand Designs Live has been taking place at the ExCeL centre in the last few days and has had over 100,000 visitors, and I know that a number of Department for Communities and Local Government Ministers have attended the event, which was greatly appreciated. It was an excellent thing to support. I also want at the outset to give credit to Mr Ted Stevens for all his work in this area. He runs the National Self Build Association, NaSBA, and he has done much, against the odds, to promote this sector and help people understand that building their own property, or getting a piece of land and getting somebody to build a property for them, is possible.
My interest is as the recent founder and chairman of the new all-party group on self-build, custom-build and independent housebuilding. I should also say at the outset that the term “self-build” is in some ways perhaps almost uniquely unhelpful as it immediately creates the impression that everyone who wishes to do this has to learn how to become a plumber or an electrician or a joiner, and that simply is not the case. Probably the best definition I have come across was in a paper by Alex Morton, then of Policy Exchange, called “A Right to Build: Local homes for local people.” I should say that Alex Morton has done a great deal to promote the interests of this sector and to draw the Government’s attention to its value. In answer to the question about what we mean by self-build, he stated:
“The notion of self-build…does not mean that the entire process is handled by a single individual from start to end. It means that an individual or family has had serious input in the design and construction of a house, a house they then live in for a prolonged period of time.”
At the moment, part of self-build’s image in this country is as running on a spectrum from the “muesli fringe” to the eccentric wealthy wives of hedge fund managers. Those elements do exist, and I say nothing against either of them. We might say that what the muesli fringe are trying to do with community-led, bottom-up solutions is reach for ways of dealing with housing problems in an environment in which they feel powerless. What I would like to do, and what I would like to see the Government do, is make it even easier for their voices to be heard. The idea of a muesli fringe at one end and hedge fund managers’ wives at the other is a caricature. Self-builders make up an important but small part of the housing market, with about one in 10 houses being built in that way.
The self-build market is divided into a number of different components. Perhaps the most established is what we might even call the “established market”, comprising people in their 40s, 50s or early 60s who already own a property and have the cash available to buy a plot, and whose typical budget is in the region of £250,000 to £350,000. Such people are primarily driven by the opportunity to have the home they really want and to reduce running costs. A moot point, which we might deal with later, is why the big national house builders, the top 10 of which are responsible for 50,000 houses a year, do not already build houses that have extremely low running costs. They build houses that have lower running costs than the ones they were building 20 years ago, but it is possible to build a house that costs £200 a year to run, as I found when I visited a Passivhaus in my constituency that was built by the excellent Saffron Housing Trust. As I was told that, I thought that that is exactly the sum we pay out on the winter fuel allowance each year, and it would be much better to have homes that cost little to heat rather than paying so much money to people to insulate poorly constructed and insulated homes of an old design. Of course this goes further than that because, as anyone who has watched “Grand Designs” will know, it is possible to build a house that actually makes people money—it makes an income because it is so fuel-efficient.
The sector I just described, the more established market, is only one part of the self-build market—or the interest for self-build, as I should call it. The potential boom that could arise in self-build will be driven by a different group of people: a younger generation in their 20s, 30s and perhaps 40s, many of whom are struggling to afford a new home and have much smaller budgets, perhaps of £100,000 or up to £200,000. Such people will be driven by the opportunity to have a say in the home they really want, but mainly by the affordability benefit.
One of the most important aspects of this debate is the idea that self-building is an eccentric or odd activity, because in fact the UK is the outlier. Nearly all the other countries in the developed world do this much better than we do. In Denmark 40% to 45% of houses are constructed in this way. In France and Germany, countries that are in many ways comparable to the UK, although France has a bit more land, the figure is more like 50% to 60%. The figure for Sweden is 65% and even the figure for little Austria is 80% or higher. The issue is the structure of our entire market and how difficult that makes it for anyone who would like to self-build to get things off the ground. People often do not have a real or effective choice that they can turn into a reality; it is an aspiration rather than a reality in many cases.
That brings me to the issue of choice in the marketplace. When we ask what people spend most of their money on, we find that for nearly all of us it is where we live, whether we are renting or buying, yet more genuine choice exists in the market for beer, apples or perhaps even toothpaste than in the market for housing. It is an extraordinary paradox that where people spend the most money, they also have the least choice. That happens because of a collision of at least three important facts. The first fact is land—they have stopped making it. There is no land any more—there is a permanent scarcity of land, which leads to fact No. 2: the planning system. There is a plethora of rules and regulations that have been developed over many decades to deal with that scarcity. Thankfully, the Government have slimmed down the planning regulations from an indigestible 1,300 or 1,400 pages to something that the lay person can begin to read and get their head round. That was very much overdue, and I give enormous credit to the Government for doing so.
The system still has to cope, whether there is a 52-page policy framework or whether there are hundreds and hundreds of pages. It has to deal with the intrinsic issue of the tension between competing land uses. Fact No. 3 is the nature of the stock market and our very open capital markets. I mentioned earlier that the top 10 house builders do about 50,000 houses a year; the top 25, including the next 15, do another 25,000. The top 25 are responsible for about 74,000 or 75,000 houses a year. Because they are large and publicly quoted, they have relatively easy access to the capital that they need. They buy up the land that they need to build, and sit on it, land banking it in some cases for years.
“Land banking” is something of a misnomer, because it implies that people buy the land, but they do not always do so. What they often do is buy the option to buy it. They pay a landowner a sum for the right to buy the land for a specified period in future, and by doing so they can obtain the advantages of owning the land—crucially, preventing anyone else from owning it or even trying to buy it—without the inconvenience and cost of capital outlay. That approach, from their point of view, is much more flexible.
The current system does not give large house builders an incentive to become long-term place makers and place shapers. I do not blame large, national house builders for acting as they do: they are merely acting rationally within the constraints of the system. In fact, one could say that large-scale house builders are not so much incentivised as required by the current system to take as short-term a view as possible. They have to get in, build the houses and sell them. They have to pay as small a contribution as they can get away with towards the infrastructure; then they have to get out.
What is the result? Kevin McCloud, the presenter of “Grand Designs” who spoke at a packed all-party meeting—I am pleased that DCLG Ministers attended—said:
“The consumer has been on the receiving end of a pretty poor deal. We build some of the poorest performing, most expensive and smallest homes in Europe. That’s not something to celebrate.”
It could be quite different. According to Ipsos MORI, 53% of the adult population would like to build a house at some stage in their life, and 30% would like to do so in the next 15 years. Some 14% are researching how and what to do, and whether they can finance it. More than 1 million people want to buy a site and start building in the next 12 months.
Much of that is aspirational thinking demand rather than actualised demand, if I can put it that way without getting too Hegelian. The fact is that it is very, very difficult. If someone tries, the first thing they encounter is some official at the council saying, “Have you done the archaeological survey?” They will say, “I’m sorry, I didn’t know that I needed to do an archaeological survey.” At every stage, the process is made as difficult as possible. The two key issues are the availability of land for purchase by individuals and finance. I pay tribute to Lloyds bank, which helped to sponsor the report published by the university of York a year ago. That report was entitled “Build-it-yourself? Understanding the changing landscape of the UK self-build market”. Stephen Noakes, who is a senior official at Lloyds bank and head of mortgages, came to our last meeting with DCLG Ministers.
The university of York report points out—and Mr Noakes from Lloyds bank dwelt on this—the need to create structures that de-risk the process and make it easier for financiers to come in and take a serious interest and a serious stake in this space.
The university of York report states:
“Both individual and group self-build are characterised throughout by uncertainty. In part this is due to the components of self-build being organised as a series of silos and disjunctures. Each step (land acquisition, design, planning, finance etc.) is often taken without any certainty that subsequent steps will be realised. Uncertainty brings delay and sometimes additional costs. Few steps have been taken towards forging more integrated approaches, but these could bring significant benefits in terms of greater certainty, less risk, control of costs and speed of completion.”
A variety of different mechanisms might be used for that. Off-site construction, which is now a completely different world from what it was when we spoke pejoratively of prefabs 50 years ago, is one such example. The Passivhaus that I mentioned earlier, which I visited in my constituency, had triple-glazed windows that were constructed off-site and installed as completed units. Why is it that all house builders in this country do not as a matter of standard policy install triple-glazed windows, because it would be much better and much more energy efficient in the long term?
The Government’s response so far has been quite encouraging. The announcement in the Budget, which did not get a huge amount of coverage, but which I was enormously excited by, was for £150 million to help councils to develop serviced plots. A serviced plot is what it sounds like. It is a plot where, instead of being a scruffy piece of land where people cannot see which bit they own and which bit they do not, the difficult bits have already been done. The roads and sewers have been constructed and the foul and fresh water have been connected for the housing, as have the electricity and the gas. There is a lot of experience of that on the continent. In the Netherlands, where this has been done in Almere, which is just opposite Amsterdam on the other side of the IJsselmeer, if 100 serviced plots are put on the market at the same time, people queue through the night, like they do outside Harrods before the January sale, for the chance to buy one.
There is enormous pent-up demand in this country as well, but it just does not know where to go or how to get a foothold. That is why the Government’s initiative to promote the development of more serviced plots, essentially to take steps towards a much more integrated approach, is so important. It is—I say advisedly—only £150 million. I would have preferred it if it had been even more, but it is not nothing. It will do a considerable amount for the self-build sector. It will make a big difference in the next couple of years. I fully expect it to be a success, particularly as the money is recyclable. The money has to be put in for the plot. Simple mathematics tell us that £150 million for 10,000 plots is £15,000 a plot, but the money is returned, and it can be used again. That is the great attraction of this approach. I hope that once it has proved successful, as I am sure that it will, the Government will take this considerably further.
What I had not appreciated when I started getting interested in this was the breadth of possibilities of self-build and custom-build. My first interest in the sector was spawned by representing a very rural constituency where many young couples simply cannot imagine how they will get on the housing ladder, let alone in the village where they grew up, have a stake in their own community, own their own house and start a family there in the way that they saw their parents do.
The multiple of average income that is required to buy an average house is now nine times, when years ago it was three or four times. The position has got a lot worse even in the past 10 years or so. One has only to look at the decline in the proportion of people who own a house to see how desperate many young people must feel and how difficult they must regard the future in terms of achieving what their parents achieved, which they might have thought that they, too, would be able to achieve.
I have begun to realise that the potential is much wider. I pay particular tribute to Stella Clarke, who runs the Community Self Build Agency in the Bristol area and who came to one of our all-party group meetings with Kevin McCloud, for finding young men from ethnic minorities, who might have been rioting five or 10 years ago, and getting them to the point where they are building a stake in their own community. This is not necessarily about everyone learning how to become a plumber or an electrician, but it is also true that this space does present enormous opportunities for the skills agenda.
Saffron housing association, in addition to doing great work locally, has launched an apprenticeship scheme for micro-businesses that find it too difficult to take on the administration of having an apprentice. It has taken 20 students from Diss high school and said to the micro-businesses, “We will handle all the paperwork for you to have an apprentice. You just take the apprentice.” The scheme has been so successful that the Minister for Skills and Enterprise who is responsible for apprenticeships has been to see it. The scheme will be repeated again this year.
I do not think for one moment that we will all learn how to become plumbers, electricians and joiners, but we should not underestimate the scheme’s potential to help people who have felt marginalised, disaffected and cut out to have a stake in society. They can physically help in the process of building their own stake in society.
Berlin has gone further and proved that this movement can be done at scale, which is why I plan to take a group of parliamentarians and others to Berlin at the end of next month. It is not simply a case of 50 units here, or 100 units there. Some 190,000 dwellings have been constructed in Berlin by self-build and custom-build groups. What is fascinating in Berlin is that the municipality—the local council or the Berlin senate—actively seeks to help. For example, a group of parents will come together and say to the local council that they want to build a block of apartments with a garden in the middle and a school. The social glue that holds them together is the fact that their children all have some special need. The parents have a common interest in developing something that meets their children’s needs. The local council will say, “How can we help you?” If it can be done there, it can be done here. In Berlin, a group of 25 women between the ages of 60 and 70 decided that they wanted to build an apartment block together. They are friends, and if one of them goes into hospital to have a hip replacement, she has 24 friends whom she knows will be there to look after her dog.
The building group model has tremendous possibilities, and the fact that this does not simply mean private individuals for private ownership is under-appreciated. I am a huge supporter of private individuals owning private property and having their own stake in society, but this model has been used successfully in the Netherlands, Berlin and elsewhere for community groups, rent and shared ownership. The possibilities are very broad indeed.
The possibilities for institutional investment are much broader than might first have been realised. If an institutional investor wants to gain exposure to the residential housing market, their option is to buy shares in one of the large national house builders. However, as Saffron housing has proved recently, it is possible even for a small to medium-sized housing association to launch a bond. Saffron recently launched a £125 million bond, which will be drawn down in stages over the next 30 years or so to finance its development programme. If there is an appetite among institutional investors for investing in that sort of vehicle, it is quite possible that if we gave those investors, who anyway have a need to invest for the long term, the opportunity to invest directly in unlocking land and infrastructure, there would be a considerable response, particularly if it were done in a way that coupled their investment horizon needs in a way that enabled place making to occur rather than simply the construction of housing units.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a compelling speech. I worked in commercial property real estate for 20 years before I came to this place, and the holy grail, particularly on residential property, is to get institutional investment flowing inwards to residential developments. May I just say that that is a non-political point? It is the crucial issue if we are to get housing balanced within the UK.
Mr Bacon
I am delighted by my hon. Friend’s supportive intervention. I believe that that is achievable, as there is institutional appetite and institutional demand out there. The thing that I find extraordinary about the current residential housing market, which to me proves that there is a systemic problem, is that we seem either to be almost in a state of sclerosis, with almost nothing happening and all the land on which anything might happen being optioned up to the hilt by large-scale house builders, so that individuals and small commuter groups can simply cannot get hold of it, or to be almost perpetually talking about the next housing bubble and how we need to dampen down demand.
On that point, I do not believe that the Help to Buy scheme has been a contributor to any putative housing bubble. I feared when it was launched that that would be the case, and we considered the issue in detail in the Public Accounts Committee when we took evidence from Sir Bob Kerslake as permanent secretary at the Department for Communities and Local Government. It is absolutely clear, and would be to anyone who considered the evidence, that the Help to Buy scheme has not contributed in any significant way to a housing bubble.
The housing market cannot function as it should, in a reasonably non-volatile way, if we swing between these wild extremes of inactivity and housing bubbles when the need for people to have a roof over their heads does not go away. It is a sustainable long-term need that ought to be capable of being met through institutional investment that is, after all, looking for a long-term sustainable return. I do not think that it is beyond the wit of man or woman to link those two, and there are interesting possibilities, although in this short debate I shall not have time to explore them fully.
After the Budget, I stopped an aide of the Prime Minister in the corridor to thank him for the £150 million provided in the Budget for serviced plots. When I explained that it was for self-build and the nascent but not yet legalised right to build that we want to see, his instant response was to say, “Oh, I want to do that.” The number of people I have conversations with who say, “Oh, I have always wanted to do that,” is why I believe the Ipsos MORI figures.
There is a difference between having an aspiration and being able to do something about it and there is such a big gap between the two because of the structure of our housing market, which does not really meet customers’ needs. The Government have made an enormously important start with this £150 million. This approach could become the new normal, but the fundamental shift that we need is to start treating the building of houses as if customers mattered.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) on securing this debate and pay tribute to him for his work as chairman of the new all-party group on self-build, custom-build and independent housebuilding. I appreciated the opportunity to address the all-party group a few months ago. Let me also put on record my appreciation for the massive contribution that Ted Stevens has made to the custom-build and self-build industry, driving it forward positively.
As we have heard, my hon. Friend is very passionate about this issue and is a persuasive advocate of custom and self-build housing. He has rightly highlighted the huge potential that broad sector has to help support the need to build more houses in this country. The debate could not be better timed. As he mentioned, we are in the middle of the second national custom and self-build week, which was launched on Saturday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government at Grand Designs Live. That is an initiative that my Department is delighted to support, as it draws national attention to the huge potential of this form of housing to become a mainstream housing option for any aspiring home owner in this country.
Why does this question matter to the Government and why do we support the sector? Unlike the previous Administration, who did absolutely nothing to support self-builders and custom-builders in this country, the Government are committed to and are offering strong support to this part of the sector. We face a huge challenge in building the number of homes that are needed, and we must look at all opportunities to stimulate that supply. Supporting more self-build and custom-build housing is part of a much bigger package of housing supply initiatives the Government are introducing to get more homes built. Some 165,000 affordable houses will be completed next year to add to the housing supply. We have just closed on bids to deliver another 170,000 houses in the years to 2018. We have allocated some £1 billion to deliver 10,000 houses in the private rented sector and we have launched a prospectus to encourage councils to bid for £300 million to deliver housing across the sector.
My hon. Friend kindly mentioned the Help to Buy scheme, and I agree that it is a huge encouragement to enable people to get on the housing ladder. Some figures have been issued in the last 24 hours that are pertinent to the debate. Under the Help to Buy scheme, the average mortgage is £145,000 with an average deposit of £36,000. While it is a vital part of our offer on housing, it constitutes only 2% of transactions, and I do not believe it is fuelling a bubble.
Many people would love to own their own home. As my hon. Friend said, research by Ipsos MORI has shown that more than 1 million people want to do so in the immediate future. That strong level of interest is not surprising. Custom-build and self-build housing offers people more choice and the ability to design a home to suit their own needs, leading to greener and better designed homes. In many cases, that is more affordable than buying a home in the conventional way. A report published by Lloyds Banking Group concluded that self-builders can save between 20% and 25% on the cost of an equivalent home on the open market, a crucial saving for those who are trying to get on the housing ladder.
There are wider benefits. A strong custom-build sector helps diversity and strengthens our house building industry, bringing new opportunities for medium and small house builders. It can also speed up the supply of new homes where there is strong demand for plots. It sustains and creates new jobs and supports local economies. As my hon. Friend said, it helps young people who are going into apprenticeships and vocational jobs—an important part of the economy—which are facilitated by this type of build.
Let us be clear. The custom-build sector already makes an important contribution to our housing supply with around one in every 10 homes being built or commissioned by individuals. That is much more than many volume builders are already building. It is important to say that custom-build and self-build are already facilitating a turnover of around £4 billion per year.
There is significant growth potential in the sector. Among our European neighbours, more than half of all new homes are built and commissioned by self-builders—about 60% in Germany and more than 80% in Austria. We must do more to facilitate that, which is why we have looked at our national planning policy framework for land to ensure that councils can assess and plan for the needs of people who want to build their own homes. I encourage my hon. Friend and the all-party group to contribute to the call by Nathalie Elphicke and Keith House for evidence on how to get and utilise more local authority land for building houses.
As has been mentioned, there is a real challenge in securing finance. We have launched a £30 million custom-build homes fund to provide repayable finance for larger custom-build developments. We have given self-build groups access to some £65 million under the affordable housing guarantee programme. We are engaging with lenders to ensure that there are more self-build mortgages available in the sector.
This Government now have a strong reputation for removing red tape. Self-builders are now exempt from the community infrastructure levy, potentially saving them thousands of pounds on individual projects. We have just finished consulting on a similar policy to change section 106 charges. We have also simplified design and access statements and made it easier to change the use of buildings to housing, which the industry has welcomed.
An important aspect is making sure that we can get advice out to consumers and developers. We have worked with the custom and self-build sector to launch an online portal to provide better information for self-builders. It has received more than 35 million hits and now attracts about 20,000 new users each month. That is fantastic progress and a clear demonstration of the interest in this sector. We were delighted to be able to secure Kevin McCloud as the new industry champion. He is doing an excellent job in raising public awareness of the benefits of custom-build. We have worked closely with the National Self Build Association to facilitate a range of new guides and advice to councils, developers and consumers on self-build and custom-build housing.
We have had some successes to date. There are up to 5,000 new plots in the pipeline and many new projects coming forward across the country, with thousands more to come. Some 60 councils have brought forward land and new initiatives, including Stoke, Cherwell, Woking, Hereford, Cambridge and Newcastle. We now have 26 lenders who are interested in this sector—10 more than in 2011. We have cut red tape, as I mentioned, and put portals in place to make sure that people have access to information. Making custom-build a mainstream housing option is very important for this Government, but we recognise that there is still a long way to go in doing so. The next step is to end the myths about this sector, and that will be a significant move forward.
In the Budget, we made some major commitments to driving this forward. I recognise and appreciate my hon. Friend’s comments about the consultation that is about to take place on right to build. That proposal recognises that some councils already provide land for custom-build, in response to local demand. We want to encourage that further. We will identify a small number of councils that want to act as vanguards to test how the right-to-build model would work in practice. We have been very generous, I might say, in providing £150 million in repayable finance. As he said, there is the potential for more if we can get the traction we need. The idea that we can recycle that money is extremely important. We want to get those shovel-ready plots out there delivering 10,000 custom-build houses.
Mr Bacon
My hon. Friend mentioned a couple of points that I want to test him on. The community infrastructure levy was removed from self-builders, rightly, although that creates a financial incentive for local councils to be less keen on self-build because they do not get the benefit. Does he agree that it is absolutely vital to hold the feet of local councils to the fire in fulfilling the duty that has now been placed on them to measure demand for self-build and to say what they are going to do about it?
Does the Minister also think that there is scope for encouraging enlightened national house builders with large land banks—some of which are at an advanced stage and some of which are less so—to make a proportion of that development available for self-build? If they did, they would probably sell them rapidly and that would encourage them to do more.
Kris Hopkins
On councils, my hon. Friend will forgive me if I leave contemplations about the community infrastructure levy to the planning Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles). What I would say, as a former council leader myself, is that, in the majority of cases, we are building houses for people who live in those communities. Really strong leadership is about understanding demand and this particular way of responding to it. I want more councils to embrace that and we need to encourage them to do so. We need to provide leadership from this House by offering guidance through the right to build and other measures that demonstrate that there is a clear outcome for communities and the individuals who live there.
I have seen lots of evidence that the major builders are not land banking, but that does not mean that there is not huge potential, particularly for local authorities that own a vast amount of land. I encourage my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk to respond to the call for evidence from Elphicke and House, which I think will begin to shape the debate about this part of the housing offer, which will be facilitated by the local authorities that own that land.
I have touched on the Budget. We want to look at how we can extend the Help to Buy equity loan scheme. High-level conversations are being held about how we can facilitate that and we will make further announcements in the future. It is important to make sure that we provide support to the sector through Help to Buy and, in particular, to understand the demands of the sector. Money will be released in stages for a custom-built house, while it is usually released in one transaction for a conventional build.
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend that custom and self-build should be—and I hope will be through our efforts—a mainstream housing option in this country. Given the Government’s measures and the support of my hon. Friend in challenging the myths about custom and self-build, I believe we are firmly on the path of realising that ambition. I again thank him for securing this debate and look forward to working with him and other hon. Members to help support this important sector and enable more people to realise their ambition to build their own home.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Home Department
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Rotheram
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what deadline she has provided to chief constables by which they must hand over any evidence to the Independent Police Complaints Commission in relation to Hillsborough.
[Official Report, 8 April 2014, Vol. 579, c. 202W.]
Letter of correction from Karen Bradley:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on 8 April 2014.
The full answer given was as follows:
Karen Bradley
The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), wrote to all chief constables on 4 March 2014 to request that all police forces search their records to establish whether they possess any material that relates to the Hillsborough tragedy. The Minister asked if this could be completed by 4 April 2014 and asked that every police force responds, even if it is to record a nil response.
The correct answer should have been:
Karen Bradley
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wrote to all chief constables on 4 March 2014 to request that all police forces search their records to establish whether they possess any material that relates to the Hillsborough tragedy. The Home Secretary asked if this could be completed by 4 April 2014 and asked that every police force responds, even if it is to record a nil response.
Petition
Crossing at Gipsy Lane, Leicester
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
S4C and Welsh Identity
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
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
As always, wherever we are, it is a pleasure for me to speak under your always fair chairmanship, Mr Brady.
S4C and its link with cultural identity are hugely important and a matter on which there is a large measure of agreement across all parties and among all Welsh MPs, so I would have liked to have had a lot of Members from other parties present for the debate and a good audience. Unfortunately, however, we clash with the Welsh Grand Committee, which Members must attend because it is an important meeting to discuss the recent Budget, so I fear that we may be short of the sort of numbers that I might have expected. That is not a reflection of the interest of Welsh MPs in the future of S4C, because interest is strong.
My personal interest became much more exaggerated in the 1960s and 1970s, when I became much more aware of my identity and of the person I was, as we do when we get older. That was when I realised I was Welsh to the core; first and foremost, I would always say that I was Welsh. I have looked through lists of my ancestors, and I do not have a single one who was not born in Montgomeryshire, Sir Drefaldwyn. Every single one was a first-language Welsh speaker—I have gone through books that people have written.
In the 1960s, my generation—my five sisters and I—was the first not to speak Welsh; we spoke only English. When I became a Member of the National Assembly for Wales in 1999, the sense of identity was such that I felt that I had to learn to speak Welsh. Since then I have become bilingual, and if anyone were to ask me what I was proudest of doing in my life, one of those things would be becoming bilingual in the language of my nation.
People have asked me why I sought today’s debate. It stemmed from a meeting I had with the chief executive of S4C, in which we talked about the budget and programme development—I will come on to that. It was a chance conversation, three years on from the trauma that we experienced when we broke the inflationary link, in terms of guaranteed funding for S4C. We also changed the arrangements for the funding, so that it came via the BBC Trust, from the licence fee. That change was huge, and it was a sensitive issue, causing a huge amount of trauma in Wales.
Another factor in the timing of the debate is that we have a new Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. There must be something of an induction course for the new Secretary of State, because he will see that the S4C issue is not a quiet one. When it raises its head, it might well be on his desk more than he expects. The issue is important, and he needs to be aware of just how important S4C, the Welsh language and the cultural link between them is to the Welsh people.
S4C is inextricably linked to the language and Welsh identity. More than anything else, it is the Welsh language that makes Wales special. If we look at a nation, we wonder what it is that makes it distinct or special, and the Welsh language is what makes Wales special. As I said, my first interest in Welsh identity, including in the language, developed in the 1960s. At that time—this might come as a shock to my colleagues—I won a bardic chair. I wrote a 20,000-word essay on the future of the Welsh language. It might cause some amusement to hear that my pseudonym was Taurus ap Tomos; make of that what you will.
The conclusion of my essay was pessimistic, although not an unusual one in the 1960s: it was that the Welsh language would disappear as a used language in the long run. We have made a huge advance since then, because that is not something that people would say today. It is easy to forget just how negative we were.
Before 1982, there was a lead-up to the establishment of S4C. Some Welsh language programmes appeared in the 1960s and 1970s on other platforms, such as the BBC and HTV Cymru. Before the 1979 general election, there was a big debate about whether a new Welsh language channel would be created. It was created, although there was a bit of a hoo-hah after the election. The Government of the day were facing a lot of economic and budgetary pressures. There was a lot of support for a new channel; the Welsh community came together and applied pressure as well, as they did three years ago, too. The then Government, led by Mrs Thatcher, created S4C in November 1982, and that was a huge stepping-stone.
Despite the hoo-hah leading up to it, the creation of S4C under a Conservative Government is something that I can look back on as a huge step forward for the language. If we look at the record of the Conservative party, creating S4C was not the only thing it did: the Welsh Language Act 1993 was another huge step forward, and the creation of the Welsh Language Board was another Conservative initiative.
I am therefore proud, not only of the 1982 creation of S4C—there can be debate about how that happened; there was the influence of Gwynfor Evans’s threat to fast to death, and Opposition criticism of the prevarication in introducing the necessary Bill—but of its budget. Ever since the beginning, there has been a good and adequate budget. S4C has been good value. In 1991, the guaranteed link with inflation was introduced, and that funded the channel on a confident basis right up until 2010, when the incoming Government faced a similar position to that of the Government who came to power in 1979: there were huge threats to the economy and a need to cut back on public expenditure, which lead to substantial debate.
There is room for much debate on the impact of the inflationary link. I was pretty nervous about breaking that link, as all of us probably were. In the end, I accepted it. There has been a positive element to the inflation link: S4C had a guaranteed income in a business in which forward commitments need to be made, and independence from Government interference. However, being a statutory link, an element of complacency arose, as it does when there is a guaranteed income. That guaranteed income meant that S4C had to keep thinking not about its market, but about satisfying the people in control of paying it. Breaking the link was important.
It was quite an experience being involved in breaking the link. I served on the Committee that examined the Public Bodies Bill. I had 1,200 e-mails on the issue, which is four times more than on any other subject since I became an MP. After I had spoken—or it might have been my vote that did it—I became something of a target. We even had someone carted out of the Public Gallery, because they were disturbing a debate. There was a huge rumpus in Wales. I was being doorstepped all over the building by various people lobbying. That showed me that the people of Wales really cared about their channel. They were worried that changes would damage it, although over the past three years, things have worked out okay.
There was a second big change: rather than being funded directly from Westminster, the channel is now funded from the licence fee through the BBC Trust, an issue that has raised its head this morning. A lot of people worried about that change at the time, and have been worried since. Their worry is that we need an independent S4C that is not influenced by a paymaster—that is, not influenced by the BBC. I must say that the relationship between S4C and the BBC in Wales is terrific—better than anybody could have expected.
The comments we have heard today are a bit overblown. The director of BBC Cymru Wales has made comments about viewing figures at peak hours, which might be perceived to be about wanting to influence the managerial side of S4C, but I am not sure that that is right. It is crucial that S4C is free and independent—editorially, operationally and managerially. The slightest suggestion that there might be some interference in that has caused a huge hoo-hah. In a sense, I welcome that, as it emphasises just how important that independence is.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As an Ulster Scot, I am very aware of the need to preserve and encourage identity. In Northern Ireland, 35% of the population see themselves as Ulster Scots—that is 250,000 people from a population of 1.7 million—so I understand the identity that the hon. Gentleman is trying to preserve. The issue is important for us as well. In Northern Ireland, we have BBC channels and programmes that promote our identity. Does the hon. Gentleman see S4C and also the BBC as conduits to enable others to have input into the Welsh identity and language?
Glyn Davies
Indeed I do. S4C is particularly important because it is a Welsh language channel, but of course BBC Wales is hugely influential. It is a discrete part of the BBC and is committed to the language. It works closely with S4C, providing programmes, and the relationship is very good. That was not always the case, but it certainly is at the moment.
There is one aspect of the Public Bodies Act 2011 on which I would like a reassurance from the Minister—I am sure he will be happy to give it. Section 31 states that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport must ensure “sufficient funding” to deliver a Welsh language channel in Wales. That is rather imprecise. However, it is important that it is stated in the Act that the Secretary of State should do that.
My focus today is on the link between S4C and the language, because that is what I think is most important, but to a lot of people, the importance of S4C is about not just the language but the contribution that it makes to the economy. I was involved in economic development for the whole of Wales around the time that S4C was created. There was a blossoming of the creative industries. A huge number of small businesses set up in parts of Wales where there had been depopulation, and to which it was difficult to attract other forms of business. S4C does not produce its own work but commissions it, and a large proportion of those commissions go not to the BBC but to independent companies. Today we have four major companies that produce work for S4C. Those include: Boom Pictures, a successful international company; Tinopolis, a major company that produces “Question Time”; Rondo; and Cwmni Da, a company that has sold programmes to China.
We should not forget, however, that the last thing we want is for S4C to drop into a comfort zone. We need to make certain that it is not just the four established companies with good relationships with S4C that continue to get all the work, and that there is still that blossoming of new, small companies in the more remote parts of Wales where it is still more difficult to develop the economy.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes an important point about S4C’s contribution in commissioning work from smaller companies. Remarkably, since the reduction in funding, the variety of companies supplying work for S4C has increased, whereas before the reduction, companies—especially those from the north-west—saw a significant contraction in the number of programmes that they supplied to S4C.
Glyn Davies
Indeed. I was not aware of the precise way in which the creative industries had developed in Wales, but it is generally known that over the period leading up to the break in the funding link, there was a real fall-off, with too much concentration on Cardiff-based companies. Members for Cardiff might feel cross about that remark, but the key thing about S4C is that small companies can operate in areas where the language has traditionally been strong. We must not forget that. We do not want to return to complacency—a comfort zone in which we have what we have and S4C does not look to continue to develop new companies that can become the big successes of tomorrow.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend will have heard that S4C is moving its headquarters to Carmarthen. The economic contribution that that will make across west Wales is profound. His point is a good one, and one that S4C is beginning to realise itself.
Glyn Davies
I agree with my hon. Friend. There will obviously be views on whether S4C should move from the capital, where political activity is mainly based and the creative industries are concentrated, but the move is the right one. Where the language is under most threat is in what I term the heartlands, where Welsh is still the language of the street—Carmarthen is one of those places. Those are the areas where we have seen the biggest loss in Welsh speakers and where S4C can play a role in helping to stabilise any decline in the language.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I am hugely impressed by his prize-winning background— I had not heard about that until today. He is making an important point about the Cardiff-centric nature of institutions in Wales, which is a real danger. Does he agree that over the past few years one issue has been that Welsh-speaking people have been drawn to Cardiff and have settled in the Cardiff area, which has had an impact on the Welsh language in communities throughout Wales, in particular in north-west Wales?
Glyn Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point—I can only agree. It is inevitable, and in mid-Wales, where I live, it happened in a huge way—the population was disappearing completely. That is what developed my interest in public affairs. When I left school, I was the only person in the academic stream who stayed in the area; everybody else had to leave to find a job of any value of to them. But that trend has reversed to a large extent, as the numbers show: in Montgomeryshire, the numbers fell from 50,000 at the start of the last century to about 36,000 mid-century, but are back up to 50,000, so they went down but have come back up again. That is partly to do with the regional development policies of the Conservative Government of the 1980s, who invested greatly in the rural part of mid-Wales with great success.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
Like others, I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. To return to education and the importance of the language, does he agree that an essential role of S4C has been to buttress education policy in schools? It is not a tool of Government policy but has meant that children from an anglicised background have had the Welsh language made familiar in their homes in a natural way. Does he also agree that evidence for the fact that S4C is in no way complacent is the international success of many of its commissions, not least “Hinterland”, which was filmed in Ceredigion?
Glyn Davies
Indeed. The only difficulty I had with the programme was that it rained pretty much throughout the whole first episode and was probably not particularly helpful to attracting tourists to Ceredigion. However, I have watched the later episodes, and I must say that it is a hugely successful programme.
My request for today’s debate was instigated by my meeting with S4C to discuss future funding. Decisions on programming have to be made two or three years ahead, and those making the decisions need to have an idea of what their budget will be. Although most of S4C’s budget comes from the licence fee, which is fairly certain, a certain amount comes from the Westminster Government—from DCMS—and is guaranteed for only a limited period. Programmes such as “Hinterland” take more than two years to deliver, from first discussions to delivery, so to commit to a programme such as that, which is hugely successful and will be internationally successful, a fair degree of certainty is needed. That is one of the main reasons I requested today’s debate, in the lead-up to consideration of how S4C will be funded. The licence fee we know about, and the Minister may have already started discussions on its future. Officially, they will probably start after the next election.
I know that S4C will deliver a document later this month to start the process of discussing what S4C will be from 2018 onwards. The agreement is that that will be considered. The issue is long-term funding in the creative industry. If we are going to have good and internationally successful programmes such as “Hinterland”, we need to have a period in which the board and chief executive of S4C can commit to delivering programmes in two years’ time, and that requires some certainty about the budget.
The next point I was going to make was the move to Carmarthen; I will make it again to satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). I have said what I was going to say, but I just thought that I would say it twice to make him happy.
Very soon now—or perhaps it has already started—the Secretary of State will be starting the long process of reviewing the BBC’s charter, and part of that will be its relationship with S4C and the continuation of the funding stream. There will also be discussions, which I hope hon. Members will be part of, about S4C deciding what sort of organisation it wants to be. There will be big changes—nothing stands still, particularly in the fast-moving world of the creative industries. There has to be a serious look at how much money comes in from advertising: if that is part of S4C’s funding, that has to be taken into account, because it relates to audience figures. When I see headline audience figures, I never really trust them, because we have to look at the whole picture and what is behind the figures. S4C produces a lot of children’s programmes, which do not count in the measurement although it has been incredibly successful in that field, exporting all over the world. Also, there is a big move by all television channels to online programming, which inevitably leads to a reduction in audience figures. We have to look at the issue in the round before we make a judgment about viewing figures. There will be a significant debate about the sort of S4C we want. As I said, I think S4C is producing a document later this month. That will be a chance for us to start engaging with it.
The United Kingdom has been a hugely successful entity for centuries. A key part of that is that each nation in it, whether Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, has to feel a sense that it is belonging to a team and that its differences and uniqueness are properly recognised right across the UK; that the whole team recognises its special features. In Wales, we have a special language, which about 20% of people speak; it is hugely successful. We have probably stopped its decline, but there has to be a constant and continuous battle. It is a minority language—I am not sure that Welsh is absolutely a minority language; it is probably just classed as such, and it does not seem to be a minority language any more in Wales—and it is under threat. There is a constant battle to protect and boost it. That has to be respected throughout the United Kingdom, not just in Wales, where we all know about it, but in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is why it is important that we have a debate about S4C, the language and the identity of Wales here in the UK Parliament. That is why I have secured today’s debate and why I have enjoyed sharing my views on the issue with hon. Members.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) in congratulating the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) on securing this important debate.
Only last year, we were here to celebrate the 30th anniversary of S4C as the world’s only publicly broadcast Welsh language channel. Although at times the existence of the channel has been taken for granted, its importance to the people of Wales has not diminished in the slightest. As I said in the anniversary debate, the existence of S4C is a reminder of a diverse history of people—some of them famous, some of them pretty much establishment figures, and some of them definitely not establishment figures—all of whom came together to campaign for the Welsh language at a time when it was not fashionable to do so. That is important for us to remember. For some, it was a campaign that came from our universities and from this place; for others, it was a different campaign that involved refusing to pay their television licence; but for all those people, from wherever they came, we can never say too many times that we—that next generation of people active in Welsh political life—are in their debt, because without them, the channel would not have been created.
As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, we often have very personal reasons why we are so supportive of S4C. He took us through his own journey in the 1960s—one wonders whether he was long-haired and hippyish in those days, or merely a prize winner at cultural festivals. My personal experience was that of growing up in a bilingual community, where English was the language of the home, so for me S4C was not only a nice way to have a bit of extra Welsh, but a way of enabling me to study Welsh at first-language level at school. It was also the mechanism that normalised the use of Welsh for me, and I know that that is true for many other people. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) mentioned earlier the crucial importance of S4C in education. For people like me, it was the station that I could listen to when most of the Welsh speakers I knew were people who dealt in Welsh almost 24/7.
I know that that is even truer today. Many children who go to Welshmedium schools are without the advantage that I had of being in a bilingual community. It is an advantage, too, for non-Welsh-speaking parents who are trying to learn the language; for the wider community of people who are unable to speak Welsh themselves, but who are determined, as my father was, that it should be passed to the next generation; and for families with only one Welsh-speaking parent in London, Liverpool or even outside the United Kingdom who are trying to bring up their children to speak Welsh—no easy task and a tough challenge for families living outside Wales in an increasingly globalised world.
I do not propose to tread over old ground in this debate. The Minister remembers many of us from a few years ago. We remember that he watched “Fireman Sam”; I am sure that he has watched a lot more than that now. Many of us had real fears for S4C’s independence and funding when we tried unsuccessfully to get it removed from the Public Bodies Bill. We saw disproportionate cuts that meant S4C’s grant was reduced from £101 million in 2010 to £83 million in 2012. We saw it being chucked away. We have seen reductions of 1% in 2013-14 and 2% more in 2014-15, which clearly places stress on a channel that has already had to cut costs wherever it goes. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire described the experience as traumatic and talked about the difficulties of breaking the inflationary link. We must not forget, whenever we discuss the subject, that UNESCO classified the Welsh language as “vulnerable” and that S4C is the only television channel in the world that broadcasts in that language. To protect the language and not to allow it to disappear, we must support institutions such as S4C that use and promote the language successfully.
That is why I am asking the Minister today for a cast-iron assurance. Given the way the governance and funding of S4C were changed by this Government in 2011, the commitment to funding S4C needs to be included, and indeed, spelt out in the next BBC charter and in the negotiations. There can be no ambiguity about that. If S4C is to invest and thrive, a proper, costed commitment needs to be in there. I very much take on board what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said about its importance for the channel in planning ahead, and I would be grateful for a response from the Minister on that point.
However, if I want to make a challenge to the Government, I also want to make one to S4C. I know that S4C has decided to move its headquarters from Cardiff to Carmarthenshire. The hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) rightly spoke of the benefits to west Wales, and of course if I had been a west Walian I would have welcomed that. An often quoted figure is that £1 of investment into S4C brings about £2 into the Welsh economy, and the siting of the S4C headquarters in Carmarthen will bring undoubted benefits to that part of Wales.
Of course I realise that, realistically, the headquarters of S4C cannot be everywhere, but I want a commitment from S4C that its partnership working will be in all parts of Wales. A huge proportion—more than three quarters, I think—of S4C’s programmes are made by the independent sector, and we need a commitment from the channel that those companies will be chosen from right across Wales. That should not stop with direct commissioning; I want the institutions with which S4C does partnership working to be Wales-wide, too. That is critical.
S4C is very important to people all over Wales. It is important to people who speak Welsh, to those who are learning and to those who wish to learn. It brings people together and makes the Welsh language accessible in an age when modern media force us sometimes to question the nature of our cultural identity. I have no doubt that as long as Welsh people live and breathe, which, of course, will be for ever, the debates about Welsh cultural identity and the Welsh language will increase, not diminish. However, it is my hope that as the debate develops, we will not all sit in our respective partisan or ideological silos, but we will be open to good ideas from wherever they come. I hope that we will not only debate the channel directly, but look at other things connected with the Welsh language—for instance, the whole system of teaching Welsh as a second language. Last summer, I joined Ann Jones, the Labour Assembly Member for the Vale of Clwyd, and many other people in the letter campaign organised by the veteran Welsh language campaigner Ffred Ffransis, arguing that it is time for a thorough look at the system of second language Welsh education.
We also need to begin the debate again about distinctive policies for our heartland Welsh-speaking communities. I do not say that in any trite fashion: if we do not do this now, in 30 years’ time we are simply not going to have any. It is time that we at least consider models such as the Irish model of the Gaeltacht as one way of revitalising Welsh-speaking heartland communities. Wherever our debate on the Welsh language takes us—I believe that we have to very open and refreshed in our thinking on that—I am confident that S4C and its partnerships with Welsh creative industries will always be a vital part of it.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady, and I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) on securing the debate.
As I look at the Minister, I think he has probably participated in more debates on S4C than many other parliamentarians before him. He will remember the turbulent time that ensued after the 2010 general election, with the financial crisis that needed to be acted on. I was going to say that this is the first debate we have had while S4C is in a settled form, but the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) reminded me of last year’s debate on the 30th anniversary of S4C. That was an important marker to underline the significance of the channel and the cross-party support that exists and remains for it.
I want to go back over a couple of points in history. The Conservative record on S4C is extremely proud, having established the channel in 1982 with all-party support—it is important to recognise that—and it has had fantastic success over that period. It has received a number of Oscar nominations and several awards that we could cite. Animation, particularly, was a great success. It could be used across the globe in local languages and provided a major income earner for the channel, as well as the development of a skills base and the economic support generated through the work in the creative industries in those communities.
It is fair to say—I do not mean this in a party political way—that over the 10 years leading up to 2010, S4C might have been neglected by politicians, in that it was secure in the RPI link to its funding and it avoided a lot of parliamentary scrutiny, which led to it having a false sense of security that money would come, whatever the output, performance and measures we chose to use. Viewing figures were falling, which was a concern, and it simply could not carry on like that. Therefore, when it came to 2010, there was an extremely turbulent time when clearly, we had to look long and hard at all budgets, and S4C obviously could not escape the reality of the financial position. That led to resignations of board members and the sacking of chief executives. It was an extremely turbulent time shortly after the change of Government, from four years ago until today.
It is therefore worth pointing out the stability that has been delivered. The Minister has been constant throughout that period and has played a significant part in delivering the channel’s security. A delegation went to see him and the then Secretary of State for Culture, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), to underline the importance of the channel to all the issues my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire discussed—be it culture, language, economic development or celebrating the distinctiveness of Wales as a nation, because it is about not only broadcasting but nationhood and so on. I have no doubt that the Minister and the then Secretary of State absolutely understood that, after considering the matter not only in the budget round but following representations from Members of all political parties as to why S4C could not be treated lightly and had to be given the respect it deserved.
At the time, there were serious questions about the management and editorial independence that the new settlement and the new arrangements with the BBC would provide. Board members of S4C were questioning and criticising that, saying that the future of the channel would be in doubt if the current arrangements were allowed to ensue. I think that has been proven to be wrong. The relationship with the BBC is effective. The BBC provides a large part of its funding but it does—this is extremely important—continue to receive some funding from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. That needs to be maintained to show that it is not a subsidiary of the BBC. The BBC can raise questions about its performance, just like every other member of the public, and celebrate its great success when it performs as it has in the past and looks as though it will in future, and the way it has turned itself around. I pay tribute to the new chairman, the chief executive and the senior appointments made by them. That has secured the stability of the channel following the turbulent time I have talked about.
I want to continue with the theme of stability. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), again under the guidance of the Minister with us today, protected S4C from the budget cuts that could have resulted from the last comprehensive spending review. Again, that was a significant moment, because unlike almost every other part of Government expenditure, S4C was absolutely protected despite the need to make financial cuts and to address the financial reality. That was important, but we need to admit that at the time there was a tense debate about whether it could be secured. The Minister responded admirably and protected the budget, but I remember several people saying at the time that we should not be in that position in the future and that we needed to develop a system that would secure departmental funding for the channel and secure certainty, to allow it to budget and plan. Although only £7 million comes from the DCMS, that is a significant proportion of S4C’s reduced funding from the BBC. Therefore, it is exceptionally important that we consider that and provide S4C with the opportunity to plan over the short, medium and longer term. Many of the contracts that S4C needs to enter into need to be made now, but will last several years. Without some guarantee or commitment, it is difficult for it to plan in an efficient way that will result in the best use of public money. I hope the Minister can look positively and constructively at that issue. Clearly, there are no guarantees for ever, but the longer any guarantee can last, the better it is for any operator.
I want to make some points about the channel’s future. Comments have been made and questions asked about the viewing figures. They are important, but they are not all of the debate or all of the argument. S4C does need to broaden its appeal, and significant progress has been made in that regard in the last couple of years. Reference has been made to the importance of children’s programmes in the Welsh language, and the part that plays in enabling people to understand Welsh culture at an early age is, without question, vital.
In addition, S4C can be and is a major exporter. It plays a significant role in the creative industries. Mention has already been made of Boom, a company based in my constituency, and other companies that I know very well, such as Tinopolis, Cwmni Da and Rondo. They were based on the initiative that was about making programmes for S4C at the outset. Some of them are now global players in programme making and they deserve the credit for that. The wealth that that generates for the economy is extremely important. The seeds of that were obviously planted by the entrepreneurs, but thanks to the opportunities that S4C created. I am delighted that “Hinterland” is such a great success. That flagship programme is extremely important in demonstrating that programmes of the highest quality can be made and sold and exported all over the world. I hope there can be further Oscar nominations, but of course, that will depend on the quality. That would show those who do not live in Wales or view the channel regularly that, with a relatively small amount of public money, S4C can punch well above its weight through its output and attract further investment thereafter, as many other quality programmes have been able to do so far.
Finally, I want to talk about the multiplier effect. The argument could be made that of course, if we make £80 million or £100 million available to any region or nation of the UK, it can create a business and start exporting. However, for S4C the multiplier effect is without question at the forefront of any form of economic regeneration package. I have talked about the quality of the output and the export income that that can provide. Thanks to the stability that the current Administration have given the channel, for the benefit of all the people of Wales, that income will be greatly extended as S4C continues to develop output that can be exported, and the multiplier effect continues to grow.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. In the past couple of days, Welsh MPs might have thought that all their birthdays and Christmases had come at once. We discussed the Wales Bill yesterday; we have the Welsh Grand Committee today; and the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) has the debate following this one. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies)—I think I can call him that—on securing this important debate.
My constituency has some bearing on the debate, because it is the home of many of the small companies that have produced output for S4C and have provided additional services. That has led to great economic progress in my constituency. I sometimes introduce myself as the Member for Arfon, “where the main industries are tourism, agriculture and TV production.” That sometimes raises a few eyebrows, but it is true, because the TV sector in Arfon is extremely important.
I want to take a small step back into the history of S4C—Sianel Pedwar Cymru as I call it. Forgive me, Mr Brady, if I sometimes slip into calling it Sianel Pedwar Cymru, as that is how I see it, rather than S4C. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan referred to the establishment of the channel in the 1980s. Perhaps I can be the first to pay tribute to Sir Wyn Roberts for his titanic struggle to establish it. As a figure who did so much for the Welsh language, he is still underrated, and I am very glad to pay tribute to him today.
My history of the channel starts rather earlier, at a time when I had long hair, a checked shirt, jeans and clogs. [Interruption.] I know that that is difficult to believe, but there we are. Actually, I can see myself, sometime in the early ’70s, at Hyde Park corner, at a rally called by Cymdeithas yr laith Gymraeg, the Welsh Language Society, listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and being inspired by him. He is as sprightly as ever of course, but he made a speech that Sunday morning and I thought, “Well, if we can get an MP here to talk, there must be something to this.” It rather persuaded me not to pursue my studies in psychology and sociology and instead to pursue a political course, I am afraid, so I have named the guilty man—guilty to a certain extent—here today.
I would like to say a little first about the function of Sianel Pedwar Cymru. As has already been mentioned, it is a provider of programmes, a publisher and an employer, and it also provides a very useful economic stimulus in parts of Wales that in the past have not received the proper amount of attention in the media. As a provider, it is important that S4C produces popular programmes. Reference has been made to children’s programming, and speaking as a new father, my little son is obsessed with “Cyw” and the children’s programmes, as are children throughout Wales. S4C fulfils a hugely valuable function there. Reference has been made to “Y Gwyll”, or “Hinterland”, as it is called in English. Not only is that a very good programme—in Welsh and English—but, as the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan mentioned, it shows the world that we are out there with the best. It is an important stiffener to the spine and a bit of an inspiration.
Seeing as I am reminiscing, I remember being in a sociology conference at some point in the mid-’80s. Late at night—after, as they say, drink had been taken—I was discussing minority language broadcasting with people from the university of Hawaii. We eventually came to the conclusion that most TV was trash, but my contention was that if there was any trash going, it should be also available in Welsh. At that point, we decided to retire. That is a significant point, because the Welsh language has been seen over the centuries as the language of the chapel or of high literature, but S4C has an important function in providing popular material that will appeal to a wide audience.
I will not tarry to talk about S4C as an employer. It is an important economic stimulator. I was glad some weeks ago to be present at the opening in my constituency of the building for Cwmni Da, a hugely important production company run by local people who are now not quite so young. For those who judge companies by the way the people there dress, Cwmni Da is not a tie-and-shirt outfit but a jeans-and-sneakers one, and long may that continue. It is a challenging company.
That leads me on to one of my main points, which is a plea for stability of funding for S4C. As has been said, the planning cycle for programmes is long, and producers need to know that the money is there. I do not want to say that we are coming into another difficult period, because things have seemed difficult for rather a long time. I was part of the discussions on the Public Bodies Act 2011, and there was an existential threat to the channel. The money was going to disappear, and I was glad to work with people from across the House to ensure the channel’s future. It operates under an unusual model, and it needs public money. It shares the model of public service broadcaster with Channel 4 and, peculiarly, it has advertisements, even though it is a public service broadcaster. People outside Wales might not know that we have BBC programmes with adverts on either side, which some people find very strange indeed. It is a creative model that actually works, but it needs certainty to continue.
I want to talk briefly about the cultural importance of S4C, which is what we are discussing this morning. The channel is a means of cultural production and cultural reproduction—that is, of passing culture on to other people—and it defines the culture as well as being symbolic of it. We have everything on S4C from cartoons and rock and roll to religion and opera, and even, in the past, Oscar-nominated films. Television has a supremely important function in that respect.
People from England and the other parts of the UK know the reverence with which the BBC is viewed as the repository of all that is good about culture through the medium of English. S4C has something of that function, but it is even more important in Wales. The BBC is only one producer of programmes through the medium of English among hundreds of thousands across the world, but S4C is the only one that does it in Welsh. In that respect, its fragility is both hugely dangerous to the language and a huge opportunity. It literally makes Welshness.
A historian that I am fond of, Gwyn Alf Williams—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West knew of him when he was alive—said tellingly that Welshness is what Welsh people make. It is a function of our will to continue to be Welsh, and it is something that we create anew every day. Whenever we talk about identity, people make appeals to their ancestry. They say, “I have a grandfather who is Irish, a grandmother who is Scottish, and a second cousin through marriage who comes from Poland.” I have Irish ancestry, although that is by the bye. The important thing about S4C is that every day it makes Welshness apparent anew in a creative and radical way.
When I was preparing for the debate, I had a look at the definition of “radical”. S4C is the establishment embodied, because it is Welshness and it has all sorts of programmes including opera, but it is also a radical channel that breaks new ground all the time. The definition in, I think, “Webster’s Dictionary” said that “radical” meant changing and from the root, and was also a term of approbation among skateboarders. That shows how malleable meaning can be. S4C is radical, and long may it remain so, because it is at its best when it is most challenging, radical and creative. The Welsh word for that, to my mind, is “beiddgar”, which means not only challenging, but challenging the very heights when the chances of success are slim—pushing the boundaries. S4C has been beiddgar in such a way. I think it lost its way slightly, but it is going back in that direction.
Reference has been made to the importance of audience, and it is important, but I simply want to say that all channels are now minority channels. Long gone are the days when the Morecambe and Wise Christmas show could pull in 28 million viewers, or half the population of the UK. It is right for critics of S4C from other channels and from the media in general to recall that all channels are minority channels.
I want to finish with one point. S4C has been important in defining and symbolising the Welsh language over many decades, but we must always bear in mind—I wish there was equivalent action on this point—that we need broadcasting about Wales through the medium of English. I remember surprising one of my Labour colleagues some time ago in a debate about the language by saying that English is a Welsh language. That is literally true for 80% of the population in Wales. I finish with an appeal for broadcasting through the medium of English to be better funded, better resourced and better received in Wales.
Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)
Order. I have avoided setting a time limit, but we should start the wind-ups in about 10 minutes’ time. There are two hon. Gentlemen seeking to catch my eye, and I leave it to them to try to make sure that they both get called.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Brady, and I will be brief because I want to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) has to say. I congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) on securing the debate. Its title is “S4C and Welsh Identity”, and since many hon. Members have talked about the settlement and the past, current and future financing of the channel, I will talk predominantly about the importance of Welsh identity and S4C to me and to many of my constituents and fellow citizens in Wales.
I want to put on the record my praise for the pioneers who set up S4C. The issue is cross-party—the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire mentioned pride in his party, and we hear a lot about Gwynfor Evans and the role of Plaid Cymru—but I want to praise one of my predecessors, Lord Cledwyn Hughes, for the role he played as the Leader of the House of Lords at the time. That body was important in helping to push for the establishment of S4C.
I will just break the consensus with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire for a moment, because he mentioned this issue. Prior to the early 1980s, Welsh society felt that the Conservative Government of the time had broken their promise and that, as he said, they were prevaricating. A grand coalition of people within the Conservative party and from other parties came together to put pressure on the Government to honour their commitment to the people of Wales. It is important to put that on the record. Nevertheless, the language, culture and identity of the Welsh nation are far too important to belong to any one political party; they belong to the people of Wales, and we have seen that demonstrated today on a cross-party basis.
I was born in Wales to a family whose language in the home was English. My mother was from Liverpool, and I was brought up on the Beatles and Everton football club. I am still proud to support Everton and listen to the music of the Beatles. My father was Welsh speaking, but, in the 1960s, they spoke English in front of me out of courtesy, and I ended up being a non-Welsh speaker throughout my educational life.
Glyn Davies
A point that I did not make in my contribution was about what was happening when I was young—I am sure it was also happening in Ynys Môn. My parents were both first-language Welsh speakers, and they had a policy of never speaking Welsh in front of the children, because the language of failure was Welsh and the language of success was English.
Albert Owen
It is fair to make that point, as I made one about the language of my home. Indeed, people in the village in which I was brought up and still live used to speak English to me. They are very surprised when they now see me on S4C speaking Welsh, because I have learned the language. I wanted to learn it in order to play a full role in Welsh society: I belong to a bilingual society, so I wanted to be bilingual. I would like Wales to be trilingual, with people learning three, four or more languages. But we must never forget the Welsh language, which S4C has portrayed brilliantly.
We have heard today about S4C’s ability to put on classy productions. The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) spoke before me about opera and religion, but I think everyone has missed something out: sport. S4C is very good at showing sport. The Welsh national football team does not always qualify for the World Cup finals—in fact, it has not done so since 1958—but sport is important, because more young people in Wales watch it than many other TV programmes. They aspire to be the Olympian Colin Jackson, or the greatest footballer in the world, Gareth Bale, who also happens to be Welsh, so sport is important.
I watch football on S4C in the Welsh language, but we have the opportunity to use the little red button to listen to the commentary in either Welsh or English. That is hugely important, because it reaches a massive audience of our football and rugby fans—Wales has one of the best rugby teams in the world and people want to watch them. It is important that we break out of the perception that S4C is a minority channel in a minority language covering minority subjects. It is not; it covers sport and culture, as well as many other things that we aspire to do in Wales.
I learned the Welsh language by watching S4C. I listened to programmes and watched the subtitles on 888. Do people remember the old Teletext system? We would have to explain what that was to young people now, but we had subtitles, and we also had the service on 889—I think—which explained sentences when a new word was brought up for the first time. That way, people who were competent and had some knowledge of the Welsh language were able to follow the programme. Language is a live issue and S4C does cover the big issues of the day.
I want to finish my speech by touching on identity, which is important. I gave some brief background but do not have much time to go into other elements of S4C because I want to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West, as I promised. I do not think there is any contradiction between the Welsh and British identities. I am proud to be both Welsh and British—and, indeed, European—and see no contradiction there. British and Welsh society must move forward on that, because a person is not any less Welsh or inhibited from being so by being pro-British; nor is anyone any less British for being pro-Welsh.
The Minister will understand that we are discussing the British isles and a language in Britain that is thriving and moving forward. There are creative people in Wales and they want to express themselves through the medium of their own language. I am also pleased that the Cornish identity and language are taking new steps forward. I want these British isles to express themselves through their mother tongues. People should be proud to be Welsh and proud to be British. I am very proud that S4C has played a part in my life, and in the lives of constituents in Wales whom I represent.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The Conservatives deserve great credit for their work for the Welsh language—there is no question of that—but the summit of their achievements and the work of Wyn Roberts was in education rather than S4C.
I had a ringside seat at the genesis of S4C. In 1973, with a colleague, I wrote a document called “Television in Wales” that became Labour party policy. The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) used the word “fragility”; when one looks at how the campaign for a Welsh channel could have gone wrong in many ways, one sees that it had great luck. The main way that the campaign got the support of almost the entire Welsh population was through a conference in Cardiff called by the lord mayor in 1973. Everyone was saying, “Yes, we want a fourth channel.” The monoglots wanted one not because of their love of the Welsh language but because they wanted an all-English channel. That was a coincidence.
John Davies’s marvellous record of the history of broadcasting contains details about the Broadcasting Council for Wales that I thought would always remain confidential. He records that in 1978 only two voices on the Broadcasting Council for Wales were fourth-channellers. The idea was dead, impractical and was not going to happen. Again, there was a coincidence: Margaret Thatcher happened to be reading about Irish history at the time and saw the audience in Sophia Gardens pavilion in Cardiff chanting “Gwynfor! Gwynfor!” because such a majestic figure in Welsh politics was going to starve himself to death if there was no fourth channel. She read about the effect on Irish nationalism of the deaths—the martyrs—in the Easter rising; about how Irish nationalism multiplied and grew strong. Although the great and the good came up from Wales to change her mind, that was the real reason, and to our great good luck we now have a Welsh language channel.
I think of why we bother to go on. There is a great poem by T. H. Parry-Williams that I recorded from S4C being read beautifully by John Ogwen, about Wales as an untidy part of the world for people who believe in order, a bit of a nuisance, and a tiny place where they speak in a strange way. It is difficult to get across the value of a wonderful, beautiful ancient language. The Hungarian litterateur István Széchenyi asked where he could find the Hungarian nation if he left it. He came up with the phrase, “The nation lives in her language”; not through a language, but in her language, as a place where all the wisdom of a nation—the proverbs, the humour—has come rolling down the centuries and is there enshrined as a living medium. That is the feeling we have for the language.
That lovely poem by T. H. Parry-Williams ends by saying:
“Duw a’m gwaredo, ni allaf ddianc rhag hon”.
We cannot escape from that; it is part of us. It is the great treasure of the language. It is marvellous that none of us who, in 1973, had such an impossible dream that we were told was hopelessly impractical would have believed that a day could come when there was universal approval in this House for the marvellous achievements—beyond our wildest dreams—of S4C.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Brady. I congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) on securing the debate and introducing it with characteristic charm. He is right that we have a lot of Welsh business this week. I bring apologies from my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), who is attending the Welsh Grand Committee this morning. Obviously I am not Welsh, but I do remember the introduction of the Broadcasting Act 1981. In my first job when I left university, I worked for a man called Phillip Whitehead, then the MP for Derby North. He was a former television producer and he was on the Broadcasting Bill Committee, so we did a great deal of work to set up both Channel 4 and S4C. One of the people also working on that was a researcher for Plaid Cymru, Aled Eirug, who I am pleased to see is now on the board of S4C. That demonstrates how a not just bipartisan but multipartisan consensus was built, which has been so important for S4C.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire is absolutely right to point to the importance—indeed, the centrality—of the Welsh language to Welsh identity. The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) said that identity is about more than ancestry. I think he put it very well when he said that S4C is in the business of cultural production and reproduction. That is an extremely important point, because it is no good if the language is unchanging; it must be a living language, central to people’s lives, developing and changing all the time. Given that television is the medium that most people use to get entertainment, news and information, it is essential to continue support for S4C.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire also said that—I am borrowing his words—after the election in 2010 there was a funding trauma. It is clear that the changes and the big cut—20%—made by the coalition Government posed significant challenges to S4C. Many hon. Members have spoken about the importance of moving to a more stable situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) and the hon. Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) and for Arfon all made that point. Although we do not anticipate a review of the royal charter after the next general election, it is important that we achieve greater stability so that S4C can make intelligent plans for its programme production. It works on a two to three-year time scale and will not be able to maintain the high standard of programming that has been developed without funding certainty, so whatever structure is chosen, we must be able to be confident that it can be sustained in the medium term.
Hon. Members have pointed out the many good and enjoyable programmes being made by the indie sector for S4C, from sport and religion to drama. Selling noir drama back to the Scandinavians is a triumph. It is clear that these high-quality programmes are strongly appreciated in Wales: 92% of people think that S4C is the best channel for Wales, and 97% say that S4C keeps the language alive. Everybody very much hopes that we can establish a system to maintain that excellent track record.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) on securing this important debate. I immensely enjoyed his lyrical contribution, as well as the outstanding contributions from other Members this morning, including my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) and the hon. Members for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), for Arfon (Hywel Williams), for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), for Newport West (Paul Flynn), and, of course, for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman).
My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire started by saying that as he got older, he had a yearning to be bilingual. Perhaps it is a sign of my now rampant middle age that I always enjoy a bit of bipartisanship, and I always think we have the best debates in this House when, broadly speaking, there is a great deal of common ground in the landscape. I too pay tribute to Lord Roberts, about whom many of the contributors spoke so eloquently this morning.
Glyn Davies
I rise to add my voice to the appreciation for the work of Lord Roberts. I omitted to do so during my speech. One of the dangers in not preparing notes for a speech is that we sometimes forget one of the most important things that we wanted to say.
Albert Owen
I join in the tributes to Lord Roberts, who lived in the constituency that I represent and was brought up there. He was a pioneer of broadcasting, not only in the Welsh language but in English as well. As for bipartisanship, I was always told that a cigarette paper could not be put between Gwynfor Evans, Wyn Roberts, Cledwyn Hughes and Geraint Howells. It was impossible to do it, because all came from the same mould: the Welsh mould.
Mr Vaizey
Hear, hear to that. May I add my tribute to all the Welsh titans mentioned by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn? Of course, Lord Roberts was the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), who is widely acknowledged as a great mover in this debate.
Before I move on to the meat of my speech—the debate is becoming an extended tribute session—I should also pay tribute to Dylan Thomas. This year is the 100th anniversary of the birth of one of Wales’s most celebrated sons, so it is appropriate, as we debate the importance of the Welsh language, the Welsh language broadcaster and Welsh culture in general, to acknowledge that very important anniversary, which is being commemorated in Wales, and, indeed, around the world.
The main subject of the debate is S4C, which is a long-standing and significant part of the UK’s rich public service broadcasting landscape and a stalwart of Welsh language services. Only last year, we gathered in this Chamber to celebrate the 30th anniversary of S4C. I said earlier that it was a privilege to hear the speeches made this morning, but such debates are always a pleasure, because of the deep understanding shown by the Members participating. They have clearly been involved for many years in S4C and the campaigns and debates about the Welsh language. Some have served in the House for many years, but those who have come to the House recently have been involved in the issue for many years. There can be no doubt that for me and my successors, from whichever party they come, the channel and its content make a tremendously important contribution to the cultural life of Wales, as well as economic impacts, and those deserve to be celebrated.
Dylan Thomas, grew up when an English-only education system was the norm in Wales—hon. Members have mentioned that the same was true when they were growing up—and the mother tongue was pushed to the margins. Thankfully, as acknowledged in many speeches, times have changed. The number of children in Welsh-medium primary schools has seen a steady increase over recent years, but we must not be complacent. We must be mindful of the importance of preserving the Welsh language and the important role played by S4C. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire has said previously in the House that, although not brought up a Welsh-speaker, the existence of S4C was critical to his learning and mastering the language.
The media, particularly the broadcast media, are vital to language and to the preservation of culture. Culture and identity are bound up in shared experiences, and TV clearly has an important role to play, whether in sport—we all know how central the game of rugby is to Welsh culture—drama, such as “Pobol y Cwm”, or key cultural events such as the Eisteddfod and the royal Welsh show. It is no coincidence that all those examples are broadcast to the Welsh-speaking public and the Welsh public in general by S4C.
To return to my earlier theme, I pay tribute, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan, to the chief executive of S4C, Ian Jones, and the chairman of the S4C authority, Huw Jones, for their outstanding work in ensuring that S4C has in difficult times not only kept on an even keel, but thrived.
The hon. Member for Clwyd South demonstrated her legendary recall of detail by remembering that in 2010 I was keen to share my experience of “Fireman Sam”, but S4C is obviously much more than “Fireman Sam”. As my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and others pointed out, S4C is currently enjoying national prominence with the murder drama, “Hinterland”, which shows Welsh television and TV in general at their best. The mean and moody DCI Mathias and the equally mean and moody landscapes around Ceredigion have given us the latest water-cooler TV. The programme was shown on S4C last year entirely in Welsh, migrated to BBC 1 Wales in a bilingual version and is now showing on BBC 4. It has also been sold to Denmark, among other countries, which is perhaps an example of coals to Newcastle and which shows that anything they can do, the Welsh can do—in the spirit of bipartisanship, I should perhaps say “equally as well”. Hopefully, if hon. Members will pardon the pun, the Welsh can make a “Killing” with Welsh drama. Better still, I understand that the show has now been picked up by Netflix and that more episodes have been commissioned. “Hinterland” is not S4C’s only contribution to the genre, either. “35 Days”, which has only recently hit screens in Wales, is another example of great murder drama and is entirely in Welsh.
Guto Bebb
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. A key development in the partnership between S4C and the BBC will be the availability of S4C programmes on iPlayer, with my daughters, for example, looking forward to downloading “35 Days”. This innovation will bring S4C to an audience who are no longer willing to sit down at a certain time to watch a television programme.
Mr Vaizey
That is an extremely important point, which takes me back to the debate, beginning in 2010, about the future of S4C, because S4C’s current success has taken place against the background of significant challenges, but those challenges have also brought opportunities. S4C was not alone in facing challenges.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
By “challenges”, does the Minister mean cuts?
Mr Vaizey
It is always good to have someone come late to the debate and destroy the good will and general bonhomie that we were hitherto enjoying. I mean challenges. I am always one for a euphemism, but I mean the challenges that have been faced by many fine institutions. I was pleased that the Government were able to protect Department for Culture, Media and Sport funding for S4C during the last autumn statement and to ensure no cuts. It is not possible to offer certainty around Exchequer funding beyond 2015-16—in case anybody wants to try to read between the lines of that statement, that is the case for all publicly funded bodies—but given that the majority of S4C’s funding now comes from the licence fee, it is important that it is guaranteed up to 2017. The Government have as yet made no statement on how they intend to proceed on charter review. Sadly, I may not be the Minister supervising charter review, but common sense would clearly dictate, given the stellar speeches and high quality of the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and given the level of debate that accompanied the changes to S4C in 2010, that S4C and other language channels will be a prominent part in such a review.
Today, we have focused on the culture as well as the cash, but it is important to understand the contribution made by S4C to the creative economy in Wales, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Arfon. Thousands of Welsh jobs are supported by S4C-related activity, and research published by S4C last year showed that each pound of funding returned nearly twice that amount for the Welsh economy, which is perhaps unsurprising but nevertheless important to acknowledge. It is also encouraging to see that formats developed in Wales, and in Welsh, are selling internationally. We have mentioned “Hinterland”, but there is also the recent sale of “Fferm Factor” to China, taking farming to a country with 300 million farmers.
As we look to the future, a key challenge for all traditional broadcasters will be to continue to reach their audiences. That challenge is more acute for public service broadcasters, and particularly for S4C, which faces the challenge of reaching an increasingly fragmented audience with such a wealth of content, and means of accessing content, on the market. In a world where the internet is largely in English, that is no small challenge, which is why the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) is so telling. The partnership with the BBC not only saves money in overheads and encourages a shared approach to programming and news, but gives S4C the opportunity to showcase its excellent content on BBC iPlayer.
I am delighted that S4C is reaching out and continues to strive to meet children’s needs with two dedicated channels, Cyw, broadcasting to pre-schoolers on TV and online, and Stwnsh, aimed at slightly older children and young people. Although age need not be a barrier to learning a new language, as shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire, it is important to reach people and potential Welsh speakers when they are young. I hope that S4C will continue to push forward plans to reach young people in a multi-channel, multi-device world. It is also important to reach the 16 to 24-year-old audience. Among Welsh speakers in that age group, only half consider themselves fluent, so it important that such content continues to be pushed through, which is why S4C programmes being on iPlayer and S4C’s own online offering, Clic, are so important. It is entirely in line with the Government’s objective that public service content should be available to as many people as possible, and maintaining a presence on such platforms will be increasingly central to that objective as viewing habits change.
Finally, I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed today. There may have been some disagreement or concern about the changes made to S4C’s funding structure a few years ago, but no one in the Government and no one in the House with an interest in such matters would deny S4C’s importance to the Welsh language, to Welsh identity, to culture more broadly and to the Welsh economy. I salute S4C on its success and wish it great success in the future.
Financial Services Authority and Connaught Income Fund
(10 years, 7 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
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second time today, Mr Brady. I welcome the Minister to her role, and welcome her involvement in this important issue.
As you can see, Mr Brady, this debate has drawn much attention from colleagues and investors alike. Naturally, investors want explanations of what went wrong and why. Colleagues who have looked into the case recognise the scale of the wrongdoing, and want to know how it happened and about any recourse available to their constituents.
This issue has developed over some time, but this is the first time we have had the opportunity to raise concerns about it and ask questions on the record. The Connaught Income Fund was launched in April 2008. It was promoted and operated by Capita Financial Managers Ltd, which was also the custodian of investors’ assets. Its original name was the Guaranteed Low Risk Income Fund, series 1—something that proved not to be the case. It was a UK-based unregulated collective investment scheme. By definition, these funds are not subject to direct regulation. However, elements of the process and funds were regulated, which means that the regulatory framework and responsibilities are not necessarily straightforward—in fact, they are complex—and that there is a responsibility on the Financial Services Authority.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Both he and I have fought Capita for more than three years following the Arch Cru disaster, which entailed similar losses, and several constituents of mine lost money through Connaught. Does he agree that it is appropriate to invite the Minister to seek the police’s involvement and to find out whether an investigation should take place?
Alun Cairns
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work on Arch Cru as secretary of the all-party group on the Arch Cru investment scheme, and on his involvement in issues relating to Capita. He raises pertinent points that I will come on to, so I am grateful for his contribution.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me so early. I have to leave, having been in the previous debate with him for an hour and a half.
Is the hon. Gentleman as concerned as I am that so little information is available on Capita, and particularly on the signing-off of the information memorandum? That is a matter of great concern to a number of my constituents and, I am sure, to constituents of hon. Members of all parties.
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising important points about Capita that I will come on to. A central factor is what knowledge it had at various stages.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Is this the same Capita that won the personal independence payments contract with the Government, for Wales and the west of England?
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but of course Capita Financial Managers Ltd is different from other subsidiaries of Capita. The parent company will be the same; there are several subsidiaries. The point was well made, and I accept it in the way that it was intended.
I should like to pursue the matter a bit further before accepting any other interventions, to provide some background. The proposition was that investors’ money would be loaned to borrowers requiring short-term residential bridging loans. Loans would not exceed modest loan-to-value guidelines, no sub-prime lenders or properties would be financed, and all loans would be secured by first charges against those properties. Specifically, there was to be an average loan-to-value rate of 56%. People were told that it would seldom be above 70% and that anything above 80% would have guaranteed exits. All interest and fees would be taken up front, and there was a guarantee from Tiuta, a company that I will mention shortly, to meet any shortfalls.
The borrowers would pay an interest rate of 17.9%, while investors would receive quarterly distributions of between 8.15% to 8.5%. Capita appointed Tiuta plc and Connaught Asset Management Ltd, both UK companies, to identify suitable borrowers and approve the loans. However, investors’ funds were used differently. Money was transferred to Tiuta, rather than being released directly to the borrowers’ solicitors. It is even suggested that there was no differentiation between the firm’s funds and those of the investors; investors’ money was used to meet the working capital needs of Tiuta, and to pay directors’ salaries, bonuses and pension contributions.
In many cases, where bridging loans were made, the borrowers, properties or loan-to-value ratios were not as committed to in the promotional literature. It is believed that Tiuta proposed loans and drew down the money, but did not proceed with the lending. It is suggested that Connaught provided a monthly statement to Tiuta’s management accountant, switching the true loan book and the approved one.
In March 2009, Capita became aware that the original information memorandum was misleading. The fund should not have been described as low-risk, the guarantee from Tiuta was of no value, the money was used largely for purposes other than bridging loans, and the auditors of the fund were not engaged. In addition, the loans that had been made were not as described and were being rolled over.
In August 2009, after Capita met Connaught’s senior management, investors were informed by Capita that it was resigning as operator of the fund. It was to be replaced by Mourant Fund Services Ltd, but for some unknown reason Mourant did not complete the transaction. Perhaps it became aware of the problems with the fund.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Is it not a significant concern for all of us who have been looking at this issue that, in 2009, it became apparent that Capita had significant concerns about the way that the fund was being operated, but those concerns were not conveyed to those who had invested in the fund?
Alun Cairns
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his support in investigating this matter. He raises an important point. There is a serious question about what Capita did and did not know, and what it should have communicated to the investors, to whom it had a responsibility.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My constituent, Mr Sudworth, who is a victim of this fraud, asked me a question; I wonder whether my hon. Friend knows the answer. Does the Financial Conduct Authority outsource some of its work to Capita?
Alun Cairns
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. I do not have the answer, but he points to a general defensive approach that has been taken by the FSA and the FCA. We are seeking greater transparency to get the answer to many such questions, so that we can identify where the responsibility lies.
Perhaps Mourant became aware of some of the issues that have now become apparent. Instead, Capita passed responsibility on to Blue Gate Capital Ltd, which agreed to the appointment in September 2009.
George Patellis was appointed chief executive of Tiuta in April 2010. He became concerned about the quality of the financial reporting at the company. In January 2011, a shortfall of at least £20 million was identified, suggesting insolvency. He also became aware that Tiuta had retained the proceeds when some loans had been redeemed, and of Land Registry DS1 inconsistencies.
Mr Patellis appointed BDO to investigate in January 2011, and it confirmed his initial concerns. He then resigned and alerted the FSA to the situation, to report financial irregularities at Tiuta. As a result, a case was opened by the FSA and supervisory engagement with Tiuta began. The FSA required Tiuta to engage investigative accountants to monitor its financial performance. That may relate to what my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) mentioned. Tiuta was responsible for reporting to the FSA monthly. However, instead of undertaking independent investigations, BDO, which had secured the role, relied on information supplied by directors of Tiuta, which then produced a series of reports that persuaded the FSA that the firm should be allowed to continue to trade.
In May 2011, the FSA issued a consumer alert because marketing materials indicated that the fund was low risk, and that returns were guaranteed. The marketing material was amended for independent financial advisers, and Blue Gate was made aware of the issues with the security of the loans. In March 2012, Blue Gate notified the 1,200 investors that the fund had been suspended due to an inability to pay quarterly interest payments to investors. Tiuta was placed in administration in September 2012.
It is suggested that investors face losses of at least 70% of the £106 million that was invested. In addition, investors have to date lost up to £20 million in unpaid quarterly distributions. Since then, a number of MPs have written to the FSA—and now the Financial Conduct Authority—and the Treasury to establish whether there is a regulatory responsibility to investigate the fund, and whether there is any potential for compensating investors.
Having considered the background, I will make a number of points and ask a few questions of the Minister. Although I recognise that the Connaught fund was an unregulated investment scheme, various elements were regulated, as I mentioned at the outset. The advice process was regulated. I am not suggesting for a minute that advisers were responsible for the failings and misappropriation of funds. There is a need, however, to clarify where their responsibility ends.
In fairness to IFAs, they depend on the key financial documents, which were not accurate or adhered to, yet questions should be asked about why unregulated funds were recommended to investors in the first instance. The time for advice on such funds is clearly very limited. What did Capita know in August 2009 when it sought to pass on its responsibilities? What action did Capita take to ensure proper management of the fund at earlier stages? If Capita had doubts or questions, why was that not communicated to investors? Was Capita’s letter to investors misleading, or did Capita withhold information indicating there was unsecured and unauthorised lending from the fund?
Guy Opperman
Is it not incumbent on the Minister to clarify the legal position of investors on that specific point? If investors are to sue for their loss, they need to know the date of the knowledge of the fund’s decline. Secondly, they need to know the state of the assets at that time and the extent to which the FCA will assist in the recovery.
Alun Cairns
There could clearly be a statute of limitations that affects investors, on which I hope the Minister can offer advice.
There was obviously a gap between Capita’s original letter of 20 August 2009 advising investors of its intention to pass responsibility to Mourant and the letter of 24 September advising that Blue Gate would become responsible. Should Capita have suspended the fund when it realised that it was not being managed in accordance with the financial information documents?
As we have discussed, this is not the first time that Capita has needed to answer questions about its role. As the authorised corporate director of Arch Cru, Capita was forced to compensate investors to the tune of £32 million. Terms, how that sum was reached and Capita’s responsibilities and failings have still not been disclosed, but a sum of that size suggests some form of culpability.
Questions should be asked about the actions taken by the FSA, and now the FCA. Some investors believe that the FSA and FCA have taken little action, but the Minister’s predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), advised me in general terms of some of the work they undertook. That needs to be published to reassure people and to allow further questions to be raised about what could have happened.
Chris Ruane
Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the FSA has let down Connaught investors? Is he aware of the case of Burges Salmon, which was a similar scam of which the FCA has washed its hands and for which it has taken no responsibility? Does he think that the FCA needs to be looked at?
Alun Cairns
I am not familiar with that case, but greater transparency on the FCA, into which the FSA has now evolved, would be helpful and may dispel the criticisms. We simply do not know the specific actions that it took, if indeed it took any at any point. I hope that there has been more than evolution; there needs to be a different culture at the FCA to ensure that the failings of the past are not repeated.
What about the FSA’s actions following the intervention of George Patellis? The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 gave the FSA a statutory duty to maintain market confidence, ensure public awareness, reduce financial crime and protect consumers. We can also ask questions of the police. Surely there are sufficient grounds for the police to investigate the matter, given the misappropriation of funds.
Finally, is the Minister able to advise us of any statute of limitations that falls on investors? That is the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman). Ultimately, is any recourse available? In closing, I underline that although the saga has gone on for an awfully long time for investors, this is our first opportunity to discuss it in Parliament. I would like to think that this is the start of parliamentary scrutiny, and certainly not the end of the matter. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for my second outing in Westminster Hall, Mr Brady. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) on organising this debate on an incredibly important subject. I also have constituents who have lost a huge amount of money as a result of the devastating investment they made. It is important that we get to the bottom of the matter and try to ensure that, if possible, investors can be compensated in some way. Those who are responsible should face the maximum justice available.
This is an important issue not just for my hon. Friend’s constituents and mine. I see many Members in Westminster Hall today whose constituents have also suffered as a result of investing in the fund, so it is important that the FSA, as was, and now the FCA take the matter extremely seriously. I reassure him and all other Members here today that that is indeed the case.
Many investors have lost their life savings as a result of the events involving the Connaught funds, which has caused real hardship for people across the country. As my hon. Friend made clear, the Connaught funds comprise three separate funds: the Connaught Income Fund series 1, series 2 and series 3. In total, approximately £145 million was invested in the funds, which, as we know, were unregulated collective investment schemes. By definition, such schemes are not subject to direct regulation by the FCA or, previously, the FSA.
Guto Bebb
I visited the FCA with my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) to look at the issue in question. We were shown a flowchart identifying the selling process for this investment. The number of elements that were regulated and the number not regulated implied that there was significant confusion about the way the regulatory process actually works in the UK.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend makes an extremely relevant point. As I was looking into the matter in some detail yesterday, I was struck by exactly the same thing. There were regulated elements and unregulated elements, and of course we have ended up with a disastrous scenario in which people have lost a lot of money and it has become difficult to get to the bottom of everything. I will try to unravel that a bit.
As I said, because of the unregulated nature of some of the entities involved, many of the usual protections and safeguards that protect investors in regulated funds were absent. That is why the promotion and distribution of such schemes are subject to strict controls. Unfortunately, it seems that in this instance even those controls did not prevent a large number of individuals from investing in the fund. In addition to the questions that have been raised, to which I will return in a moment, I would like to address two main issues: first, the actions taken by the FCA to try to protect consumers, despite most of the entities involved being unregulated; and secondly, the ongoing work for the benefit of consumers and investors to secure a fair and proper outcome.
First, despite the schemes being unregulated, the FCA has taken a number of steps to try to protect consumers. In May 2011, the FSA altered Tiuta’s permission so that it could no longer carry out any new regulated mortgage lending and issued an alert to consumers telling them what they should do if they thought they had been mis-sold the fund. In June 2011, the FSA wrote to all financial advisers who sold the fund, asking them to review the sales and to contact consumers where there might be risk of unsuitable advice. It also set up a page on its website for consumers and firms to receive information on the fund. In August 2011, it required Tiuta to instruct Connaught Asset Management Ltd to change its marketing materials so that they no longer described the fund as “low risk” and “guaranteed”. The FSA took the view that those descriptions were misleading. Finally, in June 2012, it altered Tiuta’s permission to ensure funds from redeemed loans returned to the series 1 fund.
Chris Ruane
In August 2012, Capita, the parent body of the Connaught fund, was given a contract by the Department for Work and Pensions worth hundreds of millions of pounds. Who should pay for the losses? Should it be Capita, or should it be the 1,200 individuals who were falsely sold the investment? Will the Minister use her position with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to ensure that Capita does the right thing and compensates those individuals?
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which I will certainly look into further. Those two organisations belong to the same parent company, but are in fact different subsidiaries. As he might be aware, Government contracts are awarded in line with EU procurement rules.
In addition to the work by the FCA, I can also confirm that other law enforcement agencies are looking into this matter. I will urge the police to consider the case very carefully. I know that Members are interested to hear whether the police are looking at this matter, and I can confirm that they are. The FCA has been working closely with law enforcement agencies to identify and pursue avenues that will yield the best outcome for investors. It continues to look into the matter, and its work is very much ongoing. In the meantime, it is encouraging any investors who believe they might have been mis-sold a product to contact their independent financial adviser. It has disclosed information to the police and the administrators of the firms involved to help them with their inquiries.
A number of points were made during the debate, and I will try to address them. I was asked whether Capita Financial Managers Ltd was negligent in its operation of the fund and whether it breached its obligations under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the operator agreement or its duty of care to consumers. The Government and the FCA take those allegations very seriously, and the FCA is carrying out its own inquiries, but the requirements on the operator of an unregulated fund are limited under FCA rules. I was asked whether the FCA has made a restitution order against Capita. I stress that the FCA is considering all the different avenues by which those who have suffered could obtain compensation. I was asked about the information provided by George Patellis.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
In a number of these cases, some involving Capita and some involving others, it has been clear that the financial structure of the company has been set up with limited liability subsidiaries to prevent the compensation demands from going back to the parent. Will she ask the FCA to look at the acceptability of that approach, with a view to future concerns like these? It seems to me that it is a way for the company to get the benefit from a reputation, without meeting the liability that goes with it.
Andrea Leadsom
I completely agree. There are questions to be asked about how this apparent ability to avoid culpability has been allowed, whether steps can be taken to ensure it cannot happen again and whether there are compensation issues. The FCA is looking into all those matters, but I will take up the point my right hon. Friend makes.
I was just talking about the action the FSA took when it received information from George Patellis. The FSA met with other parties to discuss his concerns, and as a result of those discussions, it became seriously concerned about the financial position of Tiuta plc. Having considered the regulatory options in respect of Tiuta plc, in May 2011 a requirement was added to the permission of the firm that it should cease any further regulated mortgage lending. In the same month, the FSA issued the consumer alert on the fund. A further alert was issued to financial advisers asking them to consider the suitability of advice they had given to consumers who had invested in the fund and to take action accordingly. In light of the fact that very little of Tiuta’s business was regulated, the FSA considered those steps to be appropriate and proportionate at the time. I certainly take on board the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) about whether that was, with hindsight, acceptable.
On the other questions I was asked, Capita issued an information memorandum that consumers believe to be fraudulent, as the fund did not operate as it said it would. I was asked what action the FCA is taking against Capita. As I said, the FCA is considering all avenues by which investors might be compensated. Unfortunately, I cannot comment on that further at this time. One point I make, because the question has been implied, is that IFAs are not supposed to sell unregulated investment schemes to retail investors. The circumstances in which unregulated schemes can be promoted to consumers are generally restricted to certain types of consumers, such as sophisticated investors and high net worth individuals, for whom the products are likely to be suitable. The FCA has brought in new rules, banning the promotion of unregulated collective investment schemes to ordinary retail consumers. IFAs have the responsibility to promote the fund only to eligible individuals. That is an important point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) asked whether the police are involved. I confirm that they are. A question was asked about the deadlines for issuing complaints. The fund was incepted in June and July 2008 and suspended in March 2012. Action can be taken either six years from the cause of action, which will start to expire from June 2014—all those investors who invested in the early days of the fund need to take careful advice if they wish to make a complaint about that product, because the deadline is fast approaching—or three years from the date of knowledge of the cause of action, which is likely to expire in March 2015 or, at the latest, September 2015. I urge those consumers who feel that they were mis-sold the fund to look carefully at these deadlines. If the case goes to court, it depends on those courses of action. Insolvency reviews of those companies will be reporting in the near future. We do not have a more specific date for that.
Once again, I would like to thank sincerely my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan for instigating this debate on this important case, which is upsetting for many investors. I hope I have reassured him that the Government are fully aware of his concerns and that we take this issue seriously. We are absolutely determined that our financial services sector serves consumers in a right and fair way, and that investors receive the protections they need.
Electoral Conduct (Discrimination)
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
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
I am delighted to have secured this debate and to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. The debate follows an all-party parliamentary inquiry into electoral conduct, which reported only a couple of months ago, and the inquiry itself came about following another inquiry by the all-party parliamentary group against anti-Semitism, which found that anti-Semitism and all other forms of discrimination were still quite alive and well during UK elections. We set up the all-party parliamentary inquiry, which includes not only all parties across this House, but also some Members from the other place, to investigate whether there actually was a problem. When we found that there was, we tried to consider some constructive ways of addressing the issues to ensure that elections in this country are as free and fair as possible and that there is a level playing field for all people who want to put their names forward as candidates.
On the whole, elections in the UK have always been free, just and fair. We live in a mature democracy that values fairness and understands the importance of democracy and elections. Tensions do exist in some areas, however, and they vary between areas and over time. We know exactly where they are and they may be few, but they are a serious problem. The tensions can be ethnic, religious, sectarian or based on gender or sexuality and exist in small pockets around the country, where things can flare up during local council or general elections or by-elections.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. On that point, does she recognise the debate’s importance given an incident just last week in which a candidate in a local election made seriously offensive remarks about Islam and subsequently stood down?
Natascha Engel
Absolutely. As we move towards a general election in precisely a year’s time, we increasingly have to deal with offensive comments. From the outset, the inquiry made it clear that we prize above all else freedom of speech and people’s ability to say even offensive things, but also that we wanted to identify the line between speaking freely and being not just offensive but discriminatory.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her fine chairmanship of the inquiry, on which I was proud to serve. On local elections, there is so much more to do. A candidate in Enfield made appalling racist comments, for example. He resigned, but things nevertheless got to that stage and appropriate action was taken. The strongest words in the report focused on the Equality and Human Rights Commission for dereliction of duty in preventing discrimination during election campaigns. What does the hon. Lady have to say about more needing to be done, particularly by the EHRC?
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. I ask that interventions be brief. If hon. Members want to speak, there are opportunities, so they can rise if they want.
Natascha Engel
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will come on to discuss the role of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which, as he said, featured greatly in the inquiry’s deliberations when writing the report. We are, however, keeping an eye on local elections.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Before my hon. Friend moves on to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, does she agree that political parties have a fundamental role to play and that, following the inquiry’s brilliant work, they should all sign up to what this cross-party group of MPs has wisely recommended?
Natascha Engel
Absolutely. At top and bottom of our recommendations was the role of political parties. In fact, my hon. Friend and I have been busy speaking to people within political parties to ensure that they sign up not only in principle but in practice to some kind of code of conduct that allows individuals, be they candidates, members of the public or political party workers, to know where to go when there is not just a complaint, but a serious concern. Even though we have some recommendations for different agencies, it is the political parties that really need to work together. Having said that, we had good representations from all political parties, especially the smaller parties that compete against the large, mainstream political machines. They really co-operated with the inquiry and were looking forward to being given help to do better, so we were impressed by them.
I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) present. One thing that came out strongly from the inquiry was that some of the examples that we heard, some of which we could not publish in our report, were very extreme. Even though they are few and far between, I was shocked by some of the things that happen. I wish that they did not, and hope that we can work towards making them less likely to happen. Although we would like to wipe the problem out, it will always occur, so we need to ensure that people are less likely to behave in a discriminatory way in order to gain an electoral advantage. Our inquiry found that people in some areas were not putting their names forward as candidates out of fear for their lives, which happened across the board. Whether the tensions were religious, ethnic or based on their sexuality or gender, we found that people who would have been good candidates for elected office at any level were not putting their names forward. Everyone on the inquiry felt that that was unacceptable. We were impressed by the hon. Member for Ilford North and the former Member for Gloucester, Parmjit Dhanda, and understood how brave it was for them to give oral evidence in public, for which we were grateful.
A problem that we highlight in the report and would like a wider discussion about is that the offence, which can be intimidating and secretive in nature, is difficult to combat. A racist sitting in their garage printing vile leaflets will not put their name and address in an imprint on the bottom to enable the police to knock on their door and say, “This is unacceptable.” By its nature, the offence can be difficult to trace. The often tight-knit communities where smearing propaganda is being put out are closed by their nature and it can be difficult to get hold of the evidence in order to prove anything. That does not mean, however, that we should not try, or should not try to ensure that people are educated properly to make it less likely that this vile rubbish goes out in the first place.
In our report, we quoted at great length the 11—we thought that there were 10—self-evident and basic principles outlined by Lord Lester in his pamphlet from the 1990s, “Political Speech and Race Relations in a Liberal Democracy”. They are basic principles, but excellent ones. I will not read all of them, but an important one is:
“The right to free and unfettered political speech and debate is fundamental to democracy.”
We tried to achieve balance in our report, because where does robust political campaigning end and discrimination begin? On the one hand, we were all clear that we knew where the line was. On the other hand, we did not want an environment in which no one can come out and say things, even if they are sometimes offensive. Let people be judged at the ballot box; if they make rude, hurtful or nasty remarks, they tend to stand down because of public pressure or pressure from within their political party—that is the best pressure—or they are voted down in elections.
I, for one, was therefore delighted to see the end of the British National party, pretty much, at the last election. That demonstrates my point: once BNP members got elected to office, people saw how they behaved, did not like it and voted them out. That is how things should be. What we are trying to tackle is behaviour on the extremes that is not only unacceptable but intimidating and threatening, putting people in fear and stopping them putting their names forward as candidates.
I will go through some of our recommendations. In our call for evidence, we received some 50 responses from different organisations, including not only political parties but the election agencies—there was also a lot of interest from international election agencies—the police, who were very engaged with the inquiry; a lot of academics; trade unions; local councils, which gave some excellent evidence; and non-governmental organisations and Government agencies. We held two oral evidence sessions, which were well attended and very interesting, and some surprising things came out of them. I thank all those who put in written evidence and who took the time to come along to our sessions. Our inquiry was very rich in evidence and, as a result, we could produce a strong report at the end of it.
The report focused on a number of policy concerns, primarily policing and the law. The police who attended were engaged with electoral conduct—they have special units to deal with it—but the people who really impressed us were former members of the Commission for Racial Equality. They gave some excellent evidence on past best practice that had worked well and was being developed. It involved going out into communities that had already been identified, working with them and their leaders and the local councils, keeping information and developing databases, and focusing on the positive educational side. One of our recommendations to the Equality and Human Rights Commission is to look at the toolkit that the CRE had produced, dust it down, update it and see whether we can use it in the run-up to the next general election.
Mr Lammy
Reflecting on where the EHRC finds itself, does my hon. Friend share the view of many members of the committee? We could not quite understand why there has been that stepping back from good activity by the leadership of the EHRC. Should that not be what an Equality and Human Rights Commission is for in a democracy?
Natascha Engel
Absolutely. All of us on the committee were surprised at the attitude of the EHRC, especially as their evidence was initially positive and constructive.
Mr Burrowes
I hope that the Minister will make at least one point clear to us. The EHRC says that it wants an instruction from the Government, and the Government say that it is properly a matter for the EHRC. We need clarity to ensure that we do not drop the ball and that previous good work is carried forward. We must be able at least to sort that out today.
Natascha Engel
Yes. I am going to skip around a bit and get hopelessly lost, so I might end up not doing all the bits that I wanted to, but I want to clarify that point. After the publication of the report, we had meetings with each of the different agencies that had given evidence and that we felt could do something to help. We have already mentioned the political parties, which must be the driving force, but all the other agencies were keen to help and open to recognising that there was a problem—that things were not working as well as they might once have done and certainly could work in the future.
Our issue with the EHRC was that it is the only organisation out of all those that came to give evidence to have one of those overarching umbrella roles. Obviously, the Commission for Racial Equality morphed into the EHRC, and we were sad to see that a lot of the excellent work that had been done in the CRE had got lost, shelved or was not carried forward. Our meetings with the EHRC were all focused on its budget cuts, on how it could no longer be as proactive as it might like and on how it was far more focused on providing policy research or legal help for those bringing cases of discrimination; it did not see its role as being anything to do with ensuring that conduct during election time was free, fair and not discriminatory. That kind of umbrella organisation is needed to lead the way, and we felt that leadership was lacking. All the other organisations can do what they like, but they do it in silos; we need the EHRC to knit everything together, so that we can all work together harmoniously to ensure that elections are more fairly conducted. Both of the points made by my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman are enormously important.
We have a meeting with the Minister planned for June, and it would be enormously helpful if a senior member of the EHRC were present. We recognise what the EHRC was keen to point out—that it is independent of Government and it has a board that sets strategy and decides on what its budget is spent on; and, moreover, that the strategy has been set and the money allocated, and not for the work that we are doing—but if someone from the EHRC was present at our meeting in June and the problem is a lack of resourcing, we as parliamentarians might be able to help with that.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I was going to ask the Minister about this, but my understanding is that the EHRC has programme funding that is held back and can be bid for. Perhaps it could put in a bid for the very work that my hon. Friend is calling for.
Natascha Engel
That is a helpful intervention and we are discussing that. The issue, however, is one of attitude. What we were so surprised by was the “No” response, when everyone else was saying, “Yes, we really want to help, what can we do? How can we most constructively go about doing it?” The EHRC response was, instantly, “No.” It is a question of changing attitudes and seeing what each of us can do in our own capacity to make sure that the work can go ahead.
I have already mentioned the police; I should mention the Association of Chief Police Officers and specifically two people who have been enormously helpful and positive. Gary Cann and John Askew recognised that we can do a lot more and made constructive proposals about how we can go about doing so, as well as giving us the benefit of their experience, which was invaluable to our work.
The Electoral Commission was also extremely co-operative—we met with Jenny Watson after our report was published. The commission was willing to do anything within its remit and said that as long as political parties could agree on this step, it would be more than happy to be the signposting organisation. Lots of people already go to the Electoral Commission for advice and information, and it would be more than happy to signpost people—be they candidates or individuals with issues or complaints—to the available information. The Electoral Commission was keen to work not just with us but with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the police and ACPO.
The political parties are key. The next election will be even tighter than before, and tensions are often higher in the run-up to tight elections than they would otherwise be. It is therefore important that all the political parties are signed up. Those of us here today represent different political parties; we should all act from within to make sure that our own party does everything it can. One helpful suggestion was the idea of having a named and prominent person within each political party to whom a complaint can be referred.
It is important that complaints are referred quickly, but one issue came up again and again. Often when some appalling behaviour occurs, whoever is responsible can be identified, and although people are sometimes reluctant to name names, they want the situation resolved quickly, before it gets out of hand. Sometimes candidates in general election campaigns behave in ways that their own political parties are not necessarily aware of, and would be shocked by if they were. It is a question of speed and of making sure that people—candidates and the electorate—are confident that political parties are dealing with problems quickly and that there will be an outcome. We will need safety nets to make sure there are not a million malicious and mischievous complaints, but if we are all committed, we can find a way to identify a threshold for such a process. Political parties are absolutely key.
The big problem we identified was third parties or non-parties—we are back to our racist in the garage printing nasty leaflets, who will not necessarily belong to any organised grouping and could simply be acting as an individual. Dealing with those people is going to be a big problem. Although we identified education as key to everything, we need to find ways to clamp down on that sort of non-party, third party organisation.
In summary—I want to allow others to speak—we would like the Minister not to interfere with the independence of the Equality and Human Rights Commission but to encourage it to work far more proactively with us and to show leadership. That will be key. We made a lot of progress with all the other agencies, so we want to encourage the EHRC to work more proactively with us. I have already mentioned our meeting with the Minister in June to make sure that she can encourage somebody from the EHRC to attend.
We also identified the press as a key area, but feel that there are some legislative weaknesses. Although we know that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is not the Department dealing with the press code, we hope that in its work with the Press Complaints Commission, it can highlight that there is a problem. People complaining to the Press Complaints Commission have to do so on the grounds of inaccuracy—that is what they have to prove. We want the Press Complaints Commission specifically to look at discrimination and some of the appalling behaviour during elections. Inaccuracy to us means something completely different from discrimination.
Our final point is outside the Minister’s remit, but it would be useful if she passed it on to colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government. Local government has a massive role to play in how candidates behave during election campaigns. Much of the relevant training is conducted through local authorities, and democratic services and electoral services at local authority level have to deal with a lot of the complaints in the first place. A lot more training is needed; that training ended with the Commission for Racial Equality and we would like it to be picked up again, so there can be training in areas where there are local tensions. There is legal provision for local authorities to correct false or misleading information, but that is falling by the wayside a little at the moment, so will the Minister encourage her colleagues to highlight that with the Department to make sure that that provision is used properly?
Finally, I thank all the members of the committee, who gave long service to our inquiry—one of the oral evidence sessions lasted an entire day. Our members were the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew); Lord Alderdice; Lord Beecham; the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), who also acted as vice-chair and took on a lot of the chairman’s role; the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes); my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy); my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra); the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell); and the hon. Members for Belfast East (Naomi Long) and for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). I thank each and every one of them for all their service.
Our debate today is timely. There is exactly a year to go until the next general election, so the clock is ticking. If all of us—the agencies, the political parties and ourselves as parliamentarians— work together, we can make a difference and make sure that the next general election is cleaner, fairer, better and more just than previous elections. I hope we can foster an atmosphere of fairness so that we fight elections on policy, not on personality or people’s sexual orientation or religious or ethnic background.
Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, in a debate that is very timely indeed. I thank the all-party group against anti-Semitism, which sponsored the inquiry, and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who in many ways was the driving force in setting it up. I served on the inquiry; it was a useful process, and it brought to the attention of the House and others the fact that we have a problem, but that there are opportunities to tackle it.
The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) has set out the range of evidence that we took and the recommendations we brought forward. There has to be a balance. While British elections are seen to be fair and run by decent-minded people in a decent way, if we look through any century of our democratic procedures—the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th and, no doubt, 21st—we can see that our elections have been pretty bloodthirsty and robust. We are well aware that, in an open democratic society, there has to be robust debate that will sometimes be challenging and offensive. However, it must not descend to discrimination, violence, bullying, or a climate in which legitimate candidates are deterred from even participating because of the risks they could face if they did. I hope—indeed, I believe—that our recommendations will tackle that and provide the right balance. I hope that the Minister agrees.
It is good to have had excellent responses from the agencies that we have called on to take action—the police, via the Association of Chief Police Officers; the Equalities Office; the Electoral Commission; and political parties. I was pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the report, from the Front Bench, in an open and constructive way. I note that not all the political parties have yet found time to respond officially. Although it is customary to pose questions to Ministers, I hope that it is not completely out of place to pose a question to the shadow Minister: does the Labour party feel able to put forward a response? I know that the intention is there, but it would be good if we could say that there had been a full-hearted response from all the political parties.
When we produced our report, the so-called lobbying Bill was going through the House. There were some interesting side-discussions on what should be done about non-party and third-party campaigning. The Bill is now an Act, and we will see in due course how it works in practice. Personally, I think that it provides the right level of oversight and supervision of third-party campaigns. We took evidence that showed that some of the worst and most egregious examples of bad behaviour came from those sources—not, of course, from charities and mainstream campaigning groups, but from others who travel in their shadow.
That raises a point that came out clearly in the evidence that we took from all the political parties—we took evidence from a wide spectrum of them. All shared with us the ways in which they sought to tackle discriminatory behaviour in their parties; how they sought to ensure that their candidates were aware of their obligations as potential public representatives and servants; and their good intentions for the future. It is therefore unfortunate that we have to report that, since our recommendations were published, we have seen further examples of what might be characterised as bad behaviour. The front page of at least one Sunday newspaper had a whole string of examples, one of which was of a candidate from a political party seeking office in my constituency.
That clearly shows that the issue is not just about vision statements or good intentions, but about ensuring that the good intentions expressed to the inquiry reach down from party headquarters to the selection, training and preparation of candidates and their campaign organisers in the grass roots, where nomination forms are filled in, election leaflets are circulated and, in these days, stuff is put on Facebook and Twitter. We know that there is a way to go.
I want to focus the remainder of my remarks on the constructive role that I think the Equality and Human Rights Commission can play. I understand that the EHRC might struggle to deal with situations in the hurly-burly of an election campaign, after nominations have been submitted and once leaflets had been circulated. Perhaps it might reasonably say that the issue was a little bit out of its depth. However, what is not out of its depth is all the preparatory work that has to go on beforehand to ensure that candidates, political parties and civic society more generally are fully aware of the responsibilities someone takes on when they sign a nomination paper and put their name on a ballot paper. If the commission can play an active and constructive role in that—I believe that it can—then it is in by far the best position of all the bodies available to achieve that.
The chair of our inquiry told the House just a few minutes ago that the Commission for Racial Equality, the predecessor of the EHRC, has developed a toolkit. The CRE held discussions with local authorities, and there was a framework for action. There might be some discussion about how thorough that was and whether it went far enough, but one thing we can say about it is that we certainly did not want it switched off. It needs to be maintained and possibly enhanced, not cut back. It is unfortunate that the EHRC, having given positive evidence to the inquiry about its wishes and aspirations, has drawn back from that.
To pick up the point made in an intervention, the EHRC’s programme fund appears to be a suitable vehicle for promoting training and awareness in the way that I have sketched out. I hope that the Minister will agree to meet the EHRC and members of the inquiry to discuss how we can take the matter forward. Of course the EHRC is and should remain independent of Government —it should take its own decisions—but it is open both to members of the inquiry and the Government to point out to the EHRC that it has in its hands the capacity to take the matter forward. It has, in its charter and constitution, an obligation to ensure that discrimination is tackled in all its forms. Perhaps we can encourage it to move forward.
The commission seems to have come to the view that in an age of austerity, this is one thing it cannot afford. I would say that was a mistaken judgment. An age of austerity—when the potential for community tension is higher, not lower; when the world of politics is much more fluid than ever before; and when people who have previously been in the shadows are being attracted to put their names on ballot papers—is exactly the time when the EHRC should be invited to step forward, fulfil its role and play an active part in tackling the abuses and concerns that we have identified.
I can understand it if the Minister feels lukewarm or hesitant about my proposal. Having sat in her corner of the Chamber as a Minister with some responsibility for social cohesion in the Department for Communities and Local Government, I know that she will have some double-spaced typed sheets that tell her just what she can say and how far she can go. I would not want her to break free from those sheets of paper, but perhaps she can at least take away from this debate a clear understanding that with one year to go, there are real opportunities to get it right and real consequences of getting it wrong. She and her Department can do something to encourage good behaviour by the EHRC and other institutions in the public service to deliver results.
However, I do not want to focus only and entirely on the EHRC; I want to be right up-front and say it is a matter for the parties. Every responsible political party has to take that responsibility seriously when it comes to the training and selection of their candidates, and the training, selection and delivery of their campaigners and campaigns. They also have to create a climate inside their political parties that shows the wide respect that we all expect to see and all promote here in the House. I hope very much that the debate will be an opportunity to open a door, rather than leading to anybody shutting any doors to fair, strong, democratic election campaigning in the next 12 months.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) both on chairing the inquiry on electoral conduct and on securing today’s important debate, which, as a number of Members have pointed out, is happening precisely one year before the next general election; I am sure that all of us were very aware of that.
I only want to say a few words, because I know that other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate—in particular, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott), who will bring great insight to these proceedings. I was pleased to serve as a member of the inquiry and was heartened when the general secretary of the Labour party said that he welcomed the report’s publication, but I am speaking in a personal capacity today.
All hon. Members will know from their campaigning experience that there is a kernel of truth behind the report’s key conclusion that
“there are insufficient support networks or referral systems in place for candidates suffering discrimination.”
Indeed, there is worrying evidence that reporting of such incidents may have declined in recent years.
The report contains compelling evidence that the law and regulations governing elections do not provide adequate protection for some candidates. We should remember that, as the report states, we do not compare unfavourably with many European countries, but there is a strong case for a wider review, and I hope that the Minister will study the report’s recommendations carefully—I am sure she already has—and respond positively to them.
We must always be vigilant in protecting our freedom of speech, but we also need to make sure that all sections of society feel able to take part in the democratic process, and that protections are in place to ensure that candidates are not dissuaded from standing for election. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire said, some Members, former Members and candidates have been subject to truly dreadful incidents and/or experiences. Their bravery in speaking out about those experiences is both welcome and necessary, particularly as we would all share the view, I believe, that Parliament needs to be as diverse as the country that we live in and seek to represent. The report represents an important step towards achieving the balance between freedom of speech and protection of potential candidates.
I finish by putting on record my thanks to everyone who contributed to the report, and particularly to the director of the Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism Foundation, Danny Stone, for his outstanding work and for making publication of the report possible.
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
I start by thanking the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) and her committee for all the work they have done, and I thank her for securing today’s debate. Originally, I was not going to speak in this debate—I know that many people say in debates that it was not their intention to speak, but it genuinely was not. However, I would like briefly to touch on what happened, the consequences of that, and on what is still happening because of the events that took place before the 2010 general election.
At that election, I remember very clearly that on a Friday, I was walking back to my car when two gentlemen—I use the word “gentlemen” very loosely—approached me, called me a dirty Jew and said they were going to kill me. I thought that was a bit extreme—not voting for me would have sufficed, but killing me seemed a little extreme—and I did what I normally do when I am particularly scared, and that is to use humour. I said, “I will put you down as a possible. You haven’t decided how you’re voting, have you?” They were as shocked by that as I was, and we ran off in separate directions.
Consequently, a week later, somebody gave me a leaflet that had been distributed in the area saying that I was an enemy of Islam, with a picture of me wearing a skull cap—it could only have been taken in a synagogue, which I felt was a bit wrong—and had statements on there that were totally wrong. It put words into my mouth that I had never said; none the less, it was given out and as the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire said, there was no imprint on the bottom. I was quite surprised when some of the authorities asked me, “Was there an imprint on the bottom?” I said, “When people are threatening to kill you, they do not usually say who they are.” None the less, the leaflet went out with quite a wide circulation.
That was some four years ago, so you would have thought, Mrs Main, that that has all died down, that it is history, that I won at the election and it is finished, but sadly it is not. I still regularly get e-mails saying that I should be stoned to death. Again, I am not quite sure why; none the less, I get them. After speaking in January at the Holocaust memorial day debate that we had in the Chamber, I also received a letter—again, there was no address on it—calling me a dirty Jew and saying that I should be killed for speaking up against people killing Jews. I found the whole thing ironic and stupid and said to the police that I did not want it taken any further, because it would have wasted valuable time on somebody who is not worthy of wasting any time on.
However, the consequences of what is stirred up at a general election—whether, in my case, because I am Jewish, or in somebody else’s case, because of their sexuality, or maybe other religions, or the colour of their skin—goes on for years afterwards. Sadly, anyone can google my name and the names of other hon. Members of the House and see some of the vile things that are on the net today.
I agree totally with the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) that political parties and the authorities have a responsibility, but I think it goes beyond that. At some stage, somebody, somewhere, needs to be prosecuted, found guilty and punished for it, because of the distress that they cause. I am talking not about hon. Members—I say openly that when we put ourselves up for election we have to have a pretty thick skin; I am not a shrinking violet—but about their families. My family should not have had to go through what they had to go through and have panic buttons, or come with me to meetings where I had two police officers with me, which made it look like I was out on bail, not attending hustings. It is ridiculous that it is allowed to happen.
With the rise of not only anti-Semitism but homophobia and any other thing we could mention, I fear that the problem is not going to go away or get better. We could see it get a lot worse. As the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire rightly said, we are told that the next election will be very close, which will mean that sometimes, people might get carried away. Going beyond the main parties—or even the smaller of the main parties—I saw a leaflet for the council elections in my borough in the past three weeks. I will not name who sent it; the name was on there, but I do not want to give them the publicity. It was disgraceful—absolutely vile and disgraceful. It included pictures—I am not saying for one second it is illegal, but it does incite hatred and contain lies. The consequences of that—we will find out; we will face them. In some cases, it may well be somebody in their back garage printing leaflets, but the leaflet that was put out about me was not printed in a back garage. It was printed professionally. It was glossy and it was handed out.
We have a lot of ongoing problems. The work of the committee, Danny Stone and everyone involved in highlighting those is tremendous. I commend all the political parties for taking it on board. I pay tribute to the leader of the Liberal Democrat party for engaging with what is said, and I know that other political parties will do likewise. The Minister—I am honoured to call her my hon. Friend, and we have been friends for quite a long while—knows those problems and will also take them on board.
I fear that this is going to go way beyond the present position, because some of the organisations that perpetrate such behaviour are vile: we can read their websites and find out what they are saying about each and every one of us. What is happening is just vile.
As I said, it was not my intention to speak today. I am not ashamed to say—I have said it publicly before—that on the evening of the last election, I went home and did something I had not done since the birth of my child, who is 25: I actually cried. I said, “What the hell am I doing this to myself for? Do I really want to do this, and do I want to be an MP? Is it worth it for my family?” As it happens, I believe that it is, because the good work of every Member of Parliament, irrespective of their party and where they are, who tries to help their constituents to the best of their ability, is worth the pain. However, it has gone on for five years and I have no expectation that it will stop; it will carry on through to the next general election and—forgive me—for the next five years as well, I hope. The electorate will decide that next year, of course. None the less, it is a horrible thing to go through; I say that for my family rather than myself.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) for securing this important debate and opening it so well. She and her colleagues should be congratulated for their stewardship of the inquiry on electoral conduct and the quality of the excellent report they produced, which we are discussing today. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who is not in his place at the moment, and who chairs the all-party group on anti-Semitism, for its tireless work in tackling discrimination at all levels.
The report has plugged a big gap in the study of the democratic process in the UK and I hope that it will become compulsory reading for everyone, from political parties and candidates to local authority officials, and particularly for the Electoral Commission and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. It contains examples of the worst of human behaviour, some of which we heard about from the hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott). He was brave to talk about it, and even braver to live with it day in, day out. I commend him for his determination to carry on doing so. It is all the more horrendous, reading the report, to realise that such things have been perpetrated against people we know and consider friends. For instance, there is discussion of the pig’s head left outside the family home of Parmjit Dhanda, a former Minister who was an excellent colleague. The report also highlights things written in his local newspaper. Colleagues yesterday reminded me of the anti-Semitic campaign waged against my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) by his Lib Dem opponent at the last election.
One of the issues I am looking at, at the moment, is how we can increase the representation of people from black and minority ethnic communities at all levels of the political system, not in a spirit of box-ticking or tokenism, but because our political system and the decisions that it makes are better if they more accurately reflect the country and the communities they affect. I am sure that for many candidates the threat of their skin colour, background or faith—not to mention their children’s or relatives’—being turned into smears or innuendo or leading to harassment or abuse such as we have heard about today is a real consideration. Of course, that applies to gender as well.
I am sure that the Minister and other hon. Members will be aware that the all-party group on women in Parliament is doing significant work on the issue, and I am pleased to be on the panel for that. I worry that the fear I have described will mean that many excellent candidates never seek their local party’s nomination or get the chance to be elected. None of us goes into politics without the fear of attack, and none of us is immune from attack on some level; but we should always expect any attacks on us to be based on choices or decisions that we have made, the things we have said, the way we have voted, or what we have done. We should never accept attacks based on the things we cannot change about ourselves, such as race, gender, sexual orientation or disabilities. Neither should we attack others, or allow them to be attacked by our supporters or others, in that vein.
Every talented and enthusiastic potential candidate who shrinks away from seeking office because of the fear, perceived or real, that they will be the victim of discrimination, is a loss to their community and the country. Those people are also a loss to the political party that they might have represented. Political parties owe their survival to the continual need to bring through new talent and come up with new ideas. They cannot afford to exclude people from that, and neither can they afford people excluding themselves because of a fear of discrimination.
If for no other reason than that, all the major political parties should pay close heed to the recommendations in the report—particularly on how they support candidates in withstanding such attacks. I am happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire in my role as Labour’s spokesperson on equalities. She and our colleagues will know that there are some support networks out there. For example, I am a mentor for the Fabian women’s network candidates programme, and have been paired with our prospective parliamentary candidate for Brighton, Kemptown. The party has its own future candidates programme, and I am sure that other parties do similar things. I am certainly keen to discuss with my hon. Friend what more we can do.
The debate is timely, in the sense that we are well into an electoral period in which there has rightly been a particular focus on the views of certain candidates—and particularly those of a certain party. However, as the report makes clear, the problems are not exclusive to an individual party or to far-right groups. Nor are they confined to a certain election or historical period. They are persistent, cyclical problems that will continue unless we do something meaningful about them.
Natascha Engel
One of the big problems we found was that the mainstream political parties feel that they already have processes in place; they do not want people to see them as not working as well as they should on the issue. Will my hon. Friend work within the Labour party to ensure that we are committed to signing up to something with all the other political parties, rather than working with them in a conflictual manner, so that we can achieve the greater aim? I just want to get her commitment to work within the Labour party so that we can do that from our side.
Mrs Hodgson
I can definitely give that commitment today to work with my hon. Friend to see what we can do within our party.
The central thing that I took from the report was the need for a statutory body to take a lead. There is much that political parties can do and agree on, especially at this time in the electoral cycle, but we should not be under any illusion: come 2015, all political parties will be primarily and almost myopically focused on the campaign and on winning every vote they can. It will simply not be possible for national or even regional officers to vet or review every single leaflet, YouTube clip or tweet from their candidates or their opponents, or anyone else who seeks to influence votes, as in the kind of non-party campaigning outlined in the report. Nor is it possible for political parties to issue guidance to public bodies on their duties to promote equality and good relations between communities.
We have an Electoral Commission and an Equality and Human Rights Commission; and we also have the police for when things really cross over into illegality, such as in the incident described by the hon. Member for Ilford North. The EHRC has had serious budget and staff cuts during this Parliament, but I cannot believe that it no longer has the capacity to play a role. After all, what could be more damaging to equality and good relations between communities than influential people such as local or national politicians using discriminatory language, producing discriminatory campaign literature, or being seen to condone such discrimination?
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
The hon. Lady is making an important point. One issue that we identified when compiling the report was that it is very difficult for any authority to take timely action, because often, by the time an investigation has taken place, the election is over and done with and in some cases there has been an impact on the outcome. That is one of the most serious and difficult issues for us to grapple with.
Mrs Hodgson
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. There was a case in which action was taken and a Member of Parliament was forced to step down because of something that had happened. However, the hon. Lady is right: the delay can sometimes mean that it is very difficult to follow things up.
I understand that the Government now hold a programme budget back from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, for which it has to bid in relation to specific pieces of work. I believe that a portion of that fund may have been allocated since the report was published, but that some remains. The Minister may be able to tell us whether the EHRC has bid, or is bidding, for some of the fund to do this work ahead of next year’s general election, or whether she would like to recommend that it do so following the report.
Police forces have also seen their budgets cut considerably, and understandably, electoral conduct is only a very small issue for them. Again, however, there is clearly merit, from a crime prevention point of view, in ensuring that they stamp out discrimination in electoral campaigns before it reaches the point described in the report, with police having to escort the hon. Member for Ilford North to hustings and stepping in in Bethnal Green and Bow in 2005. Of course, the Electoral Commission has a responsibility to ensure that elections are conducted in an orderly way. It seems sensible for that to include an overarching responsibility to pull together the various strands of work to help to prevent discrimination.
We should not forget that the vast majority of political campaigning in this country, and certainly that done by the parties represented in the Commons, maintains very high standards. Yes, it is often negative in tone and it is sometimes, regrettably, personal in nature, but by and large it seeks to highlight facts and figures and policies and records, whereas discrimination in all its forms, whether it is born out of ignorance, irrational fear or plain old stupidity, is simply unacceptable in 21st-century Britain and should not go unchallenged. But even more than that, discriminatory behaviour, and the encouragement of such behaviour by others, that is born out of cynical calculation, a desire for self-promotion or simply cowardice is absolutely despicable and should have no place whatever in British politics.
It is our responsibility as people who serve our constituents—not just some of them, but all of them—not just to avoid discriminatory behaviour and language ourselves, but to challenge it wherever we find it. Doing and saying nothing is not being diplomatic; it is pandering to it and tacitly agreeing with it. I believe that, as elected representatives, we have a responsibility, a duty, to lead work aimed at strengthening the bonds that tie communities together, not to stoke the flames of suspicion, fear and illogical hatred, which rip them apart. That duty applies just as much when we are seeking the support of those communities in an election as when we are not.
I have already said that I am more than happy to speak further to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire about what we can do within the Labour party on these issues. I agree with her recommendation that each political party have a named person to take the lead on them. However, she and her colleagues are right to say that this is a cross-party issue, so although I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister intends to do to address some of the concerns raised by the report and by my hon. Friends and others during the debate, I for one would be happy for the debate to continue outside the Chamber and to see what action we can agree on a cross-party basis.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire and her colleagues on the inquiry panel have set a great example, and it is important that their work now be taken forward and that we do everything we can to stamp out discrimination and the victimisation of others for political gain.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Mrs Helen Grant)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I thank all hon. Members for their passionate and sensitive speeches and many interventions about an issue that is certainly important to us all. Also, right at the beginning, I congratulate the all-party parliamentary inquiry into electoral conduct on its work. I was personally dismayed by the shocking examples of racism and discrimination during election campaigns featured in the detailed report that was produced.
The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who introduced the debate, already knows this, but for the benefit of the other people in the Chamber, I can confirm that a meeting has been set up for us in, I believe, June—I am not sure of the precise date. I look forward to meeting her. I am also very happy to meet members of the commission to discuss the inquiry’s findings. This is a very important issue to the Government and to me, as the Minister for Women and Equalities. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said when the inquiry published its report, we need to ensure that we keep this sort of horrible racism out of politics. That is exactly what some of the conduct and behaviour is.
As Minister for Women and Equalities, I recently took part in a debate on parliamentary representation. It was clear from the discussion that the Government, political parties and Parliament are making quite good progress, but it was recognised by everyone that we still have a very long way to go. I believe that tackling prejudice and ignorance is essential to the functioning of our democracy. Human rights principles provide a basis from which to build and maintain a safer, more prosperous, cohesive society, with care and consideration for the dignity and well-being of everyone at its heart.
Eleanor Roosevelt spoke about the importance of making the universal declaration of human rights
“a living document, something that is not just words on paper”;
something that is not just written down, but that we
“bring to the lives of all people”.
When the UN General Assembly agreed the Paris principles, Roosevelt’s vision started to become a reality. The Paris principles detail the role that national human rights institutions are expected to perform and make it very clear that such institutions must be independent of Government and that their independence must be guaranteed in legislation. The Equality Act 2006 established the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Britain’s first national human rights institution. The EHRC is independent of Government, and its remit is limited to equality and human rights issues. In 2009, the United Nations reviewed the EHRC’s work and structures and subsequently designated it an A-status national human rights institution, which means that it fully complies with the Paris principles.
The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire and many other hon. Members have raised genuine concerns about the EHRC and its response to the inquiry’s recommendations. I will respond to some of those concerns in as much detail as I can. I know it has been claimed that the commission should engage in certain work and that it should be taking responsibility and showing enthusiasm. However, if the Government failed to respect the independence of the EHRC by requiring it to do certain work, the EHRC could see its status downgraded or cease to be recognised as a national human rights institution by the United Nations. I understand what the hon. Lady is saying, but I think that it is for the all-party group against anti-Semitism, which has played an important role in getting us to the position that we are in today, or hon. Members with concerns or other relevant groups, to make the case to the EHRC’s board, which sets the work programme. I will come back later to the question of encouragement.
If the Government directed the EHRC to create an election toolkit, which was recommendation 1 in the inquiry’s report, we would be asking a regulator charged with ensuring people’s freedom of expression to seek to limit how people exercised that freedom of expression in relation to campaigning. That would create a degree of inconsistency. The Government believe that it is for individual political parties to decide what they want. If they feel that such a toolkit might be useful, it is for them to produce one.
Various political advertisements have been mentioned today, and it is worth noting that political advertising is exempt from the British codes on advertising and sales promotion. Consequently, even the bodies that could in principle regulate in this area are unable to do so. The best course of action—it is a practical one, which often works—for anyone with concerns about a political advert is to contact the party responsible and exercise their democratic right to tell that party exactly what they think. If it is felt that the advert amounts to discrimination or hate crime, that is a matter for the courts and the police. The police take hate crime and racism very seriously.
Sir Andrew Stunell
The guidelines made available by the CRE were used extensively by local authorities, returning officers and others who regulate the election process. Does the Minister not see a wider role than simply issuing guidelines to political parties?
Mrs Grant
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say, and I know that he participated in the inquiry. However, the issues are electoral ones. The Electoral Commission publishes guidance and deals with misconduct. If the sin or the abuse is worse than misconduct, it is, of course, discrimination and it is dealt with by the courts. If it is worse than that—if it amounts to hate crime or racism—the police will take such matters seriously. If political parties feel that codes of practice are needed, it is for them to reach agreement and produce such codes.
Natascha Engel
I think the point that the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) raised, which I would like to raise as well, is that there is a need for the EHRC to look at preventing discrimination. The Minister is talking about a process for dealing with discrimination when it is found, but we are saying that it would be much better if the EHRC were more proactive in going out and training, advising and using toolkits to prevent discrimination from happening in the first place.
Mrs Grant
I hear and understand the point that the hon. Lady is making. The EHRC is a highly respected, A-status established body. I know that she has concerns, but the EHRC does a huge amount of work to tackle unlawful discrimination and promote equality. Should it do more? That is something that we might discuss in our meeting in June, but I must emphasise that the EHRC is independent, and it must decide what it will do. It is important that lobbyists lobby appropriately, particularly when it comes to racism and discrimination. I will say a little more about the role and function of the EHRC as I progress.
If the EHRC’s remit was extended to cover electoral law, it might go beyond its powers as specified in the Equality Act 2010. Some of the ideas raised today might well result in such an outcome, so we must be careful. It would be inappropriate for the EHRC to draw up annual guidance on electoral conduct, as set out in recommendation 3 of the inquiry report—the Electoral Commission leads on that area—or on hate crime, which the police enforce through the courts. Instead, the Government believe that relevant groups, including all-party parliamentary groups, and hon. Members who have concerns must work with the Electoral Commission and the police to deliver recommendations aimed at electoral reform, criminal harassment and hate crime.
I agree with the all-party parliamentary inquiry that it is important that people know exactly where to go if a candidate’s campaign material contains false or misleading statements or breaches of electoral rules. However, the Electoral Commission already produces guidance for the police and the Association of Chief Police Officers, so it seems sensible for the police and the Electoral Commission to ensure that that guidance covers discrimination and hate crime rather than for the EHRC to create separate guidance. We are in agreement about what needs to be done; it is simply a question of the vehicle, the tool or the method by which we achieve it. I want to work with the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire on this.
Recommendation 19 suggests that the EHRC should produce a standardised framework for reporting discrimination during election campaigns. In practice, the Electoral Commission and the police have their own published guidance on how to report electoral misconduct and how to report a crime. Guidance on reporting unlawful discrimination is available from the Equality Advisory and Support Service, which is funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Let me pick up some of the other questions that I have been asked. I have touched on the question of encouraging the EHRC to work more proactively and to show leadership, and we can certainly discuss that when we meet in June. I will be happy to see the hon. Lady and members of the commission there. Of course, the EHRC will be invited, and I am hopeful that a very senior person will be able to attend. As I have said, it is for relevant groups, APPGs and concerned Members of the House to lobby and make the case to the EHRC’s board, which sets its work programme. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) will be pleased, because I am moving right off the type of script that he described. The EHRC may be able to provide assistance, and when we meet, we can discuss that further.
The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire mentioned the press code and asked whether the Department for Culture, Media and Sport could raise with the Press Complaints Commission the issue of discrimination. The standards code is a matter for press self-regulation, not for Government, but I hope that there will be an opportunity for organisations to put forward their views on any revisions to the standards in the code.
What the hon. Lady had to say about the possibilities for local authorities was very interesting. I am happy to raise such issues with Ministers from the Department for Communities and Local Government, but I can tell her now that it is already an offence to make or publish false statements about the personal character or conduct of other candidates; it is also an offence to publish or distribute threatening, abusive or insulting material that is intended to stir up racial hatred. Of course, it is for the returning officer to investigate any claims of electoral malpractice, and they would refer the matter to the police for further investigation if necessary.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), asked a couple of times whether the EHRC could use the programme funding to help to fund the type of work we are discussing, if it felt that that was appropriate; my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) also raised that issue. I can tell them both that programme funding bids can be made, provided they do not overlap with the work of other Government Departments or agencies. It is a matter for the EHRC to make that application, not for the Government to tell it to do so, and it must decide what work it considers appropriate and wants to do. The shadow Minister asked whether any such bid had been made thus far; to my knowledge, no bid has been made in relation to this particular type of work.
The shadow Minister asked about the current role and functioning of the EHRC. It certainly does want to promote understanding and good practice, and it has indicated that it will use its powers under section 8 of the Equality Act 2006 to enable it to do so with any interested parties. However, as the hon. Lady knows, the EHRC no longer has a specific good relations mandate, and the Equality Acts do not apply specifically to electoral conduct.
Budget cuts were raised, but I am not going to dwell on that because I do not want us to be distracted from such an important debate, which focuses on the very important problems of discrimination and racism. Nevertheless, I can confirm that the EHRC was not established to deal with electoral issues; it was set up to deal with equality and human rights issues.
The parliamentary inquiry on electoral conduct was thorough and detailed and made recommendations to a number of bodies, including the Electoral Commission, the police and political parties. Building its findings into current work and guidance and working with the right organisations is the best way to ensure that political life becomes a battle of ideas, not of race hate and discrimination. The inquiry raised very important issues relating to racism and discrimination in elections that must be dealt with. The means to tackle those problems are in place, but it is important that all concerned work towards combating racism and discrimination. I will of course play my part where I can.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. I thank the Minister who is due to respond to the next debate for attending in such a timely fashion. He has agreed to the debate starting early, with the permission of the hon. Member who initiated the debate.
Employment and Support Allowance Application
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this short debate on the employment and support allowance application process for those with mental health problems, Mrs Main. We may be a small, select company this afternoon, but I am sure that I am not the only MP to have seen over the past couple of years a steady and increasing stream of people with quite serious mental illnesses falling through our social safety net, which is now very frayed because of welfare reforms. Despite modifications, the work capability assessment is still failing too many people.
It goes without saying that most people with a mental illness will never need to depend on the benefits system, but some of those with more severe or persistent illnesses do require support, and some of them are extremely vulnerable. In the time we have for this debate, I want to focus on the shortcomings of work capability assessments with regard to mental health conditions and make some concrete suggestions about how the process might be improved.
The issue is by no means new. Ever since the introduction of the work capability assessment, mental health care professionals and representative organisations have expressed concerns that it does not capture the impact of more serious mental illnesses on a person’s capacity to function in a working environment and consequently leads to poor decision making. A core problem is that too often assessors and decision makers have little or no relevant background information about claimants’ complex medical histories and too rarely seek input or opinions from claimants’ clinicians.
The problems were clearly acknowledged at the time of the first Harrington review, when Professor Harrington said that decision makers should be
“able to seek appropriate chosen healthcare professional advice”.
In his third review, he recommended that they
“should actively consider the need to seek further documentary evidence in every claimant’s case”.
The fourth review, led by Paul Litchfield, devoted significant attention to the assessment of mental function and made a number of recommendations, some of which the Government have accepted. However, the Royal College of Psychiatrists said this week that
“there is little evidence of any significant increase in the collection of evidence by either ATOS HCPs or DWP Decision Makers.”
The issue is not going away; indeed, it is being compounded by the new Department for Work and Pensions sanctions regime, which is having an acute effect on people with mental health conditions. According to a freedom of information request, in 2013, 58%—almost six out of 10—ESA claimants sanctioned were people with a mental health condition or learning difficulty. That is an increase from 35% of sanctioned claimants in 2009, and it suggests that people with mental health problems are being inappropriately sanctioned.
There is a growing body of evidence from a range of sources that, in spite of the changes that have been implemented along the way, the work capability assessment is still failing people with serious mental health problems. However, I want to highlight the report published recently by the Scottish Association for Mental Health, or SAMH, which details findings on how experiences of living in poverty affect peoples’ mental health, and how SAMH service users have been affected by welfare reforms.
SAMH has been a leading mental health charity in Scotland for many decades and works directly with thousands of people across the country, helping them to recover from mental illness and offering support and training. It also works to improve policy and practice in relation to mental health, reduce stigma, raise awareness and promote well-being. SAMH undertook a major survey of its service users in 2013. The truly shocking finding was that 98% of respondents said that welfare reforms were negatively affecting their mental health, including increasing stress and anxiety, while 79% were also facing financial problems. Of SAMH staff, 85% said that they were having to provide additional support to service users as a direct result of the welfare reforms, and, in six cases, SAMH staff had to carry out suicide interventions directly related to welfare reforms.
I know that the Minister will be well aware of the tragic case of a woman known as Ms DE, whose suicide in 2011 was the subject of an investigation by the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland. Ms DE took her own life after scoring zero points in a work capability assessment made in the absence of an ESA50 form and without any additional information from her clinicians. The only information her assessor had about her condition was the single word “depression”, a word that in her case masked a long and difficult psychiatric history. Both her general practitioner and consultant psychiatrist considered Ms DE unfit for work at the time of her death, even though she had worked for most of her adult life. Indeed, the significant event review after her death noted that
“Ms DE was hoping to return to employment at some point.”
However, it also noted the distress caused by her benefits assessment and the role that it may have played in her suicide, concluding that there was “no other known trigger”.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, and for her permission to make an intervention. Just this week my office has dealt with two ESA appeals and four inquiries on the subject. Each one of those six cases relates to addiction or mental health problems. I am very aware of the far-reaching impact that the process has on people, which the hon. Lady outlined. Does she agree—she probably will—that if there is no compassion and understanding in the system, as there seems not to be, many other people will come to the same point as the lady whose case she is describing?
Dr Whiteford
I think that is right. On reading the evidence produced by organisations that support people with mental health problems, it is very clear that the increased anxiety and stress can contribute to ill health and make people more ill than they were to start with.
The report makes upsetting reading, and we should all express condolences to the unnamed woman’s family. Her death is a sobering reminder to all of us of the very real impact that Government decisions and state bureaucracies have on people’s lives. However, I was also struck by the very robust terms in which the Mental Welfare Commission, a statutory body, questioned the effectiveness and appropriateness of the work capability assessment and how it was working. As part of its investigation, the Mental Welfare Commission conducted a survey of responsible medical officers working in health boards across Scotland, most of whom are consultant psychiatrists, and 80% of respondents had patients who had undergone work capability assessments. Of those 80%, most had been asked to provide medical evidence, either before or after the assessments. However, three quarters had never been asked for their opinion at any point in the Atos or DWP process. Only 25% had had a request—some before the assessment, some after—and 96% said that their patients had been distressed by the assessment process; 93% reported patients distressed at the outcome of an assessment; and 80% reported patients who had successfully appealed decisions.
What also gave me great cause for concern was the impact on clinical care provision: 85% of the RMOs reported an increased frequency of appointments; 65% had had at least one patient who required an increased dose of medication; 35% had at least one patient who had been admitted to hospital as a consequence of a work capability assessment; 40% had at least one patient who had self-harmed after the assessment; 13% reported that a patient had attempted suicide; and two psychiatrists reported patients actually taking their own lives. In the light of the anecdotal evidence from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I can say that various sources show that this is not just hearsay; evidence is coming from reliable and credible people who are involved in the process, and who understand that the systems are having real and difficult consequences for people.
It is critical that greater use of expertise is drawn into the assessment process for claimants with mental health conditions. I acknowledge the conclusions of the Litchfield review on this point, which were that it may not be necessary in every case, but there seems to be an enormous gulf between a universal approach and current practice. It is a chasm into which large numbers of very ill and vulnerable people seem to be falling. SAMH found that 56% of its service users did not receive any supporting information from a health care professional in their ESA application, which, in the wake of the tragedies we have heard about, should shake us out of any sense of complacency that we are doing enough.
The DWP’s most recent quarterly statistical bulletin, published in March, outlined the total caseload to date. With regard to completed claims, 52% of people who made new applications for ESA on the grounds of mental or behavioural disorders were found fit for work, so the high numbers of people awarded ESA on grounds of mental ill health represent less than half of applications made because of these conditions. Too many people are falling through cracks in the assessment process. I have alluded to the increased pressure that this creates in the NHS, but it also brings attendant costs in social care, policing and homelessness, which outstrip the cost savings that the DWP might be making.
Throughout the work of the Harrington and Litchfield reviews, there is an implicit acknowledgment that the work capability assessment is not working as it should and not working well enough for people with mental health problems. My request to the Minister today is simple: will he meet me and representatives of SAMH to discuss some of the ways in which the recommended improvements might be integrated into the work capability assessment?
I know some changes have been instigated since 2010, and I note Professor Harrington’s evidence-based review of December 2013, which considered whether a more specialised test developed with disability organisations might be more effective. Although that test was found to be less effective than the work capability assessment in determining fitness for work, it proved more effective in determining limited capability for work. Lessons could be learned from the scoring approach used in each assessment, so I want to ask the Minister whether he can provide an update on how the Government are using those insights to improve the work capability assessment.
It was announced in March that Atos Healthcare will leave its contract early, with new contractors commencing in 2015. The renegotiation of the contract presents an ideal opportunity for the DWP to reconsider how the right information and expert opinions can be brought into the assessment and decision-making processes. SAMH is of the view that claimants should be asked at the beginning of their application to nominate relevant health care professionals to provide supporting statements. That would significantly reduce the stress on individuals, improve input from professionals, and, we have to conclude, lead to better decisions the first time round, reducing the need for costly and stressful appeals. With the DWP in the process of reviewing and updating its contract, surely this is a prime opportunity—the ideal moment—to introduce a process by which the statements could be secured. What practical steps might the Minister take to move this forward?
Lastly, the SAMH report highlights the increased stress and anxiety for claimants who face lengthy waits for assessments, often have to live on a reduced income, and fear that they will not get a fair assessment. That has come out in the past few years as people see what happens to those in their support groups and social networks, who have come through the system and feel that the assessment concentrated on their physical health, not their mental health. Sometimes their physical symptoms can be connected to their mental health problems, but they are often more easy to cope with in day-to-day life than the debilitating effects of mental illness.
The reduction in support services as a result of austerity cuts has left some very unwell people unsupported. The DWP could minimise such distress by providing clear, accessible information to applicants at the outset of the process, signposting them to organisations that can provide advice on welfare rights, finances and well-being, and setting out the process by which health care professionals can be contacted regarding supporting statements.
Jim Shannon
Problems have come to my attention relating to correspondence with those who have mental health issues. Often, correspondence is mislaid or inappropriately addressed, which means that people with mental health issues are not aware of the process and how they should respond to it. The Minister always responds positively to the issues, but does the hon. Lady feel that one of the things that could be done better, when dealing with people with addiction and mental health issues, is ensuring a follow-up whenever responses are not made directly to the Department?
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Indeed, that was one of the key recommendations of the report by the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland in the case of Ms DE. Attempts had been made to contact her, but there were no repeat attempts and no one managed to get hold of her. It is easy to envisage somebody who is suffering from severe depression not answering the phone and not opening the mail in the way that someone in a healthier situation was more able and minded to. Those points have been well made, and I am sure that the Minister is already cognisant of them, but I will be interested in his response on the process, particularly in the DWP, going forward.
Relatively small steps could have a marked impact on people’s lives, and could help ensure that the process does not actively contribute to people’s mental health problems, but helps set them on the road to recovery. Will the Minister consider what he can do in terms of signposting, explaining to people their rights in the process, and making sure that we are not making things worse for people who are already very ill? It is in everyone’s interests to achieve a work capability assessment that is fit for purpose. I hope that the Minister will take the time to read the SAMH report and hear the perspectives of those with most at stake in the process and who badly need our support, and I hope he will meet us in the not-too-distant future.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)
In the short time that I have before we go to vote—I will continue when we come back—may I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) on securing this debate on a very important issue? In the short period that I have been the Minister in the Department, the issue has occupied a huge amount of my time, not least because, like many families in this country, my family has been touched by mental health issues, including depression, so I understand the issues very well. Even if I do not agree with all the hon. Lady’s comments, I know that they were heartfelt.
Some of the things that we are trying to do aim to get to the core of how we can deliver a service that is fit for purpose—I often use this term—in both ways. I have met so many people with mental health illness who want to work. A lot of them, particularly those with depression, tell me that their conditions, which some of them have had since long before I became a Member of Parliament, have got worse because they have not had assistance to go to work. They want to be part of the community and want to feel as if they are contributing; they do not necessarily want to be on benefits—something that a lot of them find difficult. Of course, the job of the welfare system is to enable people to be looked after when they cannot fulfil their financial needs and have to deal with certain health requirements.
The hon. Lady asked me if I would meet her. By all means; my door is always open. Anybody who knows me, knows that. That is the way I am. I have met numerous stakeholders in the area of mental health since I came to office.
Although we have moved to a degree, there is always more work to be done. As I said to the hon. Lady before the debate, I am somewhat restricted in what I can do in the Department today, because I have a judicial review running in this area and cannot implement some of Harrington’s third review, though I would like to, let alone do some of the work that we would like to do in respect of Litchfield. I had a meeting earlier today about how to do that.
I agree with the hon. Lady: small things can be done that would have a dramatic effect on the big picture. I am minded to look carefully at whether we can have advocates, whom I think the hon. Lady mentioned, for not only people with mental health issues, but those with learning difficulties—we do this now—and people with hidden disabilities. As she rightly said, there is often a multitude of disabilities, some obvious and others less obvious. Often, more difficulties arise in respect of the ones that we cannot see.
The hon. Lady mentioned that I have negotiated with my officials that Atos will leave the work capability assessment contract. She will be pleased to know that the new contractors will be in this year, not in 2015, and that they will initially run in parallel with Atos and the Atos software, not least because if we stopped today and brought a new contractor in tomorrow, some serious problems would come out of the other side of that. If she thinks there is confusion with the system now, she can trust me on that.
What Harrington and Litchfield touched on is the fact that the system is not broken, but can operate better. Some hon. Members fundamentally disagree with work capability assessment; I do not, although it is not perfect. The previous Administration brought WCA in. It is important that specialists consider whether an individual is capable of doing some type of work, and that they are not the person—not, say, the GP—who sees the individual on a daily basis and has a personal relationship with them.
The hon. Lady made the crucial point that clinical evidence from specialists must be there and available when decisions are made. That is where a lot of the work needs to be done. We already extend the period for people with mental health problems beyond the normal period, while we are waiting for the ESA50 to come back, because we understand the rationale for that. We also have to understand that the filling in of forms and the commentary that needs to be given to officials, whether from Atos or the new contractor, is vital. We need to get as much information as possible—not least, as the hon. Lady said, so that we do not get into an appeal and tribunal situation when that is unnecessary.
Evidence in respect of changes that I have made in the past couple of months clearly shows that fewer people are appealing their WCA than did a year ago. We will release more evidence on that. A lot of that is because we are, for want of a better phrase, getting it right and making it better. We need to do more work on hidden disabilities, and mental health is one of those.
I do not get quite the numbers at my surgery that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, but people do come to see me and, I think, other hon. Members on the subject. Anyone with an ounce of compassion in them will understand the issues and concerns that these people come to them with. I stress that it is not just about ensuring that a person gets the financial benefit that they need; it is about ensuring that they get the help they need, whether from the mental health side of the health service or from clinicians, and that they get assistance to get back into the workplace.
I reiterate that I am more than happy to work with not only the hon. Lady and SAMH, but all the groups, which are working much more closely with us now. Of course, I would prefer to have the judicial review addressed and done as soon as possible, so that we can not only hear the ruling, but move on with pilots for some of the ideas in the report. I will be perfectly honest and say that I have read the report summary but not the report in its entirety—it is a detailed report—but I assure the hon. Lady that it landed on my desk almost before it was in print.
This is an important issue, and it is important that we get it right; the Government are determined to get it right. It will never be perfect, because of the issues and the complexity that we are dealing with, but as long as I am the Minister, making sure that we address the issues will be at the top of my list.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
The Minister has concluded his remarks. We will suspend until 4.30 pm. If there is a Division in the main Chamber between now and 4.30 pm, we will take 15 minutes for that Division.
Migratory Birds (Malta)
(10 years, 7 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
Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
It is a privilege, Mrs Main, to serve under your chairmanship. Knowing your record on these matters, I am sure you will be interested in the debate, and I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting it. I feel privileged to be given the opportunity to voice the concerns of many thousands of people in this country and further afield about the mindless slaughter of migrant birds in Malta.
This year marks the 50th year that I have been a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I joined as a very young boy, and throughout those years, I have been acutely aware of the existence in the Mediterranean area of a culture of killing migrant birds of all types. I regret to say that one of the worst culprits has been Malta, and as a result, I have never had the pleasure of visiting that island. That is a real pity, because I have an otherwise positive image of a courageous George Cross island that is steeped in history. The Maltese people that I have met have always been friendly and incredibly pleasant.
Like many people who have an interest in wildlife—I have to admit that in my case it is a passion—I have been riveted recently by the daily video blogs produced by the well known broadcaster Chris Packham and a dedicated team of volunteers. They were helped by a courageous group from BirdLife International and BirdLife Malta. I say courageous, because they faced personal intimidation, questioning from the Maltese authorities and even physical danger. Men with firearms are not confronted lightly.
Some of those brave Maltese who have been fighting against this illegal hunting over the years have put their lives on the line, but what has that got to do with us in the UK? Nature does not respect national boundaries, so co-ordinated international action is essential if we are to protect our wild bird species for future generations. The EU’s birds directive and habitats directive are the cornerstones of conservation action across Europe and provide a policy framework that has helped to improve the status and prospects of wild birds across Europe.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this important matter to Westminster Hall for discussion. It is important to get a balance, though. I know his point of view, and he referred to the conservation groups that have catalogued evidence, but some shooting organisations have evidence as well. When it comes to getting the balance and the full picture, it is important to contact the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Countryside Alliance. They have direct contact with those bodies in Malta.
Sir John Randall
One thing that I have found is that legitimate shooting interests in this country and elsewhere in Europe regard what goes on in Malta as not part of their sport. I will go on to say more on that. I am in no way anti-shooting, whether in the UK or elsewhere, if it is legitimate.
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree with many of my constituents, who do not understand why this barbaric practice is still going on in the 21st century?
Sir John Randall
I know that my hon. Friend and his constituents have a keen interest in this issue. He is absolutely right that there is no place for the practice in the 21st century.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Following on from that point, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that from 1 April this year, the penalties for illegal shooting in Malta were multiplied by 10? I welcome that. I lived in Malta and I fully understand that there is still a hunting party out there, which needs bringing to heel. Secondly, just yesterday—
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. May I ask that in a half-hour debate Members keep their comments very short?
Sir John Randall
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and pleased to hear about the increased penalties, but the point is that penalties have to be enforced. Earlier, he was telling me that the Maltese are taking action. If that is so, that is welcome news and I wait to see what happens.
Andrew Miller
Yesterday’s Malta Independent reported the arrest of four people in Naxxar following the shooting of a flamingo last year. That is good news.
Sir John Randall
That is good news. We would all welcome those arrests, which we want to see happening more often. Malta holds the only derogation for recreational spring hunting of turtle doves and quail, and we all know that that provides a smokescreen for illegal hunting. The UK Government and the European Commission must insist that Malta abides by the spirit, as well as the letter, of the EU’s birds directive and habitats directive and puts an end to spring hunting for good.
Malta sits on the central Mediterranean bird migration flyway between Europe and Africa. Every spring and autumn, large numbers of birds fly over the islands on their migration between the two continents. Many are shot in Malta. Spring hunting is significantly more damaging than autumn hunting, as it reduces the numbers of birds returning to breed. That is self-evident.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Is he willing to emphasise how much this is a British issue? British birds are migrating over these routes. Does he have any estimates for the effect that Maltese shooting has had on British bird numbers over the years?
Sir John Randall
Many of the birds are not in fact coming to Britain, although some are. For cuckoos in particular, we now know more about their migration, and we know that they are British birds. Regardless of whether the birds are British or not, they are European. On that point, I am a European.
An open season runs from 1 September to 31 January, during which 41 species of bird can be legally hunted in unlimited numbers, but the trouble is that there is a mix of legal and illegal hunting. Spring hunting is not usually legal in the European Union. Article 7.4 of the birds directive obliges member states to ban hunting of species to which hunting regulations apply during their period of reproduction or during their return to rearing grounds. Malta is the only country in the EU with a derogation from the directive. The directive states that derogations made be made
“where there is no other satisfactory solution…to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers.”
In 2009, no spring hunting of quail and turtle doves was permitted for the first time ever due to an injunction from the European Court of Justice, which ruled that too many birds were being killed. It followed a complaint from BirdLife Malta to the European Commission in 2005 and a petition to the Maltese Prime Minister with 115,000 signatures from RSPB members. In 2010, however, spring hunting was reopened despite an ECJ ruling that by allowing spring hunting in the 2004 to 2007 period, Malta had failed to comply with the conditions for derogation.
Hunting in Malta currently breaches many if not all of the conditions for derogation. The spring hunting derogation specifies that a maximum of 16,000 birds can be killed, but each licensed hunter is allowed to kill four birds in total of turtle dove and/or quail, so more than 40,000 turtle dove and quail could be shot by licensed hunters. Turtle doves are in serious decline in western Europe, and this hunting is taking out the remaining populations. An agreement between the new Maltese Government, elected in 2013, and the FKNK, Malta’s largest hunting organisation, allows every registered hunter to obtain a spring hunting licence, meaning that more 10,000 hunters are supposed to hunt just 16,000 birds. At the same time, the spring season has been extended.
The current derogation framework is frequently abused by the hunting community in Malta. Consecutive spring hunting reports from BirdLife Malta show that the number of birds shot is much higher than allowable bag limits set by the Maltese Government. The derogation framework allows two species to be hunted, but more than 19 species were observed to have been shot or were brought into the BirdLife Malta office by volunteers last year. The same is true this year, as we saw in the video blogs. Many of the species targeted every spring hunting season are threatened in Europe, including Montagu’s, marsh and pallid harriers, common cuckoos and nightjars. One of most heart-rending scenes in the video blogs was the euthanising of a Montagu’s harrier that had been shot.
It has become increasingly difficult to gather evidence and numbers as poachers become more sophisticated in their illegal activity, including using illegal electronic lures and even hunting birds on the ground at night. It should not be imagined that it is a fair contest of man and rifle against his quarry; this is slaughter, pure and simple. Some on the island claim that the activity is traditional. Indeed, it was, but there is no place for such traditions in the 21st century. Bear baiting and cock fighting were once traditions in this country, but I do not think that anyone is arguing for their return.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Coming from Portsmouth, I understand well the connection that Britain has with Malta. As well as our shared naval history, we are the guardians of each other’s wildlife. In my experience, that is well understood not only by the people of Portsmouth, but also by the people of Valetta, which is why I find this lax attitude so difficult to understand.
Sir John Randall
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. I regret this problem with a few people in Malta, because the ties between our two countries are immense.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate and on the case he makes. In congratulating the movement in Malta and the Government’s approach, is he not shocked that Chris Packham was detained by the police for highlighting the abuses going on in the country?
Sir John Randall
I do not know the exact situation, but it seems on the surface that that was not the best move.
In March, 33 MEPs from 10 member states wrote to Environment Commissioner Potocnik saying that
“the Maltese government has sought to justify the derogation through inaccurate reports and unreliable and even fictional data.”
Will the Government call on Janez Potocnik, the EU Environment Commissioner, to ensure that the directive is properly enforced in Malta?
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree that the situation smacks of the European Commission having lost the will to address the problem?
Sir John Randall
I am not entirely sure. All I know is that the European Commissioner’s time is running out and it is not the best time to discuss such matters, so I think that we will return to them in a couple of months.
The main law that defends our shared wildlife is the EU birds directive, but a new environmental inspections directive is also under consideration. However, we cannot be too cocky. We must get our own house in order, as the illegal persecution of birds still happens in this country, including the recent killing of some red kites in Ross-shire. We cannot lecture people unless we get our house in order—although I stress that I am not trying to lecture the Maltese people.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, alongside the UK Government taking the matter up with the European Commission, it is also important to hold bilateral talks with Malta to see whether some agreement can be reached?
Sir John Randall
I like the idea, but this is a European thing. I do not want the Maltese to think that Britain is pushing them; other European countries, such as Holland and Germany, are thinking exactly the same. It just happens that we are in the UK Parliament today.
There is considerable public support in the UK for stronger action. In 2010, 230,000 people signed a petition calling on the Government to do more to end the illegal killing of our own birds of prey. With the publication of the England biodiversity strategy, the coalition Government committed themselves making it one of their priorities.
Returning to Malta, it is important to recognise that hunting is not a national pastime in Malta and that there is a majority in Malta who want the practice to stop. BirdLife Malta seeks to use the Referenda Act 1973 to force a national referendum to ban spring hunting permanently. It has collected 45,000 signatures so far, which is some 10% of the Maltese population, and we hope for a referendum in early 2015. If anybody wants to do something constructive, there is a fund to help the referendum campaign. I am sure that it can be found online and that all donations will be gratefully received.
When discussing hunters in Malta, we are talking about a group of fewer than 10,000 people who are damaging species that are precious to the public across Europe. In recent days, a young lady called Michela Spiteri wrote the following on the Times of Malta website:
“We want to be able to enjoy the little countryside we have unrestrainedly, without being subjected to the shooting sounds and the wrath of territorial hunters who, after all, have no business telling the rest of us where to get off. And above all, we are entitled to wash our hands of and not to want anything to do with the veritable bloodbath that this cruel and illegal exemption brings about.”
That is the spirit of the youth in Malta and that is what I want to encourage today.
In all other respects, I am sure that Malta is a great place for tourism. I believe strongly, as someone who used to lead birdwatching trips around the world, that if the slaughter was stopped, Malta would rapidly become a favourite destination for birdwatchers and their families at key migration periods, which would actually extend the tourist season. Like Chris Packham, for whom I have the strongest respect, and others, I am certainly not calling for a boycott—far from it. I want the Maltese people to know that we in the UK support the majority that want the cruel practice to end. I hope that the House will join me today in condemning bird killing in Malta and that the Minister will do everything possible to help bring it to an end by raising it with his European counterparts in appropriate forums in the European Union. I have been amazed by the reaction not only from the public, but also from colleagues across the House. This is a half-hour debate that traditionally involves a Member and the Minister, yet some Members have not been able intervene. There is a positive way forward and we must keep the topic in the public mind.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) on securing the debate and on bringing the subject to the attention of the House. He has a lifelong passion for such issues, being a member of the RSPB for some 50 years, as he said. Last time I debated with him in Westminster Hall, the subject was farmland birds, so I know that he is a long-standing campaigner. He is also in tune with the mood of many in the country.
Britain has always been a pioneer of conservation, and birds have always been at the forefront of this country’s passion for wildlife. Groups such as the RSPB are among those with the largest membership in the UK. As a result, wild birds have been afforded strong levels of protection in the UK since the introduction of the Protection of Birds Act 1954—a full 25 years before the EU birds directive made the protection of wild birds, in much the same manner, an obligation on all member states. It therefore comes as no surprise to me that my right hon. Friend, along with many others, was disturbed to see recent media coverage of the annual spring hunting season in Malta.
In reacting to such reports, it is important to bear in mind the distinctions between lawful hunting activity that the EU birds directive specifically permits member states to undertake, and the illegal hunting carried out by those acting outside the law. The directive provides a strong framework for the protection of all naturally occurring wild birds throughout the EU and requires each member state to take measures to ensure the protection, management and control of birds, their eggs, nests and habitats, and to maintain populations occurring within their range at levels that correspond to their particular ecological, scientific and cultural requirements. The directive, however, also lays down rules for the exploitation of such birds through hunting activity and permits the “judicious use” of wild birds for economic and recreational purposes.
Some species may be hunted for sport or food throughout the European Union, while certain others may be hunted only within specified territories. The birds directive is clear that any hunting activity must remain compatible with maintaining the populations of the species, and it contains safeguards to ensure that. The responsibility of individual member states and of the European Commission is to ensure the correct transposition of, and compliance with, EU directives. It is, however, a well known fact that the Commission has previously expressed concerns about the hunting of migratory birds in Malta. Permitting the spring hunting of turtle doves and quail has been the subject of particular Commission scrutiny to ensure that it is compliant with the directive.
Together with other islands in the Mediterranean, such as Crete and Cyprus, the islands of Malta play a vital role for many migratory species of bird during their long flight between Africa and Europe. The EU directive recognised that it is important for the birds to receive particular protection in spring, so that they may breed and build up their populations from the low point in their natural annual cycles. Some evidence suggests, in particular for turtle doves, that the impact on populations of spring hunting can be up to eight times higher than the impact of autumn hunting.
In 2009, as a result of such concerns, the European Commission referred Malta to the European Court of Justice for permitting the hunting of turtle doves and quail during their spring migration. The Court ruled that, by permitting that activity between 2004 and 2007, the Maltese Government had failed to comply with the derogation conditions associated with hunting and, as such, had failed to fulfil their obligations under the directive. The Court, however, also recognised that Malta’s unique bio-geographical circumstances restricted hunting opportunities in autumn, and it therefore reaffirmed Malta’s right to permit limited hunting in spring through a derogation from the birds directive, subject to meeting the stringent parameters of article 9(1)(c) of that directive.
Sir John Randall
I apologise for stopping the Minister mid-flow. What particular bio-geographical factors make hunting more difficult in the autumn?
George Eustice
I am told that the doves migrate through Malta, rather than being resident there. That was a conclusion of the Court—that the situation could not be dealt with in other ways, which was why it upheld the right. That was its judgment.
In response to the 2010 judgment, the Maltese Government developed a new legal framework and introduced a number of changes to how they control the spring hunting of turtle doves and quail to ensure compliance with the directive. Measures include annual estimations of the populations of species; limits on the number of birds that may be shot during the hunt under the derogation; and an assessment of whether the populations are likely to suffer any detrimental effect.
Despite the changes, a number of organisations and individuals have continued to campaign against the spring hunting permitted by the Maltese Government. I understand the concerns expressed, but it is for the Maltese Government to investigate any alleged illegal hunting activity that might be taking place alongside their permitted hunting regime. We should also bear in mind, as a number of Members have pointed out, that the issue is an incredibly contentious one in Malta itself. It has been said that more than 10% of the population have signed a petition calling for a referendum—as my right hon. Friend pointed out, it already has up to 45,000 signatures and it is being considered.
Fortuitously, I was in Athens over the past few days, at an informal meeting of the European Council. Knowing that the debate was coming up, I had the opportunity to discuss the subject briefly with my opposite number, Roderick Galdes, on the margins of one of the meetings. In fairness, the Maltese Government believe that they have done a lot to tackle the illegal killing of doves, and they feel frustrated that that has not been recognised. He highlighted some of the steps that Malta has taken to strengthen enforcement. It now has the highest ratio of enforcement deployment possible per square kilometre of countryside anywhere in Europe. He also pointed out that Malta’s penalties and legal deterrents against bird-related crime are among the most severe in Europe. He stressed that there had been some 4,000 physical inspections. I am simply pointing out the argument made by the Maltese Government.
Sir John Randall
We are talking about the illegal hunting not only of turtle doves, or quail for that matter—far from it—but of other species, which is well documented. That is what does not seem to have been tackled.
George Eustice
Yes. I am simply reporting the argument of the Maltese Government. As I said, I took the opportunity to discuss the matter briefly with my opposite number. They feel that they are not given credit for the steps they have taken, which they argue have resulted in a very tight regime, with tough reporting requirements.
Where there is evidence to suggest that illegal hunting activity is occurring, the UK Government encourage all relevant authorities to ensure that sufficiently robust action is taken. As I have stated, compliance with the European Union directives, including any alleged failings, is a matter for the individual member states and for the European Commission. Representations have been made, for example by a number of MEPs in the European Parliament, and many organisations and members of the public may also express their concerns through their MEPs.
Finally, turning to the situation here, sadly a number of the UK’s migratory bird species have experienced population declines over recent decades. A range of factors are thought to have contributed to that trend, many of which we discussed in the previous debate on this issue, including habitat loss from historical farming intensification, poor food availability and disease.
The impact that overseas hunting may have on British populations of migratory birds is unclear at the moment. Malta’s geographic position means it is unlikely that a significant proportion of our migratory bird populations pass over it; most are thought to come through places such as Gibraltar. We therefore think that spring hunting in Malta is unlikely to be having a direct impact on populations here. However, my right hon. Friend has made the valid point that he is not taking a British but a European perspective on the issue, and it may be having an impact on populations elsewhere.
Domestically, we have implemented a range of initiatives to help improve bird populations. When I last discussed the issue with my right hon. Friend, we talked at great length about the environmental stewardship schemes and the new environmental land management schemes. Turtle doves are one of six targeted species for funding in the current regime, and we expect that the new environmental land management schemes will see further benefits for farmland birds. We have made it clear that we want to prioritise biodiversity.
We are aware that illegal hunting and killing activity is a problem for many countries that are important in the life cycle of migratory birds—that is the case with Malta. This issue therefore needs strong co-operation and enforcement activity at every level. In the UK, the joint nature conservation committee has always played a leading role in the international action plan for African and Eurasian migratory land birds. We are playing our part and continue to make the case on these issues.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend once more on securing the debate. As I said, he has long championed these issues. This is a contentious issue in Malta as well. I am not sure that a British intervention will necessarily help Malta to make up its mind, given that the issue is so contentious and so many people there have expressed clear views on it. The debate has been an interesting one that has highlighted an issue that is important to many people.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. I am afraid that as the Minister has concluded his remarks, the sitting stands adjourned, Sir John.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Green Deal (Home Improvement Fund)
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
In December, the Government announced action they were taking to reduce the impact of their policies on energy bills which included £450 million over three years for household energy efficiency. I wanted to update the House on progress. In February, we made some changes to the current green deal cashback scheme, including extending it to the end of June 2014 and uplifting some rates to boost the supply chain and help customers while we designed new schemes and consulted on our proposed changes to ECO.
In March, DECC awarded £88 million to 24 consortia in English local authorities to promote green deal on a street-by-street basis, representing a huge opportunity for local industries and the energy efficiency of those communities, including projects aimed at the private rented sector. On Thursday, I announced details of a new green deal home improvement fund. From June, householders across England and Wales will be able to get up to £7,600 back through this new scheme to stimulate warmer, greener homes while enabling them to take control of their energy bills.
The fund will help households to install energy efficiency improvements by rewarding them with money back on the cost of installing two or more of 13 measures eligible under the scheme.
Under the green deal home improvement fund, domestic energy customers can claim:
up to £1,000 for installing two measures from an approved list; and/or
up to £6,000 for installing solid wall insulation; and
up to £100 refunded for their green deal assessment.
In addition, those who have bought a property in the 12 months prior to application may qualify for up to an additional £500 if they carry out energy efficiency improvements under the scheme.
These rates are guaranteed for the first £50 million, and up to £120 million is available this financial year.
Private or social landlords can benefit from the new scheme if they undertake to improve the property and are paying the costs themselves, subject to de minimis thresholds for state aid.
We have simplified the fund’s application process for customers and opened up access to approved green deal installers as well as providers. This will expand the market for smaller businesses, while maintaining the quality of installation, and enabling them to compete for energy efficiency opportunities in new and innovative ways. It will also give more householders a broader choice in how they make and pay for energy-saving home improvements.
This is the latest in a series of measures we are taking to help families across the nation enjoy the benefits of warmer, more energy-efficient homes and lower bills to stimulate business growth and to save carbon.
G7 Energy Ministers Meeting
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
On 5 and 6 May I attended a meeting of G7 Energy Ministers, hosted by Italy in Rome, to discuss energy security. These discussions took place against the backdrop of developments in Ukraine. The G7 expressed concern about the energy security implications, as a consequence of Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The UK argued that we need a more energy-secure future, meaning that no single state or supplier can use energy as a weapon. The G7 has agreed to do what is needed to achieve a systematic, enduring step change to improve energy security—not just for the nations in the G7, but for our friends and allies, with a particular focus on Ukraine and its eastern European neighbours.
The principles that were agreed to guide the G7’s work on energy security were transparent competitive energy markets, diversification of energy sources, an accelerated transition to a low-carbon economy and reduced greenhouse gas emissions, energy efficiency, investment in clean energy technologies, improved infrastructure and robust emergency response systems.
We committed to take immediate action to complement the European Commission’s work to develop energy emergency plans for winter 2014-15, to exchange best practice on energy security vulnerabilities, to provide technical assistance to Ukraine, and to ask the International Energy Agency to work in close collaboration with the European Commission to consider options that the G7 could take to improve gas security.
We also agreed that this should be the start of a process, which G7 leaders would consider when they meet in Brussels on 4 and 5 June 2014.
Foreign Affairs Council/General Affairs Council
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the Foreign Affairs Council on 12 May, and I will attend the General Affairs Council on 13 May. The Foreign Affairs Council will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, and the General Affairs Council will be chaired by the Greek presidency. The meetings will be held in Brussels.
Foreign Affairs Council (FAC)
Ukraine
Ministers will discuss Ukraine against the backdrop of a continued deterioration in the security situation in the east of the country. As the FAC takes place less than two weeks before 25 May Ukrainian presidential elections the Council is an important opportunity for the EU and member states to underline their commitment to supporting Ukraine to deliver free and fair elections in the face of great odds. The UK will emphasise the importance of the rapid establishment of a civilian common security and defence policy (CSDP) mission that we, together with Sweden and Poland, advocated at the April FAC, which is intended to address urgent, stability-related needs, including in the fields of security sector reform, support of police, and rule of law. The UK also expects the Council to reaffirm support for the organisation for security and co-operation in Europe (OSCE) special monitoring mission and to encourage all participating states to contribute to the expansion of the mission. Finally, there will be a discussion of sanctions, including the possibility of further measures in response to recent—and to deter further—Russian actions to destabilise eastern and southern Ukraine.
Middle East Peace Process
Ministers will discuss the latest developments in the middle east peace process. Conclusions should focus on urging both sides to avoid any steps which would make a return to talks more difficult and find the common ground and political strength to resume negotiations. This should include reiterating support for Secretary Kerry’s efforts, and highlighting the dividends of peace, such as the EU’s offer of special privileged partnerships. Trying to apportion blame for the breakdown in talks would be unhelpful. On the subject of the reconciliation deal, the EU should stand ready to engage with any Palestinian Government which upholds the principle of non-violence, remains committed to achieving a negotiated two-state solution, and accepts all previously accepted agreements and obligations, including recognising Israel’s legitimate right to exist.
European Neighbourhood Policy
Over lunch Ministers will discuss the future direction of the European neighbourhood policy (ENP). The UK’s view is that the implementation of the ENP could be improved, and that there is a need for a thorough review, taking account of member states’ views and looking at the long-term outcomes that the EU wants to deliver. The UK wants an ENP that is focused on the EU’s strategic goals—sustainable and long-term economic and political reform, within a strengthened democratic system, with a greater degree of differentiation between partners, and a continued emphasis on conditionality.
General Affairs Council (GAC)
The General Affairs Council on 13 May will focus on preparation for the 26 and 27 June European Council, which the Prime Minister will attend. A draft agenda for the European Council has been circulated. At this stage the European Council looks likely to cover: the future justice and home affairs programme; economic issues, including better regulation; climate and energy including a Commission report on EU energy security; and external relations issues (likely to include Ukraine). Leaders will also attend a dinner in Ypres on 26 June to commemorate the outbreak of the first world war.
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn) (Con)
My Lords, welcome to the Grand Committee this afternoon. If there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2014
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That the Grand Committee do consider the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2014.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)
My Lords, I shall provide a brief summary of what this draft order, which was laid before the House on 17 March 2014, seeks to achieve. The order is made under Section 30(2) of the Scotland Act 1998, which provides a mechanism whereby Schedule 4 or Schedule 5 to that Act can be modified by an Order in Council, subject to the agreement of both the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. This order will amend Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, which I shall refer to as the 1998 Act, to update the definition of “food” in that Act. It will also amend Section J4 of Schedule 5 to the 1998 Act to reflect the agreement reached regarding the regulation of animal feeding stuffs.
Upon devolution, the regulation of food safety and standards was devolved under the 1998 Act. As at 1 July 1999, the 1998 Act understood “food” to be as was defined by the Food Safety Act 1990. Post devolution, that definition was changed on a GB-wide basis by the Food Safety Act 1990 (Amendment) Regulations 2004 to align it with the new European Union definition of “food”. The definition at devolution and the definition post devolution are largely similar, but they are not identical. I would like to be clear that this is a technical, legal difference and there is not necessarily a specific food which would have fallen under one definition and not the other. Importantly, this 2004 change resulted in a mismatch between the legal definition of “food” in the 1998 Act and “food” as it was defined in EU law. The legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers was, therefore, limited by an out-of-date definition of “food”. This was never the intention of the 1998 Act.
Similarly, in relation to non-medicinal animal feed and additives, the regulation of animal feed safety and standards was also devolved under the 1998 Act, except for the regulation of veterinary medicines, which was reserved. Section J4 in the 1998 Act reserves the subject matter of the Medicines Act 1968, which I shall refer to as the 1968 Act. Section 130(1) of the 1968 Act, as it stood as at 1 July 1999, defined “medicinal product” as including substances fed to animals and, therefore, veterinary medicinal products. However, it was subsequently agreed between the Veterinary Medicines Directorate—an executive agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—and the Food Standards Agency that certain zootechnical additives, which do not have a medicinal effect on the animals that consume them, should be regulated within the framework of animal feed law rather than veterinary medicines legislation. It was agreed that the Veterinary Medicines Directorate would regulate for the UK all matters falling within the scope agreed and set out in the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2005. Although those regulations have since been revoked, being replaced or amended by new veterinary medicines regulations almost every year, the definitions of “veterinary medicinal product” and “specified feed additives” have been unchanged since 2005. In effect, certain animal feed-stuffs and additives ceased to be veterinary medicinal products yet continued to fall within the scope of the reservation stated at Section J4 in the 1998 Act. Thus, the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers was limited.
To address these problems, in 2005 and 2006 orders were made under Section 63 of the 1998 Act to update the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers by transferring certain necessary functions to them. These orders allowed Scottish Ministers to continue to regulate for food safety and standards by giving full effect to EU law, and also allowed them to legislate for, and control, all non-medicinal animal feed in Scotland. However, those orders did not, and could not, address the issue of the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence in these areas. This Section 30 order will bring the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence better into line with the executive competence of Scottish Ministers, both by updating the definition of “food” in the 1998 Act—thus bringing it into line with European Union legislation—and by amending Section J4 of Schedule 5, with respect to animal feeding stuffs. We believe that this order is a sensible way of addressing the anomalies I have described.
This order demonstrates the Government’s continued commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work in a very practical way. I hope the Committee will agree that this order is a reasonable use of the powers in the Scotland Act 1998. The order was debated in the House of Commons on 29 April this year and received the approval of that House on 30 April. I commend the order to the Committee. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the content of the order. I welcome any move that is devolutionary in character. I certainly believe that Scottish-branded food and the animal feed-stuff that goes toward producing it are a central part of the Scottish economy and the tourist economy. I believe that Scottish farmers and growers are some of the most efficient in the world and that the Scottish Parliament therefore should certainly be in direct control of this type of regulation.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Minister for so fully explaining the ins and outs of these various additions to Schedule 5. On the question of bringing these regulations into line one with the other, I was interested to hear about the devolving of zootechnical feeds and items like that, but the notes to the order talk about some elements that are quite difficult to get one’s head round, such as medicinal products for use in animals that are not veterinary medicinal products or feed additives. First, will the regulations now work in the same way both in England and in Scotland? Secondly, I understood that all of these subjects were controlled under the Veterinary Medicines Directorate in practical terms. Does this mean that the Scottish Parliament will now need to set up its own Veterinary Medicines Directorate because the regulations devolve the matter to the Scottish Parliament?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I join in the thanks and appreciation to the Minister for the excellent way in which he introduced this order today. He always does this; we are not surprised in any way when he does it so expertly and we are really grateful to him. I wanted to raise two points. I am afraid that I do not have the detailed knowledge of food and agriculture possessed by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, so my points are more technical.
First, I have a general point. I am increasingly concerned that this Parliament is seen by some people as merely a rubber stamp for the Government and that all the Government need to do is to bring something before both Houses in this Parliament and it will be agreed on the nod. Too many things are going through on the nod. I sit in the Chamber and think, “Why are we agreeing to this? Why are we not discussing it? Why are we not debating it?”. Do we not have the time? Yes, we do. We have been in recess for four weeks. We could have been discussing and debating issue after issue, point after point. Of course the Government like to get things through on the nod, but that is not part of democracy. We can see democracy being challenged elsewhere in the world, so we should be upholding it and making sure that Parliament’s role is appreciated. Every issue, however detailed it is, deserves proper consideration by both Houses of this Parliament.
Like other noble Lords, I go around the country as part of the Lord Speaker’s excellent Peers in Schools initiative to spread the word in schools about the House of Lords and its role, and I find it very useful. I talk about the three roles of the House of Lords: legislation, challenging the Executive, and holding debates. But I must say that more and more I feel like a fraud when arguing that case if the House has not sat for four weeks. It now looks as if we will not be sitting for another three weeks in the run-up to the Queen’s Speech. It is quite wrong that Parliament should meet so infrequently in order to challenge the Executive. That was the first point I wanted to make. I am sure that it is not something the Minister and his officials will have anticipated, or if they have, they have been very clever and deserve degrees in clairvoyance, if nothing else.
My second point relates to the devolution settlement. The Minister said that this order shows that the devolution settlement is working in a practical way. Perhaps I can say that I agree with him absolutely, and it is what we should be shouting from the rooftops: devolution is working. It has provided an opportunity for Scotland to make decisions about its own affairs on all the matters that affect Scotland in particular, and it is working really well. The traditions of Scotland and its legal system, on which the Minister is one of the experts, have managed to continue for over 300 years in spite of the existence of the United Kingdom and the Treaty of Union. If anyone is worried that I am straying from the subject before the Committee—my noble friend Lord Rosser has just a slight inclination that I might be doing so—this will bring me back. The Minister mentioned European Union food safety laws. Let us imagine the problems that would arise on a whole range of things if Scotland was to become a separate country from the rest of the United Kingdom. It would raise all sorts of questions about the transfer of foodstuffs across the border. It is just one of not hundreds, but thousands, of issues where greater problems would be created if Scotland was to be a separate country.
While not wanting to put words in his mouth, I hope the Minister will agree that the devolution settlement is flexible and working well. Almost every time the Grand Committee meets, there seems to be some kind of order relating to Scotland to be considered, tweaked and improved so as to get devolution working even better. This shows that the devolution settlement is flexible, workable and practical, and that it can and will be improved as long as Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, as usual it is a pleasure to try to follow my noble friend Lord Foulkes and we shall see how I get on with that. I should like to place on the record my sincere appreciation for the Minister and his team on the usual high-quality briefing and willingness to discuss matters. As it happens, the briefing was so good that it did not require any further meetings.
It is interesting that the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, mentioned how this is working but was not as fulsome as my noble friend Lord Foulkes in paying tribute to the devolution settlement as actually being good enough to work in the current atmosphere. It is interesting as well that objections are coming from the Scottish National Party about the fact that Westminster deals with issues such as this and brings forward statutory instruments to put into effect sensible and common-sense measures, but the main reason that this order has been brought forward is a ruling from the European Union. It is funny how the SNP objects to Westminster but does not object to the European Union, although some of us have always had reservations about the amount of regulations coming from Europe.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated and thank them for the welcome they have given the order. My noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie was absolutely right to remind us of the importance of the food industry in Scotland and the importance of maintaining its quality.
My noble friend the Duke of Montrose raised some technical issues. He asked whether, following devolution of zootechnical feed regulation, matters would work in the same way in England and Wales as in Scotland and whether it would be necessary for Scotland to set up its own veterinary medicines directorate. Veterinary medicines will continue to be regulated by Defra. It is because certain items in the EU definition were removed from the definition of veterinary medicines that we are having to make this adjustment. Veterinary medicines will continue to be regulated by Defra—in practice by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate—and so the system will be the same in England and Wales as it is in Scotland. Non-medicinal zootechnical issues will be devolved, but that will be about implementing European Union law, and there will therefore still be consistency north and south of the border.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The Minister made a point in relation to the question from the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. Can he confirm that the work undertaken by Defra, in Scotland as well as in England and Wales, is one of the many things that would have to be torn apart if Scotland separated from the rest of the United Kingdom?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble Lord makes a very alert and important point. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate is a directorate of the United Kingdom Government and would not automatically be transferred or shared in the event of a yes vote—which I hope will not happen. It is yet another example of one of the many institutions and agencies which operate on a Great Britain basis. I believe they operate successfully on that basis.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, Parliament should certainly not just be a rubber stamp for the Government. It is important to put on record that the process we are following here is set out in a law passed by Parliament. As I have indicated, this order has been debated in the House of Commons and approved by it. The fact that we are having a debate on it is very healthy and right and proper. The issue is, indeed, technical but nevertheless the debate has offered noble Lords an opportunity to express their views and to ask some very pertinent questions.
I certainly agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, which I think was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, and my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie, that this is an example of the devolution settlement working. I think that it is a very good example of that. It is a technical issue but it shows a willingness to address practical issues in a practical way as and when they arise. Under the previous Administration, a certain amount of executive devolution was achieved on these issues through a Section 63 order. However, we now have a position whereby the Scottish Government have decided to establish a new food body for Scotland which will take on the roles and responsibilities of the UK-wide Food Standards Agency. Therefore, there is legislation going through the Scottish Parliament and a Bill has been drafted to sit within the limited sphere of legislative competence in relation to food and animal feed as set out in the 1998 Act. If this House passes the order—it will also need to be passed by the Scottish Parliament and then submitted to Her Majesty in Council—the Scottish Government intend to seek an amendment to widen the scope of the Bill to bring it in line with the scope of the existing food and animal feed law, as amended by this order. Therefore, the issue is of practical relevance given that the Bill is currently before the Scottish Parliament.
We have shown good will in negotiations and discussions with officials in the Scottish Government, my own department and other departments of the UK Government, not least Defra. That is a good practical example of the flexibility of the system. People refer to the status quo but I do not believe that there is any such thing as the status quo in relation to something which has evolved since 1 July 1999. The system has shown its ability to respond to different circumstances and I sincerely hope will continue to do so as we move forward. I again commend the order to the Committee.
Lord McAvoy
Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, would he care to comment on the limited ability to hold a Government to account due to the lack of sittings?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I will have to check but I do not think that there are many, if, indeed, any, fewer sitting days this Session than in the previous Session. The number of sitting days is not far off that for the previous Session. No doubt my noble friend the Leader of the House would be able to give the exact figures. I do not think that it is unique for one House to sit when the other is not. That probably happened under the previous Government as well. I am sure that the noble Lord will welcome the fact that the House will not sit in order to accommodate the Liberal Democrat conference in Glasgow in October. I do not welcome it as I have lost my excuse for not attending the conference. However, that does mean that the two Houses will be in step as regards when they are sitting, or not sitting in that case.
Merchant Shipping (Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea) Order 2014
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kramer
That the Grand Committee do consider the draft Merchant Shipping (Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea) Order 2014.
Relevant document: 25th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)
My Lords, before I turn to the detail of the draft Privy Council order, I would just like to say that it is not often that I get the opportunity to debate a maritime matter, and I thank those noble Lords who are taking part.
The United Kingdom, which is surrounded by some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, is particularly vulnerable to the consequences of maritime casualties. Thankfully, such instances are rare, particularly those involving passenger ships. However, we need only look at the terrible tragedies elsewhere in the world involving the cruise ship “Costa Concordia”, and more recently the South Korean ferry “Sewol”, to remind us that we can never be complacent.
Through this order, we are seeking to amend the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 to reflect the UK’s ratification of the International Maritime Organisation’s protocol of 2002 to the 1974 Athens convention relating to the carriage of passengers and their luggage by sea. This modernises and significantly strengthens the international framework for providing compensation in the event of death or personal injury to a passenger, or the loss of or damage to luggage, when travelling by sea.
The 2002 Athens protocol, which entered into force internationally on 23 April 2014, increases the limits of liability that currently exist for carriers of passengers under the 1974 Athens convention up to 400,000 special drawing rights, which is the virtual currency used by the International Monetary Fund. As of 24 April 2014, one special drawing right is equal to approximately 92p. The 2002 Athens protocol also requires carriers to maintain compulsory insurance of not less than 250,000 SDRs per passenger on a strict liability basis, and this insurance is to be evidenced by a certificate from a state party. It also provides claimants with the right of taking direct action against the insurer.
UK ratification will actually have very little practical effect on UK ship owners. This is because the key provisions of the 2002 Athens protocol have already been introduced into EU law. EU Regulation 392/2009, which entered into force on 31 December 2012, was implemented in the UK by means of the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Passengers by Sea) Regulations 2012. Nevertheless, further government intervention is now necessary to ensure that UK-flagged passenger vessels can be issued with the correct state certification attesting that they have the necessary insurance in place at international level to meet their obligations under the 2002 Athens protocol when travelling on international, as opposed to EU, journeys.
In addition, the order will also enable the 2002 Athens protocol to be extended to the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, should they so wish it, which, if they chose to do so, would enhance the protection that is available to passengers travelling on board vessels that are flagged to those territories when travelling on international journeys.
In keeping with the responses received during public consultation, the order also preserves the existing arrangements for domestic journeys. This means that the original 1974 Athens convention, along with a limit of liability which has been progressively raised to 300,000 SDRs for those ship owners whose principal place of business is in the UK, will continue to apply to the carriage of passengers within the UK, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
This order also presents us with an opportunity to revoke some related domestic legislation—Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea (Interim Provisions) Order 1980. This is an enabling power and applies only to contracts for domestic carriage made before 30 April 1987, so it no longer has any practical effect. It was identified as being completely redundant under the maritime theme of the Red Tape Challenge—an initiative that I sure many noble Lords will be familiar with.
Finally, some noble Lords may have already spotted that there is no review provision in this order. This is not an oversight; there is simply no power to incorporate such a provision here. Nevertheless, I can assure noble Lords that the Secretary of State for Transport will carry out a review, and will publish the conclusions of that review, every five years. The first such report will be published before 23 April 2019. I commend the order to the Committee and beg to move.
Lord Greenway (CB)
My Lords, I think the Minister was perhaps a bit premature in thanking noble Lords who are taking part in a rather rare maritime exercise in the House. I do not want to disabuse her, but I was not going to say anything at all. This order is a natural follow-on from what has happened before. I have no problems with it at all. The UK Chamber of Shipping also had no problems with it, so it is generally to be welcomed.
We have been fortunate in this country in that we have not had a major accident with a passenger ship since the “Herald of Free Enterprise” some 27 years ago. That was responsible for beefing up the amounts of compensation that can be paid to passengers for loss of life and luggage in those circumstances. Let us hope that that record continues although, as the Minister said, we are still suffering from these problems. We saw one in South Korea the other day, and the unfortunate incident with the “Costa Concordia” was another example. I welcome this order and wish it well.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I am in the same position as the Minister. Debates on maritime matters are all too rare. I do not think the Minister was expressing the view that she is a particular expert in this field, and I would certainly not claim to be. That may become horribly evident in the contribution I have to make.
As the Minister said, this order amends the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 in the light of our ratification of the International Maritime Organisation’s 2002 protocol to the Athens Convention 1974 relating to the carriage of passengers and their luggage by sea. Ratifying the 2002 protocol ensures that UK-flagged passenger vessels can be issued with correct international certification and enables the protocol to be extended to the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, should they so wish. When the order was discussed in the other place a question was asked about what the Government’s accountability and jurisdiction would be if ships that are not UK-based, but are part of the Red Ensign group, chose to opt into these rules. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify that point.
As the Minister said, the key provisions of the protocol have already been introduced into EU law—I think from the end of 2012—and implemented by the UK, but this order is needed to ratify the protocol, which came into force internationally on 23 April and incorporates the international elements. The 2002 protocol applies to international carriage only, but the order ensures the application of the Athens convention to domestic journeys within the UK, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The 2002 protocol increases the liability limits for carriers that have been applicable in the event of accidents involving loss of life or personal injury and also requires carriers to maintain compulsory insurance on a strict liability basis, as well as providing claimants with the right to take direct action against the insurer. Under the order, the new limit of liability is, I think, the 400,000 special drawing rights. The Minister said that a special drawing right is currently equal to approximately 92 pence. It certainly fluctuates marginally since earlier in the year when it was being debated in the House of Commons the figure was given as approximately 93 pence.
The Government have also said that the further policy objective of the order is to revoke some redundant legislation. It would be helpful if the Minister could spell out which legislation is being revoked, bearing in mind that the Government’s objective appears to be that, for every new order introduced, two should be revoked. I am not clear what the two orders are that are being revoked.
The Explanatory Memorandum states in paragraph 10 that, although,
“external stakeholders were invited to contribute to the IA, the available evidence base continues to have a number of limitations”.
It then goes on to say:
“Given the significant uncertainties surrounding the impacts of this measure”,
relating to,
“the number of Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies that … choose to ratify the … Protocol … and the limitations of the available evidence base, it has not been possible to monetise any of the costs and benefits in this IA”.
At least, that is my understanding of what it says. Yet when the order was discussed in the other place, the Minister described it as “short and highly technical”. I have always construed the reference to “highly technical” to mean “incomprehensible”. He said that not least because the,
“key provisions of the 2002 protocol have already been introduced into European Union law … and … implemented in the UK”.
The Minister in the other place said that the order therefore had,
“little practical effect on UK shipowners”.—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 30/4/14; col. 3.]
I simply ask which is the correct version—that the order is short and highly technical with little practical effect on UK ship owners, as per the Minister in the House of Commons, or that, due to the significant uncertainties surrounding the impacts of the measure and the limitations of the available evidence base, as per the Explanatory Memorandum, monetising any of the costs and benefits of the order in the impact assessment is not possible and, by inference, would represent something of a voyage of discovery. Perhaps the Minister could indicate which horse of those alternatives she is backing, or, alternatively, say why what would appear to be two somewhat different views on the clarity and scope of this order are in fact saying precisely the same thing.
A further issue raised in the House of Commons was about the ships to which this order applies. In his response, the Government Minister said that,
“the classification of ships is determined by the area in which they operate and not necessarily the gross tonnage”.—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 30/4/14; col. 8.]
However, because he was unable at that particular moment to give a definition of classification A and B vessels as referred to in the impact assessment, he undertook to write to the Committee. Can the Minister here provide that information and say whether the provisions of this order might be extended to other classes of ships?
A further question raised in the other place was about what steps the department was taking to ensure that information about the impact of the order was made available to ship owners and their passengers and customers. It would be helpful if the Minister could say what is happening on that issue. Of course, the answer to that may depend on whether she agrees with the Minister in the House of Commons that it is short and technical with little practical impact or with the Explanatory Memorandum, which appears to suggest otherwise. Finally, the Minister in the other place said that he was concerned to reduce the costs of the legislation around sulphur for UK shipping and, in particular, for the UK ferry industry. He went on to say that he had,
“asked the IMO to undertake an early review of the 2020 regulations”.—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 30/4/14; col. 8.]
What exactly are the Government pressing for in that review?
We welcome the objectives of this order but would appreciate responses to the points to which I have referred.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for his reminder that we must not be complacent on this issue. As he says, the British shipping industry has an excellent safety record that is to be valued, but we must ensure that we continue to keep that record, as complacency would be dangerous. It is important to us to maintain that position in the global marketplace and our reputation for maritime excellence, as well as recognise our obligations to people who travel by sea.
I shall try to address the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, although I am not sure that I will satisfy him, given that the Minister in the other place did not. If there continue to be gaps, we will definitely follow up in writing but I will do my best to attempt to answer in an area which, as he is well aware, is certainly not one in which I would claim expertise. First, the noble Lord referred to the overseas territories and Crown dependencies and asked for a somewhat fuller answer, if I understood him correctly, on how we would enforce that protocol within that context if they opted to become signatories. He will know that the UK—as a signatory to international conventions on shipping-related matters—is bound to make sure that it gives effect to any changes under the conventions. It would therefore have a responsibility to ensure that any signatories among the overseas territories and Crown dependencies were followed through; failure to do so would constitute a breach of our international obligations under these conventions. I hope that adds significantly to the comments made by my honourable friend in the other place. We have obviously been encouraging these territories and Crown dependencies to sign up, so it is clearly good for travellers if they do so.
On revoking legislation, I believe I covered that in my opening speech. The Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea (Interim Provisions) Order 1980 seems to be almost unusual in that nobody thinks it has any practical effect any more. Therefore, removing it from the books strikes me as extremely appropriate. If I understood the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, he was saying that there was a sort of “one in, two out” relationship. I have no idea what the “one” is or what the pairing “two out” was, but I think that he would support the idea that anything that was completely redundant was best off the books, rather than providing a complication.
Lord Rosser
I certainly share that view—there is no point keeping something on the books that is completely redundant—but I was looking at what the Minister said in the Commons:
“I am pleased to say that the Department for Transport, as its contribution to the red tape challenge, met its commitments on one in, one out. It is now meeting its commitments on one in, two out as well”.—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 30/4/14; col. 8.]
It was in light of the Minister’s comment in the House of Commons that I was asking what the two were that were being removed now that this one was coming in.
Baroness Kramer
I am sure that the department would be delighted to write to him, as I will, with our successes in removing unnecessary and problematic regulation. We would be delighted to follow up on that issue but, standing at the Dispatch Box today, I cannot tell him that I know the answer.
The noble Lord then asked a question—he will help me if I am not fully understanding this—as to whether this was a piece of legislation that had no practical impact, or a piece of legislation that had important impact and looked at two areas of discussion. This is a piece of legislation that would have been significantly important had not the EU already enacted its provisions. Looking at the SI today, it is fair to say that it does not have a big practical impact because that was achieved back in 2012, when the EU protocol, which incorporates a directive including these provisions, came into force. It is important that the levels of compensation have been raised for passengers who may be in the appalling situation of being injured—potentially even killed—or having damage to their luggage. That is entirely appropriate. The protocol is necessary because there must be some containment of liability or else insurers will not be willing to step up to the plate. In that case, we would see a dramatic diminution in passenger sea transport. Raising that limit has been important, and the fact that it is an international protocol also matters, certainly to British passengers who do not necessarily travel only on UK-flagged vessels. It has been an important piece of legislation.
Lord Rosser
We did say at the end that we welcomed the objectives of the order, so we are not in any argument about what the order is seeking to achieve. Our point was just about what appeared to be the rather different view of the Minister in the Commons—who considered the order to be short, technical and with no impact on UK shipping—and paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which says that the,
“available evidence base continues to have a number of limitations…significant uncertainties surrounding the impacts of this measure…it has not been possible to monetise any of the costs and benefits in this IA”.
Clearly, as far as the author of this document is concerned, it is an issue of some significance. If it were not, why are those words in there?
Baroness Kramer
Frankly, in a sense, I am with the Minister, but if one is writing a technical document one does it against very technical standards. If you went out and described to a member of the public the increase from only 40,000 SDRs—I think that was the original figure—to the current 400,000, they would see that as a significant and important change. The technical language used by those who follow a very technical process of assessment may be somewhat different. As a very effective politician with a good history, the noble Lord will appreciate that issue. I do not have a problem with the difference. If his question was on whether we have consulted people to ensure that they consider the impact is appropriate, I should say that there was extensive consultation in 2012. Given that the practical effect of this SI is to extend the international scope rather than the EU scope, the noble Lord will understand that we did not need to repeat that consultation. He will know that this is a very widely supported measure.
The noble Lord asked about class A and class B domestic vessels. As he will know, domestic vessels are defined by the areas of the sea in which they operate. Class B ships are passenger ships engaged on domestic voyages where they are at no point more than 20 miles from the line of the coast. Ships falling within the description of class A are those on domestic voyages operating at greater distances from the coast. Under the EU protocol, I believe that class A will come under these same provisions in 2016 and class B in 2018, but through the mechanism of the EU.
Lord Rosser
Is there any intention to extend this to any other groups of vessel?
Baroness Kramer
The UK had already raised its limits to 300,000 SDRs for domestic sea travel. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, referred to this. When the relevant statutory instruments are brought in to deal with those changes for 2016 and 2018, it may well be appropriate to look more broadly at the entire domestic environment. However, at this moment in time, awards are not pushing up anywhere near to the limits provided under the current arrangements and it seemed tidier to deal with the domestic situation within a similar timeframe.
I am trying to ensure that I do not go over time but an issue was raised about communication. As the noble Lord will remember, extensive consultation took place in 2012. Those conversations continue on a regular basis with the Chamber of Shipping and all the various interested parties, so there is no concern that appropriate bodies will not be aware of the relevant provisions.
Baroness Kramer
I was trying to look that up because I remember that a fairly substantial answer was given on it in the other place. However, I will come back to the noble Lord on precisely how we are informing consumers of their rights because I have to confess that it has slipped my mind at the moment.
Questions were asked about the ferry industry and the early review of the 2020 regulations. I will obtain more detail on that issue for the noble Lord, if it is available. However, a review tends to be reasonably broad ranging—that is why it is a review. Presumably, it will cover the appropriateness of the regulations and their practicality in a modern environment. I hope that I have covered those issues adequately. If there are any outstanding issues, I will be glad to follow them up in writing. I commend the order to the Committee.
China: Investment into the United Kingdom
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wei (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to have been granted time for us to debate what I believe is a crucial inflection point both in the UK’s relationship with China and in China’s own outward investment story. I declare an interest as the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for East Asian Business and as a director for the Manchester-China Forum. I also declare a number of other relevant personal and public roles and interests which are outlined in the Lords register.
In particular, I would like to highlight through this debate the recent publication of a report commissioned by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for East Asian Business and conducted independently by Roland Berger entitled the Independent Review of Chinese Foreign Direct Investment. I hope that this report will help inform and stimulate this debate, and the debate that we as a society and country need to have as Chinese firms over the coming years dramatically increase their investments internationally, and in the process become a more important feature of economies such as ours.
In many ways there has always been investment and trade from and with China and the Chinese into the UK, whether in financial or non-financial ways, with waves of Chinese immigrants over the years putting in their time, energy and capital to help build and rebuild this country in the run-up to and after the two world wars. Think of the catering industry and the supply chains that feed it, and then think about the recent manufacturing story as UK firms worked with Chinese partners to lower their costs and globalise their supply chains. And then think about more recently as newly affluent and increasingly aspirational Chinese people have come to the UK to invest in a variety of financial assets, from property to stocks and bonds, arts and antiques, and luxury items.
During this period and in particular with the liberalisation of trade within China and encouragement of state and private enterprises to invest abroad, outbound FDI has accelerated, creating a huge opportunity for countries such as ours. The APPG report highlighted a number of scenarios, from today’s relatively low investment base to seeing the UK capturing between 3% and 5% percent of China’s future annual global outbound foreign direct investment, which alone would create between 48,000 and 75,000 direct jobs by 2020 in a median and optimistic scenario. The drivers of such investment include a competitive tax regime, the City of London as a future hub for offshore renminbi trading, high educational quality at different stages, our world-class industry sectors, and our openness as a country to FDI in areas as diverse as manufacturing, infrastructure and finance.
The Government in particular have done a significant amount to enhance Britain’s attractiveness to such investment. The most visible expression of this includes the various ministerial visits last year, as well as changes to the visa process to make it easier for tourists and business leaders to come, shop and do business here. Behind the scenes I know that much good work is carried out by UKTI, the China-Britain Business Council, and regionally to encourage Chinese people to visit and invest on both the large and the small scale. This has produced fruit with recent announcements such as the Royal Docks development by ABP, the investment into Manchester’s Airport City being spearheaded by Beijing Construction Engineering Group, and the significant investment in R&D and higher education by telecoms firms such as Huawei, a supporter of the APPG. In addition, we have in recent years witnessed major welcome investments into nuclear power, water utilities, engineering firms and even breakfast cereals. More such investments are in the pipeline, evidenced by recent positive visits to the UK by organisations such as the China Entrepreneur Club, whose member businesses represent a significant proportion of private enterprise turnover in China. Indeed, the chair of McKinsey & Company Asia recently wrote that 2014 could be the biggest year for Chinese foreign direct investment into the UK, and the APPG report highlights the continuing strong upward trend we are likely to see in the wake of these first major investments.
Now is a crucial time when major global Chinese firms are deciding where to locate their headquarters as they start to look beyond the borders of Greater China, and the UK can undoubtedly benefit from this influx so long as we remain an attractive place to invest and do business in. However, we must remember that the benchmark should not be how much such investment is growing in absolute terms, but how we are doing in capturing a share of this investment globally as compared to our competitor nations in Europe and around the world.
While we have a lot to be thankful for and to congratulate ourselves on as a country, the APPG report highlights a number of areas where we could do even better, not just to continue to boost our share of Chinese global FDI, but to ensure that there is balance and diversity in the investment from China geographically, by sector and, indeed, by size. The report highlights that as Chinese firms decide where to locate their headquarters, more could be done to address the issue of hiring talent. It is all very well to enable the chairperson to locate to the UK, but headquarters need to have top teams, and if you are relocating part of your top management from China to help establish operations here in Europe, you will want to do so in countries that make that possible. Currently, there are difficulties for firms looking to bring in experienced Mandarin speakers versed in their own corporate culture. Other countries in Europe and elsewhere often even help to negotiate visas for top management at the point when the decision about which country to locate to is being made.
We need to operate on a level playing field globally with other nations, particularly Germany and others in Europe who have the added advantage of being in the Schengen zone. The need for business management visas, which could be addressed if we redesigned our system more around the skills we need as a country, ought to be addressed alongside the issue of the removal of post-study work visas. In my view, the system ought to be relaxed for countries in the emerging world that we want to trade with more, such as China, in order to provide our local firms with Mandarin-speaking, China-savvy talent that will help them grow, as well as supporting firms which are interested in locating their headquarters here.
Another area highlighted in the report is the need for more FDI to be attracted into areas within and beyond London and for resources to help diversify agency support so that it is not carried out only centrally, but also regionally. With the recent focus of UKTI effort around strategic sectors, which fits with the report’s recommendation for greater sector expertise in our national approach to attracting foreign Chinese investment, there is a real opportunity for cities and localities to utilise their local knowledge and networks and help small and medium-sized enterprises to connect with China by receiving Chinese investment. It would be interesting to see what the Government can do to diversify and attract more funding into this area so that the north and west of the country and areas outside London, as well as poorer areas of London, can benefit from the influx of Chinese funds.
The report also contains a number of recommendations and observations that highlight the importance of the cultural and even linguistic sensitivity needed for us to continue and grow our trade links with China and to attract further Chinese investment, from bringing in Chinese language-translated tax information, just as we have brought in Chinese language visa application forms, to encouraging commissioners of public tenders to be aware of the sometimes lengthy decision processes in China for outbound investors, which can take a year or more for investments of more than $1 billion, to simply understanding China’s regular five-year plans and how they affect priorities for investment at the level of firms and sovereign wealth funds. Here there is a role for both public and private intermediaries to be supported in their efforts to help bridge the cultural and linguistic divide. Intermediaries struggle at times, particularly in making medium-sized deals happen, because the timelines for facilitating an investment and ultimately getting paid for their work can be lengthy. This is important because while billion-dollar deals benefit the economy and help us hit our quotas, small and medium-sized firms, as we know, employ more people and have the potential to create more jobs.
What is the Government’s response to the recommendations in the APPG report, and how do they intend to address the visa, regional and intermediary- support challenges that it highlights, so that we can continue to compete with countries such as Germany and others and bring the benefits that come with increased Chinese investment to more industries and to firms of different sizes and geographies?
The final point I wish to make is to emphasise the importance of relationships. For 50 or more years, we as a country have benefited greatly from our alliances with Europe and America, with whom we have shared cultural and linguistic histories. Businesses here in the UK have traded with, invested in and received investment from partners across the English-speaking world and the continent for many decades. Relationships have been key to this, as well as proximity and opportunity. With the re-emergence of China economically on the world stage, it is relationships that are going to be key, not least because, perhaps more than most places in the world, they form the bedrock of business culture. To receive productive, successful investment from China and to ensure it creates local jobs and growth for Britain and British firms requires an understanding of the Chinese mindset, its culture, its priorities and its people, and of how Chinese firms are having to learn to adapt to deal with our market, our legal system and even our media.
To this end, I want to ask my noble friend the Minister how as a country we plan to do more to engage the local Chinese British diaspora and visiting Chinese students in the UK—as well as more British students and graduates as they learn Mandarin and gain relevant experience in China—so that they can assist our efforts in both countries to facilitate, attract and make the most of increased Chinese foreign investment in the years to come. Beyond that, how can we work together to encourage our towns and cities to look east to create the right climate for Chinese FDI? Finally, I want to ask how we can get our small businesses in particular to feel more comfortable with trading and receiving investment from Chinese investors, which can then be a potential spring-board for them to expand their exports to other parts of the world, not just back to China itself.
The Chinese economy is going to remain a driver of the global economy, and over time of our economy, for many years to come. At this pivotal moment, let us do all we can to encourage relationships to be built up and capital to be invested so that British businesses, industries, and sectors can benefit from this growing and welcome trend. Let us ensure that at every level, not just here in London and in central government, everyone can play a part in helping to make this much needed investment work for the benefit of all.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wei, for that wonderfully powerful lobbying from a certain perspective—but that is what an APPG chairman is supposed to do—and I think that we were all extremely interested in everything that he had to say. I certainly will not disagree with anything he said, but I want to highlight a couple of different issues. Before I start, let me also say that this is my first interaction with the Minister, and I am delighted to be on the same side as him—but perhaps slightly opposed—in this very significant debate. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
I want to pose a couple of general questions. One of the most important issues that should affect Britain’s economic and political considerations is where to draw the line between strategic interests and commercial interests. Not everything can be up for sale, and not everything can be sold to everyone. In the Dubai Ports World controversy in the US some years ago, a state-owned enterprise attempted to buy what was deemed a strategic US asset. At issue was the significant question of who controls US ports. By the way, this was not a right-wing Republican argument—one of the champions of the opposition to Dubai Ports World taking over US ports was one Hillary Clinton—as there were people on all sides who saw ports as a strategic asset and therefore vetoed the attempt by Dubai Ports World to take control. Ownership was not a significant issue, as P&O had ownership of the ports at that time, but ownership by a strategic ally is very different, in terms of public perceptions of security, from ownership by a non-transparent state-owned enterprise. The issue was ownership by a foreign power about which there were perhaps reservations, either about the state itself or about the record of the entity that was attempting to do the transaction.
Likewise, on the issue of Pfizer and AstraZeneca, we in the UK need to think long and hard about strategic assets and whether research and development, including scientific research, comes into the category of meeting the public interest test. I would argue that it does, not just because of the jobs and R&D spin-offs but because, where a primary purchaser is in a dominant position in relation to the state sector—that is, in the NHS—we need to ask whether we give disproportionate pricing power to a player in foreign ownership that would be in charge of that kind of strategic asset. I would say no.
Going back to the China debate, but keeping on that theme, one need only look at the ire or public sentiment that was aroused when another strategic industry—I shall use the example of UK water utilities—was privatised. The water companies were taken over by a state-owned enterprise, which in this case meant France’s EDF, and the profits reverted to the French taxpayer. There was considerable speculation about why, in an era of austerity, British schools could not be built but the French Government had sufficient in its coffers to do quite well with its public sector.
I have not mentioned any Chinese company as an example. However, the APPG report highlights that analysis of the growth in Chinese investment, which has increased by a factor of 13 since 2008, shows that much of the growth is due to a small number of M&A deals, which are dominated, it points out, by state-owned enterprises and sovereign wealth funds. So it is only a matter of time before we are caught in a controversy where a Chinese firm or a state-owned enterprise is involved, and hence the need for the Government to think through the broader principles in this area, particularly the security dimension. Needless to say, the manner in which an industry is run is critical to public acceptance. Where it is well run and the UK benefits from investment, there is usually little disquiet. However, when it comes to an issue where “rent seeking” is too blatant—which I think was the case in the water utilities—at a cost to the consumer, in my view there is cause for legitimate complaint.
A further strategic concern has to be around technology transfer. Only yesterday, noble Lords who take the Financial Times will have seen a report on security service chiefs expressing their concern about cybersecurity in the context of junior staff at IT companies being lured into positions through remuneration where they might be able to divulge vulnerabilities in IT systems to competitors. I should say that the description of a “competitor” in terms of cyberespionage is not usually the bread-and-butter business of the level playing field where there is healthy, market-led competition, but rather the ability of foreign powers to bring down assets in other countries. Estonia experienced that from Russia, the US from the Chinese, among others—that is well documented and recorded—and of course Iran from Israel and, vice versa, Israel from the Arab countries; that is just to name a few of the well known cases. The more overt commercial attacks, which can cause the economy much more harm, are often unreported for reasons of commercial confidentiality, although they have higher costs for the economy and the companies themselves. I wonder if, in answering this debate, the Minister will reflect on the question of how and to what extent we define strategic industries, particularly when the investor has low levels of transparency, there is no public accountability and our own leverage is potentially extremely limited due to the size of our economy in relation to that of the investor.
Another factor I want to touch on is not mentioned in the APPG’s report, but it touches on global trade and competition. I refer to the EU-China trade talks that have been embraced by the UK Government and for which they have become the cheerleader in the EU. I would not wish for a moment to appear to be opposed to the talks, and I am not, but I hope that we learn the lesson from the current crisis in the EU over Russian energy supplies to several EU states. It is serving to downgrade EU states’ resilience in security terms and some countries are virtually being held hostage by certain Russian companies in terms of pricing and the delivery of energy.
The lesson here is twofold. An overreliance by strategic sectors on one supplier gives the foreign owner too much power which it may exploit. Trade dependency is similar, and one must not get hooked on any one market. So, while we welcome investment from China and our investment in China, it is terribly important that we keep our eye on diversified markets and diversified investments. It may be exciting—in the case of China we are talking about a low base at this point; I accept that completely—and there is much to play for, but we need to keep an eye on the end game, which is that overreliance on either side may not be very healthy.
The second point is my final one, and it is about multilateralism. Over the entire post-war period, Britain has championed a multilateral, global, rules-based order, whether that was the establishment of the United Nations or the Bretton Woods system, the UNCTAD or the WTO. I am therefore sorry to see us taking a narrow focus on EU-China talks rather than EU-East Asian trade talks that would include the other powerful emerging economies in south Asia. That is what the APPG is about. My fear is that when large powers are allowed to break off from multilateralism into bilateralism, geopolitics comes into the frame and power is disproportionately distributed, thus disadvantaging weaker economies. I am really sorry that the APPG on East Asian business has not sought to battle for those other countries as well in this regard, but I am sure that it will do so in other reports. Indeed, I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Wei, is nodding his head, so I look forward to those debates.
In conclusion, I agree with all the conclusions that the report laid out, and I hope that the Minister will be able to take its recommendations on board, despite the omissions. On the emphasis of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, on having ambassadors within the UK, I should declare a very small interest. I happen to be chancellor of the University of Northampton and am delighted to report that, as of last year, the president of the Northampton students union has been the first Chinese national ever to be president of a students union in the United Kingdom. So we are an outward-looking university, just as we are a country.
Lord Cotter (LD)
I am very pleased to follow my noble friend Lady Falkner, and I am pleased that she made some points about AstraZeneca, a very current issue and something that we should be majorly concerned about, separately from this debate today. However, it is welcome that the UK is the most popular destination for Chinese investment in the EU. This is good, and it represents an improvement over the past few years.
The recent All-Party Parliamentary Group on East Asian Business review of foreign direct investment into the UK is very welcome, informative and helpful in pointing to areas where we are being proactive in the UK, and where we could do more. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wei, very much indeed on his leadership on this, which is really why I am here today. I am not here to say too many more words, because the report is so comprehensive, but just to give my support to the report and say, “job well done”. I hope that the Government pick up on the points that have been made.
The report is comprehensive and has drawn attention to all concerned about the issues involved. One issue that was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, on which I have campaigned for quite a long time, is that this country needs to enable those from China who want to come here to do so. In the past, there have been great stumbling blocks on the issue of visas. There have been enormous and unnecessary problems when people from China have come here for investment purposes but also as tourists. At the end of the day, we want tourists to come here to produce a good return for our economy, but also to introduce people from China to the fact that this country is what it is and is an area in which they can invest if they learn more about us. On an issue that I and a number of my colleagues have raised on a number of occasions, we have had assurances recently from the Government that these concerns are being taken on board. I hope that that is the case; I know that many from the Chinese community continue to monitor it.
We have an issue that came up about visas, with people applying from China finding that the documents that they need to fill out have not been in Mandarin. That is something that we have to address, when it comes to people who want to invest in this country, to ensure that the pieces of paper that they need to consider have been translated into Mandarin.
The point was also made that the regions of the UK should be proactive in helping inward investment, as well as the UK Government. The specific recommendation was made that each UK region should have at least one bilingual adviser in place. We as a country are not particularly as good at languages as some other countries are. I own up to this myself. Some of my colleagues have four or five languages but I struggle with one or two when I am a tourist—but beyond that, I have none at all. It is therefore important to encourage investment from China throughout the regions and ensure that regional advisers are bilingual.
There are many recommendations in this report and I hope that the Minister can confirm that it is being examined in detail, given that there is much to be gained by increasing investment to help growth in this country. I could go on endlessly but look forward to the Minister’s response because there is so much that we can gain. Perhaps I may quote from the report, which states:
“Compared to the country’s overall track record in attracting foreign investment, the UK’s performance lags with respect to China. Much of this potential gap is attributable to failures to recognise and adjust to the unique circumstances of Chinese investors. Faced with a lengthy and cumbersome approval process at home, and a relative lack of deal making experience abroad, Chinese investors take longer to agree to deals, are highly sensitive to price and perceived risks, and require additional levels of professional support throughout the process”.
I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Wei, for instituting this debate, and the Minister for being here. There is an awful lot to be gained by considering this report and the many recommendations within it.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova (Lab)
From this side, we certainly welcome this debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Wei, observed, this issue is important for the future of the UK economy. The APPG is to be commended for producing this useful report, but the question is what Her Majesty’s Government will do about its recommendations—a matter that the noble Lord put pointedly to the Minister. The answer is not unimportant.
The report commends a strategic approach but any strategy requires sound content, otherwise it becomes mere public relations. There is much good work in the report but in this intervention I will focus on where more effort is required. That should not be taken in any way as a criticism of this report.
Let me begin with some general observations on the UK’s approach to date. Having, for example, the Prime Minister take an assortment of business people to China is no doubt well intentioned but it is hardly a strategy. If it is ill thought out, with no clear plan of what is to be achieved, it can easily create a wrong impression—an impression that perhaps our Prime Minister is being somewhat transactional. That is not a good outcome.
Furthermore, warm words of welcome to Chinese investors that are matched by an obstructive visa regime can be very unhelpful. The noble Lord, Lord Cotter, has given an example of that. Let me give another one. Last autumn, a Chinese ministerial party—I repeat, a ministerial party—seeking to visit the UK was held up in Beijing. Their flight slipped by while they were waiting for their visas to be produced by the UK Border Agency. If ministerial parties are treated in that way, it is hardly the right message to be sending to investors from China. I immediately accept that there have been some improvements on the past, but compared with France we lag way behind. If anything, there seems to be an unwillingness to match welcoming words with action. This does not go unnoticed by Chinese investors.
Having the UK welcome Chinese infrastructure investment is all very commendable, but unless there is effective follow up, initiatives may run into the sand. If due diligence on prospective investors is not carried out, one runs the risk of embarrassing failures, and there is no point rolling out a red carpet to Chinese investors if we ignore our domestic requirements, such as planning, consultation with potentially affected communities and due process, that can subsequently produce obstacles and upset the project. That can risk creating an impression of insincerity on the UK side. A focus on outcomes is essential to build good relationships. An intelligent focus is even better.
Turning to the report’s recommendations, I offer one caveat. It suggests we should,
“encourage the creation of more NGO trade promotion bodies”.
I respectfully suggest that this should be treated with caution. One criticism that has been voiced on a number of occasions by Chinese interlocutors is that there are already too many UK bodies speaking with too many different agendas in seeking a relationship with China. Focus on clear messages may be a better way forward. That may not require more trade promotion bodies for China, just greater clarity.
The report importantly refers to financial services. It identifies progress by London as an offshore renminbi centre. Renminbi settlement and clearing house developments are clearly positive, although they have not gone the full way as yet. More effort is plainly required. Singapore recently surpassed London in renminbi business. Paris, Frankfurt and Luxembourg all have ambitions to be renminbi centres. Her Majesty’s Government should take the initiative now. They should consider a currency swap—a real one, this time, not simply an emergency backstop—that creates liquidity on the market now. Another initiative might be purchasing renminbi for UK reserves. Her Majesty’s Treasury could do that, and it would be a step forward. The Bank of England says that it is not for it to decide this issue and that it is for the Treasury to decide. If the Treasury wants to make imaginative steps forward in our relationship with China, adding renminbi to the UK reserves would be a very substantial step. I commend that to the Minister, at least for consideration, although possibly it does not fall within his responsibilities. Many good speeches have been made on the theme of London as an offshore renminbi centre and some real progress has been made, but London has to regain its momentum to improve renminbi liquidity in the London market to make London in reality the—not a—major offshore renminbi centre.
The report refers to sector strategies, which is very welcome as it appears to be recognising a need for industrial policy, but there needs to be a certain coherence in it. Chinese equity purchase and M&A in the UK have been referred to. They have been welcomed in the UK. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, referred to this as an area where problems might arise, but plainly there is a tremendous opportunity for UK and Chinese business to go into partnership in these areas. However, as the noble Baroness pointed out, we must be astute to the possibility of Pfizer-type issues arising. Ed Miliband and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, have made useful contributions to this issue and it appears that the Government have been listening to some extent, after something of a false start on this issue. As the noble Baroness pointed out, not every sale of a UK company to an overseas acquirer will be in the UK’s best interests.
The report correctly recognises the importance of sectors in manufacturing and services, and HMG can have a role in dealing with this. The needless damage of putting the UK’s EU membership into play may not be wise. Placing a question mark over the UK’s success in the automotive sector, based, as it is, in the UK as a platform for the EU market, is not constructive. The Minister will no doubt appreciate that the current Government continually making noises about splitting away from the EU is not an attractive invitation for Chinese direct investment in the UK to Chinese automotive manufacturers and others.
China is serious about outgoing investment, and we need to match its seriousness of intent. There are limits to government action, of course, but relations with China are an area par excellence where Her Majesty’s Government should be able to make a real contribution. This is vouched by the success of government efforts by Germany, Sweden, France and others in engaging with China, both politically and economically.
Everyone by now says relationships are key in China. The noble Lord, Lord Wei, directly recognises this. A rapid turnover of Ministers with the China portfolio is not a help—unless, of course, the Minister is not up to the job. However, there is also an issue in relation to civil servants. The approach to rotation of officials can be counterproductive: the despatch of personnel without sophisticated language skills to China can be less than ideal and the removal of real experts for personnel policy reasons is actively damaging.
There is a need for Ministers and officials, as well as businesses, to understand the very different Chinese culture. There is a need to build expertise on what may now be the world’s largest economy. Only knowledge and understanding of China will build a fruitful relationship. If the UK does not get serious, we will be an also-ran in what the Prime Minister calls the “global race”. However, if we work at building the relationship, the UK can indeed be, as the report aims for it to be, the favourite place for China to invest.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Livingston of Parkhead) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased that we still have some of the Scottish contingent in for the debate. I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Wei for initiating this important debate and for the report from the All-Party Parliamentary Group for East Asian Business. China’s rise is indeed an opportunity, not just for the UK but for China, and I very much believe that this will be the decade of the Asian multinational. Our two Premiers described our two countries as “partners for growth” and we have seen notable progress in Chinese investment into the UK.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson of Glen Cova, raised a number of questions about the UK’s performance in relation to trade with China. I regret that some of the statements are perhaps a little out of date: our performance has certainly been weak historically but we are now making significant progress. Initial results for 2013-14 show a substantial increase in the level of inward investment from China. As my noble friend Lord Wei said, this is across a number of sectors, from property investment to infrastructure, manufacturing and nuclear, to name but a few. Announcements in press releases indicate commitments of upwards of £8 billion—a very substantial increase on past experience.
This growth reflects the efforts not only of the Government but of many groups and individuals including the APPG. It also reflects the success of government policy in making the UK an attractive place for businesses to establish themselves, to invest and to grow. However, I fully accept that there is clearly still much to do. The report highlights a number of areas, and I would like to address some of the particular points made in it.
The report recommended that we should provide additional regional support for inward Chinese investment. I should stress that the policy we operate, which I think has operated for some time, is based on the UK-first principle, where we try to attract inward investment to the UK and then spend time with the potential investor showing them regions that may be suitable for that type of investment. That said, we are doubling the number of partnership managers to work alongside local enterprise partnerships and enterprise zones to assist them in attracting inward investment. UKTI will continue to work with bodies to improve the local proposition, based around a region’s particular capabilities. We welcome, for instance, initiatives such as the Manchester-China Forum, championed by my noble friend Lord Wei, to promote regional co-operation and relationships.
UKTI does not typically recruit advisers with specific language skills but those with sector skills. However, we have in place sector specialists who are bilingual. In addition, we use the resources of UKTI in individual countries and have a large number of advisers in China as well as, of course, the FCO network. They assist with inward investment opportunities and marketing.
The report also recommends that the Government work together with NGOs to encourage inward investment and market the UK. I take the point that there are a number of these NGOs but the Government certainly work with a wide range of organisations, such as the China-Britain Business Council, the CEC—which was mentioned earlier—the 48 Group Club, UK-China CEO Dialogue and, of course, the APPG. I also recognise and welcome the point made about the diaspora community. As a Government, and as part of our trade effort, we should be seeking to use diaspora communities far more widely, in relation to trade not just with China but with a number of other countries.
Noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Cotter, also raised issues of immigration policy. I have heard many of the same concerns directly. Although there are definitely issues, some of it is also perception. I will set out a few facts. First, the UK has more visa application centres in China than in any other country and 96% of Chinese visa applications are approved. The UK issued a third more visas to Chinese citizens in 2013 than we did in 2012, so we are making progress. There was a 9% increase in the number of study-related visas.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
I wonder whether the Minister could focus not so much on the numbers of visas, but on the problems that the visa process creates: delay and complexity. That is what sends the message that you, the Chinese investor, are not welcome.
Lord Livingston of Parkhead
My very next words were going to be that the average time to process a visa is seven working days. Of course, there will be more difficult cases, but we also have a three-day to five-day priority service available. The Prime Minister, during his well thought through trip to China, announced that we would be trialling a 24-hour service this year. That received a standing ovation in the room he was in.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
The Minister did say that I was out of date, but possibly he did not necessarily mean that in relation to visas. Only last week I had a party of Chinese investors saying that they were having considerable problems with delays in getting visas. These are people who wish to invest in the United Kingdom but are experiencing delays. Perhaps the information that the Minister is obtaining is out of date.
Lord Livingston of Parkhead
I am sure that if the noble Lord would provide me with some details of that particular party, we can look into what their challenges were. We are trying hard to make the process of applying for a UK visa easier. We have a pilot scheme allowing selected travel agents to make offline applications for tour groups using the same forms that are used for Schengen—with a small additional form—so that people do not have to enter the same information twice. We also have a select business scheme to provide key businesses wanting to invest in the UK with special services. There are currently around 140 members. The Home Secretary has announced the launch of the GREAT Club, an invitation-only account management service for the very highest-level investors.
I recognise that there are issues in relation to graduates. All graduates have a four-month period in which to apply for a graduate-level job, which allows skilled, well paid graduates to stay in the UK. I accept that the situation is not perfect. Significantly, we talk with the Home Office about how we can improve perception and what we can do around both policy and process. However, the situation has improved significantly. From talking to Chinese businessmen, which I do regularly, I know that they recognise some of that improvement. However, there is still more work to do.
I now turn to taxation. A competitive and clear tax regime has a role to play in attracting inward investment and is seen as a UK strength. I know the policy recommendation was that HMRC should translate its guidance into Mandarin, but it is not HMRC’s policy to translate tax returns into foreign languages, partly due to costs but also for reasons of equality of treatment. Having been a tax accountant in the long-distant past, I can confirm that nuances of languages can be very difficult at times, although there is of course an opportunity for professional services to advise on these issues. I will pass the comments regarding foreign languages on to HMRC, but it is not an issue that I have had raised directly by inward investors.
I welcome the comments from noble Lords on the importance of setting up as an offshore RMB centre. Over the past few years, we have made a lot of progress in changing some of the regulations and policy and in giving encouragement. We can debate whether London is a leading offshore RMB centre, but many would say it is the leading centre. We have certainly seen progress, but we know that there is more to do and we will be looking for further—
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
The Minister indicated I was out of date. He was perhaps not referring to the surpassing of London by Singapore as an RMB trading centre, which was noted at the end of February. Perhaps he would care to comment on that.
Lord Livingston of Parkhead
In currency trading, there are different time zones. I was a spot trader once upon a time in my life and used to take over from Singapore. We shall see how the figures on RMB trading come out for the full year. The UK has established a very strong presence in RMB, which is as a result of the Government’s policies and the changes they have made.
UKTI has created a number of sector organisations focusing on increased investment in areas such as automotive, life sciences, financial services, offshore wind, regeneration and innovation. They will help individual sectors and investment, not just from China but from other countries. They are not aimed just at China, but we think these sectors are important to show expertise in individual areas. In addition, we have a specialised group aimed at regeneration opportunities: RIO. This has been particularly attractive to Chinese investors and provides a pan-UK list of opportunities for regeneration in every region around the UK. RIO not only presents a playbook of opportunities but will guide potential investors through some of the barriers rightly raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson.
This Government has a strong focus on building relationships with China. There have been numerous trade and ministerial visits, which are well thought out and well appreciated by the Chinese hosts. The highlight was the Prime Minister’s visit with the biggest business delegation ever assembled. More than half the companies that went on that were small companies. One of the important agreements signed during that visit was with the National Development and Reform Commission, to enhance trade and investment between the UK and China. As a result, and with the support of the British embassy in Beijing, the NDRC has launched the Chinese Enterprises Investment Guide to the UK, which is the first guide that it has published written for Chinese companies looking to invest in another country.
I shall pick up some points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner. The UK is proud of its position as an open economy, which we think has benefited the UK. It has created millions of jobs. When we talk about overseas investment, we have to look at JLR as an example of an acquisition that has helped the UK immensely and created value added and jobs. It is far less about the nationality of the company involved than its quality. We have public interest tests, particularly related to security, a key area which the noble Baroness raised, and areas such as media plurality. It is important that we look at the context of how much we have benefited. The UK will continue to position itself as open and to consider some of the challenges. I remind noble Lords that when we talk about AstraZeneca, Astra was a Swedish company; when we talk about GlaxoSmithKline, Smith, Kline & Co. was from Philadelphia. When we talk about openness, we have to remember that it is a two-way street.
The noble Baroness referred to diversifying into China too much. The challenge we have today is that we are not diversified enough. The EU has 45% of our trade and the US is our largest single market. It is this Government’s aim that the fast-growing markets should represent a larger proportion of our trade. The EU-China trade talks are just one of many trade talks. There are trade agreements being made and discussions going on with Japan, India, Singapore and the USA. We have recently concluded talks at the political level with Canada and we are discussing EPAs with many countries around the world. There is of course the Bali WTO agreement. This country is championing free trade around the world and will continue to do that on a plurilateral and multilateral basis, as well as on a WTO basis.
In conclusion, the UK has been very successful at attracting inward investment—we must remember that we are the number one in Europe for inward investment. It is the aim of this Government to improve our position in gaining inward investment from high-growth economies where historically we have not been successful, and of course China is number one in that list. We made significant progress in 2013 with multibillion pound investment across a range of sectors. We agree with the report that there is more to do, and we will do more. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today for attending and for their interest in this subject. We have considered the report in detail and will continue to look at its recommendations. We will continue to engage strongly with government and non-government organisations in the UK and in China to make further progress and to make the UK the most attractive and successful investment destination for China in Europe.
BBC: EU Coverage
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the course of their renewal of the BBC’s Charter and Guidelines in 2016, they will take into account the BBC’s coverage of European Union matters, in the light of its recognition of the need for greater breadth in such coverage following publication of the report of the Independent Panel led by Lord Wilson of Dinton in 2005.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that the BBC’s charter obliges it to be impartial, wide-ranging and fair in its political output, and that,
“no significant strand of British public thought is knowingly unreflected or under-represented”.
I should declare an interest in that, since 1999, I and others have been sponsoring an analysis of the BBC’s EU output to see if it is meeting those obligations in that area. This research can be found on the news-watch.co.uk website, and is the longest-running and most detailed analysis ever undertaken of the BBC’s output. As I said in my last debate on this, on 11 March 2002,
“bias, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder”.—[Official Report, 11/3/02; col. 653.]
The News-watch research now includes over 6,000 hours of the BBC’s EU coverage across numerous news and current affairs programmes. More than 8,200 individual EU reports have been fully transcribed, and transcripts from some 5,000 guest contributions have been collected and analysed. The director of the programme, Mr David Keighley, has had a long and successful career at the BBC and in commercial broadcasting, and his CV can be found on the News-watch website. He sits as a justice of the peace.
By 2004, Mr Keighley and his team had produced such damning evidence of the BBC’s Europhile bias, including a complete failure to air the case for the UK to leave the EU, which was already a significant strand of British public opinion, that the BBC set up its first and only truly independent inquiry chaired by the former Cabinet Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton. That inquiry broadly supported Mr Keighley’s conclusions, and so in reply the BBC made the commitments to which this Question for Short Debate refers. However, I have time to deal with only two of them. The BBC said:
“With specific reference to Europe our aims are … to offer our audiences across all platforms clear, accurate and accessible information about the way EU institutions work and their impact on UK laws and life”,
and, secondly,
“to ensure impartiality by reflecting the widest possible range of voices and viewpoints about EU issues; to test those viewpoints using evidence-based argument or informed opinion”.
I am sorry to say that the BBC has not yet fulfilled those promises. Let us look at the first aim, which is that the BBC would make sure that the British people could understand how the EU works and how it makes so much of our law. With our elections to the European Parliament only 15 days away, I would have thought it helpful if our people knew what they were actually voting for and how it fits into the EU’s law-making process. I would have thought it helpful if they knew that the power to propose EU legislation lies with the unelected Commission, and that the power is exercised in secret; that its proposals are then negotiated, still in secret, in COREPER—the Committee of Permanent Representatives, or bureaucrats, who are appointed by the member states—and that they then go to the Council of Ministers for further clandestine discussion and decision, with the European Parliament enjoying powers of co-decision at this late stage in the proceedings; and that the Commission and the Luxembourg court then become the Executive and sole arbiter of all EU law. I would have thought that it would also be helpful if the British people understood how wholly irrelevant their Parliament here in Westminster has become in that process and how even our Government have only some 8% of the votes in the Council of Ministers, where it has been outvoted on every one of the 55 objections that it has made against new EU legislation since 1996.
I would have thought that it was the BBC’s duty under its charter at least to try to explain the above process to its licence fee payers, but it has not done so and is clearly determined not to do so. When I have raised this failure with all the chairmen and director-generals over the past 14 years, the answer has been always the same: “Oh, but the EU is so boring”. Well, it need not be. What about a new series of “Yes, Commissioner”? You would not even have to make the jokes up—the script would write itself from pure fact. Indeed, in UK Gold’s second series of “Yes, Prime Minister” last year, we saw Sir Humphrey explaining to a bewildered PM how the EU works, and very funny it was, too. I have sent the Minister a three-minute clip of that and would be happy to send it on to other noble Lords who want it. There is only one catch: Sir Humphrey says that the President of the Commission is elected—perish the thought. So even Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn made a rare error on that one.
The other area where the BBC is in breach of its charter is in not allowing those who want to leave the EU the airtime to make their case. For instance, since 2005 the “Today” programme has allowed only some 0.04% of its airtime for withdrawalists to say why they want to leave, yet this is a view shared by upwards of 50% of the British people. The BBC almost entirely excludes Labour Eurosceptics from any debate on EU matters. Since 2005, only 0.09% of the “Today” programme’s guests on EU affairs have come from the Labour Party or the British left. The BBC prefers to view Euroscepticism through the prism of splits in the Conservative Party, with UKIP as the BNP in blazers— much more fun. It is not good enough for the BBC to reply that Nigel Farage has been on air a lot, if he and others are not given the space to explain how the EU works and, thus, the case for British withdrawal. There is one recent exception to that, as the BBC held a debate between Mr Farage and Nick Clegg recently. I suppose that it felt obliged to do so because LBC Radio and Sky had already done the same and it had proved rather popular. I bet that the BBC will not do anything like that again, if it can help it.
Finally, when the BBC deigns to commission what it pretends is an independent report into its output, the result is incestuous and incompetent to the point of dishonesty. I refer to the supposedly independent report last July by Mr Stuart Prebble, which has been taken to pieces by News-watch and exposed last month in a publication from the respected think tank Civitas, on whose website the whole depressing saga can be viewed. In a nutshell, Mr Prebble was not independent at all. He had been a colleague for many years at Granada TV of the BBC trustee—David Liddiment—who commissioned him and he had part-owned and run a company that made programmes for the BBC. He and the trustees commissioned the research directly from the former head of BBC news, Richard Sambrook, who is now at Cardiff University, where Richard Tait, a former editor of “Newsnight” and former BBC governor and trustee, also works in the same department.
Just for good measure, the Cardiff academic who led the research, Professor Karin Wahl-Jorgensen, had recently been employed by Brussels to analyse European media coverage about further EU integration and to discover why the UK is so sceptical about that prospect.
Unsurprisingly, Cardiff’s methodology was seriously flawed and unprofessional. It looked at only two one-month periods of the BBC’s output, in 2007 and 2012, which compares ill with the massive work done by News-watch over 15 years. Cardiff staff and friends in the leftwing media even managed to claim that their research showed that the BBC was biased in favour of Euroscepticism. They did this by simply ignoring 20 of the 21 pro-EU speakers on the “Today” programme in their 2012 survey period. Thus the Prebble report gave the BBC’s EU coverage a clean bill of health, which was, of course, gratefully accepted by the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and the other BBC trustees. So far, the BBC has not replied to the Civitas-News-watch report, and Mr Prebble has merely accused them of running a smear campaign. I trust that the Government will join me in looking forward to a detailed response very soon.
So I ask the Government not to renew the BBC’s charter until they are satisfied that it is capable of fulfilling it. This afternoon, I have dealt only with the BBC’s coverage of the EU. Similar criticisms could be made of its coverage of immigration and manmade climate change, at least. In conclusion, I trust that the Government will ensure that the BBC’s editorial freedom is preserved, but with that freedom must come the fulfilment of the great ideals of its charter. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for this debate and for a very good start-off to it, as well as for drawing my attention to this report, which I must admit that I had not read before—and that is clearly something I should have done. But, my goodness, how things have changed since 2005 when the report was written. Since then, being anti-EU has become fashionable; it has strong street cred—it is the urban of today. If anything, the way in which the BBC reports European issues has actually gone in the opposite direction. As the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said himself, UKIP coverage has been quite extraordinary. I congratulate UKIP and the noble Lord, as a former leader of the party, on what it has achieved with no Members of Parliament but a strong MEP contingent. It is an important political movement in the country which gets huge coverage. Most of it, until two or three months ago, was almost completely uncritical, unlike the coverage of us rather more boring traditional parties, which suffer all the things that are thrown at us for all the things that we try to do in government or, indeed, in opposition.
The report of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, brings a number of things to our attention. It states that there is no intentional bias, but goes on to say that informal bias has been shown in the past. The important message from that is still true: the BBC and the media more generally tend to report in terms of extremes, in that it is either all in or all out, or that we need somehow to partially opt out rather than stay as we are or go completely. It also talks about over-simplification, giving some examples. One that I remember well is where it looks at the,
“development of a European defence capability being treated simply as a scheme for a ‘European Army’”.
We heard about that mainly in the tabloid and popular press, but the BBC covered it as well, and of course it was far from the truth. There are some other points that the report brings up, such as treating,
“France and Germany as shorthand for the rest of the EU and failing to recognise the increased diversity of opinion following enlargement”.
That is an important one; it may not be so bad, but it is an area where we are still at risk.
One of the biggest areas since 2005, where the bias has been completely anti-European, is with regard to the euro crisis. Not only the Financial Times but the tabloid press and the BBC predicted constantly for about 12 months the break-up of the euro, although for me it was one of the most unlikely things that was going to happen. What has happened? Has the euro broken up? How many member states have left the euro? Two actually joined during that period. Did we hear a lot about that from the BBC? I do not remember hearing much about it. During the euro crisis, did the euro stop being the world’s second reserve currency? I do not believe so. Is it still? It absolutely is. Did the exchange rate actually plummet so that it was worthless? No, in fact, I think—my noble friend Lord Dykes will know better than I—it actually went up in value by comparison, certainly with pound sterling at the time, although that has probably slightly adjusted to our benefit over the past few months. Did we hear much about Hungary, a non-euro member that had equal economic and financial difficulties and needed a European and IMF bailout? I do not remember a great deal of reporting about that either. Clearly, there was a euro crisis and there were a lot of problems in terms of the way that Europe made its decisions at the time. However, in terms of its reporting, the BBC was absolutely and totally biased in a negative way and caused much of the feeling about the rest of Europe that reflected on that.
There is another area of concern. I remember writing to the BBC programme “Feedback” some years ago, before I became a Member of this House, to complain that although I liked listening to the “Today in Parliament” programme, there was no European Parliament coverage. Of course, I realise that I could be criticised here because the European Parliament accounts for only 9% of our legislation—or 7%, I think my party leader would say—but there is very little reporting at all of the European Parliament, which is an important institution in terms of the laws that are made in this country, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, would agree.
I would also ask whether we expect to have a sceptical or “anti” view of the international institutions of which we are a member. Is that something we should demand from the BBC? Have I heard a lot of criticism of NATO or a lot of bias against NATO? Have I heard anything on the BBC about removing ourselves from NATO? Should we actually come out of the UN? Should we have suitable “balance” from the BBC in terms of withdrawal from the IMF? The most important issue, of course, which we confront not in England but in Scotland, is whether we should have had, over the past five to 10 years, equal balance from the BBC about Scotland’s withdrawal from the United Kingdom. I absolutely think we should not have done, but that, although it is not the same, is a parallel and similar issue to the UK’s membership of the European Union.
I will conclude there. However, I was interested to see that John Humphrys of the “Today” programme added more fuel to the fire on this. He was slightly critical of the BBC but I was delighted that he was reported as saying that BBC staff were more likely to be liberal rather than conservative because they were the “best and the brightest”. I do not mean anything about my coalition colleagues by that—that was a small “l” and a small “c”—but I would like to think that as liberals, which I am sure that many noble Lords in this Committee are in terms of international politics, we are the best and the brightest. The BBC should remain balanced, but I believe that, if anything, the balance over the past five years has been in the opposite direction.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, it strikes me that everyone thinks the BBC is biased against their own personal viewpoint. Those on the left think it outrageous that business representatives are on the news more frequently than trade union leaders. They have also said that, although there is a general bias to political incumbents, Conservative politicians get far more airtime than anyone from Brown’s Government ever did. Conservatives think that the more obvious partiality of the 1970s and 1980s—admitted by Mark Thompson to be a “massive bias”—is still in existence today. We think that the BBC has pushed issues such as the bedroom tax without any grounding in fact. Indeed, Conservatives would argue that the BBC using the phrase “bedroom tax” is itself indicative of bias, given that it is not a tax at all. Perhaps this highlights part of the BBC’s problem: it has become too big, while still trying to maintain some semblance of balance.
How do we get an insight into the BBC’s world view? It may be reflected in the stories that its planners consider running on radio and television. Where do they get those stories? Last year it was shown that the BBC continues to purchase more copies of the Guardian—68,307 copies—than any other paper. It bought 58,000 Telegraphs and 60,000 copies of the Times. The Guardian has far lower circulation figures than either of those papers, not to mention the tabloids.
Having said that, I actually think that producers and presenters work quite hard to achieve balance in the BBC’s political output. It is very far from perfect, of course, but you cannot say that staff at the BBC do not try. However, the BBC plays an important role in deciding what is part of a reasonable debate on a given issue. If staff decide that a certain expert or group is not suitable to come on its vast number of political programmes to discuss something, that person or group is instantly seen to be outside the terms of reasonable debate—a pariah, an extremist, hard right or hard left. However, I am afraid that Europe is one issue on which the BBC tends to lose any sense of reason. Peter Oborne, in his publication, Guilty Men, for the Centre for Policy Studies, offers more examples than I can offer in this short contribution.
Many of these problems would be addressed if the BBC were to be reformed. The licence fee model is outdated, with the biggest change coming in the past five years or so. It is that watching television is not the only way to watch television programmes. Programmes are watched on phones, tablets, laptops, and they will be watched on devices that have not yet been invented. The BBC has its own iPlayer service, which, like its commercial equivalents, allows viewers to watch programmes wherever and whenever they like. Perhaps the best way to overhaul the BBC is to make it a subscription-based service.
A paper from the Adam Smith Institute outlined some sensible proposals. The BBC could, over a limited period, allow licence payers either to lapse or switch to voluntary subscription. The BBC would maintain a core public service function, funded by a much smaller government grant. “Public service” would be redefined to essentials. The core content would be free and include news, but entertainment and most documentary and factual output would not be free. That would make the BBC a 21st-century organisation, fully adapted to the digital revolution. Subscription models in the US show that people value choice. People will watch BBC material once they have chosen to pay for it themselves. These kinds of reforms would fix a far bigger problem than perceived bias: the monopoly features of the BBC, or at least its dominant market share. It currently has around 70% of the news audience, according to Ofcom.
I once had the privilege of running a monopoly, or at least a company with no competition, in the London taxi industry. I can tell you the truth of the saying, “Monopolies are like babies; nobody likes them till they have one of their own”. The BBC loves its monopoly and thinks that it deserves it. However, I can tell it that in fact competition, though scary to a monopoly, is good for it. You can never quite demonstrate the merits of a dominant business because the customers have no choice. Give them a choice, and wonderful things happen. The BBC can then be proud of its output and of its happy customers, rather than be proud of its monopoly while trying to ignore the thousands of customers criminalised in the magistrates’ court for not paying their licence fee.
There was a programme on BBC2 in March called “The Restaurant Man”, in which people gave up their day jobs to start restaurants. It was nothing at all to do with politics. In that programme, the presenter said, “Opening a restaurant just to make money is wrong”. That, to me, is where the BBC is at its most biased. I am not even sure presenters and producers know it, nor do they think they are doing anything wrong, but the cultural, metropolitan elitism is far more rife than any hard, political bias.
When it comes to the EU, it is clear that the balance of the coverage does not reflect the balance of the paying public’s opinion. Restricting a core grant for public service material will ensure a narrower focus and a much greater ability to ensure balanced output. It will save taxpayers money too.
Lord Giddens (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, on initiating the debate, which in my assessment is important if only to signal the necessity for having a much longer, fuller discussion on this issue in your Lordships’ House at a later date.
It is very possible that there will be an “in or out” referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU over the next few years. An incoming Conservative Government are committed to hold such a referendum before the end of 2017. Labour has said that, if elected, its Administration will hold a referendum if there is treaty change in the European Union. In my assessment, at some point over the next few years there will have to be treaty change in the EU to consolidate the structural reform of the Union following the euro crisis.
A decision to leave the EU would be massively consequential for the country. I am at the opposite pole from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson—in other words, I am a passionate and committed pro-European. However, I hope that the noble Lord will agree with me that a referendum must be preceded by a fully open and informed public debate over an extended period. That is crucial if a referendum takes place. As by far and away the most respected and trusted national broadcaster committed to impartiality, the BBC should and must play a central role in such a public debate. I hope that the corporation will start to think about, and prepare for, the eventuality of a referendum now rather than wait until such a decision actually approaches. The past history of the BBC’s reporting on the EU shows how problematic and difficult its role will be.
The 2005 Wilson report was important and hard-hitting, as has been said. Eurosceptics have concentrated on the now famous liberal “institutional mindset” that the report diagnosed at the BBC. Just as important in my view was the documenting of uninformed reporting and the pronounced tendency to see the EU through what was called the “domestic or Westminster prism”. The BBC took the report seriously, as has been said, and made a large number of notable changes, including the appointment of a full-time Europe editor. Since then, a whole string of further reports have appeared, including the BBC Trust review of impartiality which came out in July 2013. However, I am a social scientist and I like hard data. More important in my view is the content analysis of the BBC news reporting carried out at Cardiff University from 2007 to 2012. That research emphatically refutes the view that conservative and Eurosceptic voices do not get a hearing. They in fact feature almost twice as frequently as opposing views: the supposed “liberal bias” has more than been corrected.
However, perhaps more importantly the research shows that the EU is presented largely in terms of infighting between domestic political parties rather than the issues at stake. Political figures also dominate. These findings run completely counter to what audiences covered in the research actually say they want—that is, for the ideological opinions of politicians, activists and special interest groups to be minimised in favour of factual commentary and impersonal assessment. As I have stressed, this is an absolutely core requirement, with crucial relevance if and when there is a referendum. It would be good to hear the Minister’s views on how such an outcome could be achieved, and on the proper role of the BBC in securing it.
Lord Dykes (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, in this debate and to deliberately embarrass him by praising his recent book on Europe—Turbulent and Mighty Continent—which I read with great pleasure, but also with apprehension that things might not be so easy in the future. It is a book, however, that underlines his traditional support for Europe, which I share as well. It was more impressive than the book I wrote two years ago called On the Edge: Britain and Europe, about the danger of Britain coming out of Europe almost by accident and carelessness, rather than any—
Lord Dykes
I assure the assemblage here that that was not a pre-arranged conversation: it was entirely spontaneous. As usual, the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, was exaggerating in his latest remarks. Be that as it may, it is very sad once again to see that old apprehension and fear of the European Union coming out in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, although we expect that kind of thing from him because he is against what he calls “the project”. Of course, however, most other people in most of the other member states—virtually all of them, without exception—are in favour of the project, and so am I. It will develop according to the wishes of the sovereign member Governments in that Union as they decide to work together through the integrated collective institutions. The European Parliament now has a 50:50 role, which I believe is a very good thing. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, as a previous Member of that Parliament, who was probably one of the pioneers of that eventual plan. We will now see much better legislation coming out of those institutions as a result of the EP’s greater involvement.
I do not agree at all that the BBC is biased far too much in favour of Europe: far from it. Its coverage has improved as a result of the recent suggestions referred to in this debate today and I commend it as a high-quality public broadcaster based on a financing system that has the confidence of the public. It is coming up for review again in due course. Once again, the dark gothic forces on the right wing of the Conservative Party will be agitating for the abolition of the licence fee, as they do every seven-and-a-half years on a regular basis, led previously by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. That will always persist, and I disagree strongly. I go to the United States a lot, and anybody who is not in favour of something like the BBC should have the misfortune of being forced to watch Fox TV, for example, or listen to Fox radio, which is even worse. The BBC has therefore led high standards of broadcasting, impartiality and objectivity on a massive scale in respect of most issues.
Of course, there has been a dumbing down from the competition—based on the television equivalent of the tabloids and comics that masquerade as newspapers in this country—and therefore the BBC itself had to do some dumbing down as well. That would include dramatising stories on Europe. I thank my noble friend and colleague, Lord Teverson, for the absolutely prime example of the euro and the way in which the BBC behaved. It startled many of its adherents and supporters in the way it presented the “fate of the euro”—so-called—as a result of the international banking, financial institutions and hedge fund crisis. It was not caused by anybody in Europe or in Britain, but mostly by people in the United States. I refer to the way in which the BBC said that the euro was on the verge of extinction: Jeremy Paxman used the word “meltdown”, implying that the euro was going to finish in a few weeks’ time. Paul Mason, one of their more polychromatic and overexaggerated correspondents—he now has a different portfolio—dealt with those matters as well, and he said that the euro probably had just a few days to live before it ended. That is a total travesty of the truth on any objective measurement, as my noble friend indicated in his remarks.
Take the euro as an example. It is essential to reflect on its reality as an international currency. It has three or four weak member-adherent countries of course, but look at what is happening now. People who were writing off Greece said that Greece in a few weeks’ time would have to leave the euro and have a new drachma, heavily devalued and so on, and it would not be able to manage. Portugal, just recently doing its first bond issue, is no longer asking for international assistance after three years. Greece is coming out of these tremendous travails. All of them voted solidly—the Greek Parliament, too, with big majorities; there was total public support from all the political parties, apart from the right-wing neo-fascist party—for the reality of supporting the euro as the greatest unifier of the developing economy of the European Union. It has been a massive success. Let us look at the most recent payments figures for the world. The euro is now an international reserve currency of immense dimensions. I should mention here that the United States is a much more heavily indebted country than any in Europe: the federal debt alone is $17 trillion. Fifty American cities are bankrupt and at least 50 states are on the verge of bankruptcy or, like California, they are already bankrupt, yet there are no complaints about the United States because it is the leader of the western world and it can do that: send the dollar out and the more people who buy it, the better. Will it go on forever? I doubt it.
The figure for the US reserve currency is now 39.5% for total payments transactions across the world, but the euro percentage is now 32.5%. It is getting closer and closer. Confidence in the euro—led by Germany as the strongest economy but also by France, which is bravely supporting the strong currency system—is high. Britain is afraid to do so after we were driven out of the exchange rate mechanism, and we have been afraid of the euro ever since. Devaluing is an easier option here, and that is what we do. We have devalued seven times since the war, three times by government action and four times in the marketplace. The pound is now not a very strong currency, as my noble friend Lord Teverson indicated. That will persist as the way out because it is the easy way out. The Italians did that but then they changed their minds and joined the euro, which is now benefiting Italy. That is a classic example of where the BBC went over the top because of the pressures in this country as a result of the atmosphere created by the Europe haters developing their political activities and political parties like UKIP, which will not last forever and I am sure is just a temporary phenomenon. Britain must regain its self-confidence as a proud international member of this community, as we are of NATO, the UN and other institutions. We must be an active participant in the European Union because if we are not, we will go down the path of loneliness, desolation and isolation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)
My Lords, I hope I will be forgiven for intervening at this stage. I did not know that I would be able to speak, so I did not put my name down. The first thing I want to do is thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for this debate and for his efforts over a long period of time at huge financial cost to himself, and perhaps others, at investigating the BBC’s coverage of Euroscepticism, if I can put it like that.
So far as I am concerned, I am a great admirer of the BBC, so I am not in any sense against the corporation, and indeed I do not believe that it can be financed in any way other than how it is financed at present, but we shall have to see about that. However, the fact is that I believe that the BBC has failed in its duty in respect of giving the Eurosceptic side of the European argument. I have myself made several representations both to the chairman and the organisation that deals with complaints, but with little success. I hope that the BBC will take note of this debate.
It is true that Euroscepticism is popular at the present time, but what is more important than ever is that when we come to have the debate on “in or out”, I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Giddens. It must be an important and properly financed debate. We have to ensure that both sides are properly financed, not as they were in 1975, and that they should have equal time, especially on the BBC but also on other radio and television outlets. That is of the utmost importance.
My time is nearly up. I have to say that I speak as someone who was not in favour of joining the Common Market and believe sincerely that we would be far better off if we were out of the European Union. This country can thrive very well outside the European Union, and it is about time we had a big debate about what our future should be. Perhaps this debate will help us towards that.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for tabling this debate today. Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I am grateful to him for drawing our attention to the report by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, which was published before I joined your Lordships’ House. I was not aware of it before this debate, but I have now read it and found it very persuasive and perceptive. It raised a number of challenging issues about not just the BBC’s but the media’s coverage of European issues. Many of the issues are commonplace but, as the report quite rightly acknowledges, as the public service broadcaster, the BBC bears a particularly heavy responsibility for raising public awareness and maintaining a scrupulous standard of impartiality on this issue.
However, it is also clear that it was a report very much of its time—it is, after all, nearly 10 years old—and having read the BBC’s response and the commitments contained within it, it seems that a genuine and robust attempt was made to address the structural and presentational weaknesses covered by the report’s recommendations. For example, the BBC now has a specialist Europe editor and the BBC News website has its own dedicated European section. The “Daily Politics” and “Sunday Politics” shows have featured MEPs on 172 occasions, with 51 of 73 UK MEPs being interviewed over the past 18 months. On Fridays, “Today in Parliament” on Radio 4 includes reports from Strasbourg, and BBC News broadcasts a half-hour programme, “Politics Europe”, at the end of each Strasbourg session. More recently, the debate between Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage was broadcast on BBC2 and BBC News with an audience of more than 3 million viewers, so there is some evidence that the mechanisms for better coverage are in place.
Similarly, the BBC has visited and revisited the concerns regularly raised about impartiality, most recently in an independent report by Stuart Prebble which was commissioned in 2012 and to which the noble Lord referred. He drew on research from Cardiff University. The noble Lord said that he found its research untrustworthy, but that scepticism has been challenged and challenged again, and all the authoritative people who have looked at the research think that it stands up and confirms that a wide range of viewpoints and opinions on Europe can be found on the BBC.
While I do not think it is helpful to dwell overmuch on the Wilson report of 2005, I agree with some of the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and others about the lack of breadth and depth of coverage, which is a real challenge for us. This is a more fundamental challenge than simply requiring a review of the BBC’s output or, indeed, its charter because it stretches across from the media to our other democratic institutions. For example, there is a fundamental knowledge gap that needs to be addressed. We cannot lay that purely in the lap of the BBC. It starts at a much earlier level, in schools, where, as we know, political education is sparse and centred on UK institutions. Survey after survey of young people have shown that they have a real thirst for more information about what goes on in Europe. A European Parliament report shows that young people across the EU have the most positive feelings about Europe but also that two-thirds of them want to know more about its institutions and opportunities. This mood is reflected in a recent Anglia Ruskin University report which shows that 81% of British young people feel disengaged because they do not know enough about the EU, how it works and, above all, how it affects their daily lives. This is the point made by my noble friend Lord Giddens. There is a thirst for facts and information, not just for rhetoric.
This lack of information was reflected in the canvassing I was doing at the weekend. There was widespread apathy about the forthcoming European elections, a lack of understanding of the role of the European Parliament and a failure to grasp the range of social, environmental and economic benefits of the EU which impact on our lives. The challenge of filling this knowledge gap requires a greater commitment from all those involved in democratic and civic groups—we cannot lay responsibility for this solely at the door of the BBC.
Secondly, we need to recognise that one of the great strengths of the European legislative process is its focus on collaboration and negotiation. However, that very strength is also a weakness when it comes to media coverage as there are no gunfights at the OK Corral or headline-grabbing issues. A lot is done through deliberation, which is hard for the media to report effectively.
Ironically, although I very much share my party’s commitment to reform of the EU, including greater democracy in its institutions, I also accept that an EU style of politics provides a great alternative model to an electorate who are sick of British adversarial Punch and Judy encounters, which are driving so many people away from our own political institutions and politicians in the UK. If the British media were only better able to capture the essence of European political systems, we could have a more meaningful debate about the nature of political reform both here and in the EU.
Finally, I will pick up on the noble Lord’s question—the fundamental one we are debating today—about whether these issues should be raised in the context of the renewal of the BBC’s charter. I hope the Minister will agree with me that it would be completely inappropriate to start raising issues of content when the charter discussions take place. This is a highly sensitive issue but it is important that we reaffirm the BBC’s editorial independence, free from political interference, when the charter is renewed. The BBC has its own processes in place for monitoring and evaluating quality and impartiality, which need to be respected.
I hope we are able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that we all bear some responsibility for extending knowledge and news about the EU. The debate should continue, but the BBC charter is not the right vehicle for dong this. I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, that it is not in our interests to attempt to weaken what continues to be a respected and admired institution through this type of criticism at this point in time. Quite frankly, I do not think we would be thanked by the electorate or by BBC viewers for doing that—it remains a much loved institution, something which I think all the polling would confirm. We have had a good debate but the charter is not the way to take this issue forward. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, I will respond initially to the last, important points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, by reaffirming the Government’s commitment to the operational and editorial independence of the BBC. That should be reflected in everything that we do, including when responding to debates of this nature. Although it is tempting to get into the detail—about which we all have an opinion—that independence, objectivity and, indeed, the BBC’s charter obligation to deliver impartiality is the subject which is under debate here: whether it is actually fulfilling that commitment to impartiality under its charter obligation. I rather liked the introduction from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, when he referred to bias being, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. With the sweet coincidence of the ordering of the speeches, we then went from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and then to my noble friend Lord Borwick. I felt we got a wide range of the different perspectives that we have on this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raised another point about the thirst, particularly among young people, to learn more about the institutions and more about Europe. I think that point is particularly pertinent at the time when we are marking the 100th anniversary of World War 1. I certainly commend the work which the BBC is doing to highlight what was, in a sense, the genesis of the institution which we are now discussing.
The impartiality of the British media, particularly with regard to its coverage of controversial topics, has been a subject of great debate in recent years. We have talked about the report by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, which was published in 2005 and predicated on the basis that there was then going to be a referendum. The BBC wanted to engage with the issue of what its position should be if a referendum actually took place.
We know that a referendum did not take place. That deals with one of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, and others about the position of the BBC and whether it should have a role to play in a forthcoming referendum. The answer is that it most certainly should, and the form of that will need to be decided.
We should not diminish that record of impartiality. Opinion polls carried out by MORI show that 76% of adults regard BBC News output as accurate. That is not to be complacent, but it is a trusted source, and the reason that the BBC must take its duties incredibly seriously. It is also the reason why, I guess, the BBC Trust decided to ask the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, to undertake the review in the first place. It was followed up in June 2007 by the safeguarding impartiality review. In July 2011, there was a review of the BBC’s governance operations in relation to impartiality, and in July 2013 there was a review of breadth of opinion, which was raised by a number of noble Lords. As the centrepiece of the UK’s public service broadcasting landscape, the BBC bears a central responsibility for providing balanced accounts of such matters as part of its mission to “educate, inform and entertain”. This is an important element.
My noble friend Lord Borwick made an important point about competition. I am sure that it will not have been lost on the BBC that while in certain age groups it is gaining market share for its news services, among the young it has been losing market share. Part of that could well be the wide range of additional outlets and news sources, primarily social media, which are now available, and there needs to be a response to that.
The BBC’s fifth public purpose, as set out in the current charter, is,
“bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK”,
by building global understanding of international issues and broadening UK audiences’ experience of different cultures. There is clearly a read-across here to balanced, impartial coverage of EU matters and the duty of impartiality. The noble Lord, Lord Borwick, raised an interesting fact about the newspaper preferences of the BBC, but it has an absolute duty. The charter review will provide the appropriate context to consider all aspects of the BBC’s scope, its purposes and its activities. The current charter expires on 31 December 2016, and the Government have yet to announce the process, timing and scope of the review.
In 2005, the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, led an independent panel to assess the impartiality of BBC coverage of the European Union and make recommendations for improvement where necessary. I accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Teverson that things have changed quite a lot since 2005. Indeed, there is no cross-party consensus about the future. That is not just a UKIP point but a Conservative point, a Liberal Democrat point and, I am sure, a Labour point too. Markedly different views are now being presented to the electorate, not least at the present time, about how Europe should progress.
My noble friend Lord Borwick asked about the licence fee and the BBC Trust’s role in securing value for money. The BBC Trust is directly accountable to licence fee payers. Among its duties is to exercise rigorous stewardship of public money. That is clearly a very important role which we expect it to take seriously in future discussions. That will certainly be part of the ongoing review.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, focused on three points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, who raised 12 points in his report. Overall, there was a view that the BBC had demonstrated some cultural and unintentional bias and that its coverage of EU news needed to be improved and to be more clearly impartial. To address this, the panel recommended that the BBC needed,
“a strategy, action and changes, led from the top”.
As part of those efforts to address the breadth of opinion cited in its EU coverage, the BBC appointed its first Europe Editor, Mark Mardell. That was a point that was raised and welcomed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Giddens. Mark Mardell was appointed in May 2005 to focus on the evolving role and nature of the EU and its impact on the UK. In an interview with the European Scrutiny Committee in November last year, witnesses from the BBC described the appointment of the Europe Editor as:
“The biggest single thing, which made a real impact on air”.
In addition to this, the BBC has introduced new training resources and a mandatory course for journalists on reporting Europe. It has also commissioned regular reviews of specialist subject areas. A number of noble Lords referred to the interest in the debates that took place between Mr Farage and my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, which were watched by more than 3 million people on the BBC. That was something that, again, sparked discussion and debate in the country, which must be welcomed.
I turn now to other reports on impartiality and European coverage. Since 2005, a multitude of other reports have been published by the BBC Trust and the European Scrutiny Committee to assess the progress on the BBC’s impartiality in EU coverage. Most recently, the review of the breadth of opinion reflected in the BBC’s output, commissioned by the BBC Trust and led by Stuart Prebble, was published in July 2013. I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, made some strong remarks about the direction of that report. I think that it is creditable to the BBC that it takes its responsibilities so seriously that it sets up these reviews from time to time. It was encouraging to see that an increase between 2007 and 2012 in the breadth of opinion provided on the UK’s relationship to the EU had been identified. I am sure it was not nearly enough for the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, but some progress had been made. Overall, the report noted that, although continuous improvements could be made,
“the BBC goes to great lengths to provide a breadth of opinion”.
This point about breadth was the point made by my noble friends Lord Dykes and Lord Teverson and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones; we should talk not just about breadth but also about the depth of coverage. That is a criticism which the BBC has accepted and is seeking to respond to.
The more literature we have in that area and the more views that we have, the better it will be. This includes contributions such as the book by my noble friend Lord Dykes. I have not yet read it, but given that it has now had a citation and endorsement from Professor Giddens—the noble Lord, Lord Giddens—we will all, of course, rush to the library to obtain a copy, although perhaps my noble friend will be wishing that we rushed to Amazon to do so instead.
Qualitative polling undertaken by Ipsos MORI on behalf of the BBC in May 2013 found that, when asked which source of news people would trust for being the most impartial, 49% would choose the BBC, compared with 14% for ITV and 3% for Channel 4. It is important to highlight as part of this debate the fact that, under the terms of the charter and agreement, the BBC must do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and due impartiality in news dealing with public policy or matters of political or industrial controversy. This is also in line with section five of the Ofcom broadcasting code. The BBC has an invaluable role in providing information to licence fee payers to enable them to form their own views about a particular issue. To “educate” and “inform” are two-thirds of the Reithian values that form the heart of the BBC’s mission.
In conclusion, I thank again the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for raising this important issue, and all noble Lords who spoke in this debate. We have much to be proud of in the way that public service broadcasters in Great Britain cover news impartially and accurately. To date, this has allowed the UK to build arguably the best broadcasting industry in the world, bringing benefits to the UK public and across the globe. Given that the BBC is central to this broadcasting landscape, and the unique way in which it is funded, it is essential that the BBC retains the public’s trust as an impartial purveyor of news and programming and of balanced coverage of all matters. It is critical that it continues to do this.
House of Lords
Care: Older People
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wheeler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what response they intend to make to the findings of the Age UK report Care in Crisis on the impact of cuts to care for older people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, social care is a priority for this Government, which is why we have allocated an extra £1.1 billion to councils this year to protect services. We are building on this by creating a £3.8 billion fund next year to join up NHS and social care services. Both health and social care need to work differently to respond to the needs of our ageing population, focusing on keeping people well and living independently for as long as possible.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his response. Age UK’s report found that social care cuts between 2010 and 2013 have resulted in 168,000 older people no longer receiving help with essential tasks such as eating, washing and getting dressed. The Nuffield Trust recently put the figure over four years at 250,000 people who have lost state funding support. In the light of today’s developments, can the Minister please comment on what is now happening to the Better Care Fund and when does he expect to update the House fully on why the launch of the fund has been delayed? The Minister knows that the fund basically uses resources already committed to shoring up the existing reduced level of services and that there is no new money in it. We now learn that the Cabinet Office says that the fund lacks financial credibility, in particular as to how on earth local hospitals are to save money to move care into the community in the current climate of substantial cuts. How does the Minister think progress can be made on the transfer to community care amidst the chaos and confusion into which this policy has now fallen?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that there is no chaos and confusion. As regards reduced numbers, which was where the noble Baroness started, the transformation in the service model that we are promoting focuses above all on prevention and is designed to enable people to live independently for longer, as I said earlier, so as to reduce the number of people who are dependent on formal care. Councils have told us that lower social care user numbers are partly due to the success of their core prevention work, but also due to increased use of re-ablement services for people who leave hospital to help them get back on their feet. As regards the Better Care Fund, there has been no delay there. We wanted to set aside enough time to make sure that all areas of the country have developed comprehensive plans for joined-up care. The better care plans start from April next year, as the noble Baroness is aware, and we have asked for early versions to be completed a year in advance so that we can review them, check their level of ambition and test how they will be delivered. That is what is happening now and we are broadly on track with the programme.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, people with autism spectrum disorder often spend much of their lives dependent on their parents, who are likely to die before them. In the light of the evident local authority distinction between critical and substantial eligibility thresholds, how will the Government ensure that people with autism are supported into old age by a social care system that helps those with moderate needs to live independently for as long as possible?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the national eligibility threshold has been set at a level to reflect the most common current practice of local authorities. That will allow current practice in 98% of local authorities to continue as it does at present. The national minimum threshold will mean that people with autism, others who need care and carers will know what level of need is eligible for local authority care, no matter where they live in the country. I think most people welcome the element of the Care Bill that gave that certainty.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, one of the objectives of the Better Care Fund is to reduce demand on the NHS by improving preventive social care. Local authorities have sought to put more money into the Better Care Fund than the Government originally asked them to. Can the Minister say what the NHS’s response to the Better Care Fund proposals has been?
Earl Howe
The short answer to my noble friend is that it is too soon to say as the plans are currently in formation. However, the whole idea of the Better Care Fund is to enable joint working. It is an opportunity to make the best use of available resources and improve value for money through the collaborative redesign of existing services. The pay for performance element of the fund should incentivise local areas to make efficiencies and will provide initial evidence of the impact of the Better Care Fund on savings and outcomes.
Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Royal College of Psychiatrists carried out a recent survey which found that 11% of NHS trusts had cut specialist psychiatric teams that specialise in working with older people. A similar number of trusts are planning to disband their specialist psychiatric teams across the country. That is having a huge impact on older people who have to go all around the country for a specialist service. What assessment have the Government made in respect of those cuts?
Earl Howe
My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, specialised services are the responsibility of NHS England. We have charged it in the mandate and through regulations to make sure that there is comprehensive specialised cover for mental health services and other services throughout the country. For less specialised services, we expect the parity of esteem principle to apply, and CCGs are being held to account by NHS England to achieve that.
Baroness Wilkins (Lab)
My Lords, what is the Minister’s response to the recent Nuffield Trust report, which warns that the Government are now “flying blind” in planning services for vulnerable older people because there is no way of assessing the true impact that social care cuts are having on their lives? Does he agree that the recent abolition of the Independent Living Fund, with no ring-fencing of the transferred resources, will only exacerbate the social care crisis?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the Government are not flying blind on this issue. Social care has remained a priority for us, which is why in every year since 2011 we have invested significantly from the NHS into social care, and with a health benefit, as I mentioned earlier. That has enabled councils to give relative protection to social care in implementing their savings. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but the figures are very clear. Spending on adult social care services has been protected to a much greater degree than other service areas. One cannot expect them to be wholly protected. Local authorities have reduced spending on other services by a good deal more than they have on adult social care services.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet (Lab)
My Lords, does the noble Earl accept that the real crisis in care for older people is the closure of many beds within local communities, which forces hospitals such as my own, Barnet and Chase Farm, to hold on to those people when they should not be in a hospital? They do not need medical treatment and are very vulnerable to hospital diseases. That is where the real crisis is. Barnet and Enfield is closing beds inside care homes, which affects not only the length of stay but the impact we have on older people, which bothers us greatly.
Earl Howe
My Lords, that kind of issue should be absolutely central to the planning that the health and well-being boards undertake, with both the NHS and social services working together to ensure that there are enough beds from year to year. It is difficult to make generalisations about this. The noble Baroness mentioned her own area, which she knows very well. I am concerned to hear that Barnet and Enfield is straining in that sense, but, if she would like to speak to me about this, I am of course ready to see her.
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to honour the commitment made to review the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 10 years after its implementation.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name and declare that my interest is on the register.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 introduced commonhold ownership and made numerous reforms to long leasehold law. Although the Government monitor the take-up of commonhold and continue to respond to concerns about the working of leasehold legislation, they have no current plans to carry out a formal review of the Act.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I thank the noble Lord, but it is 12 years since this law was passed and 11 sections are still listed as not in force, which seems rather a lot. Tenants and leaseholders, on the whole, are most interested in Sections 152 and 154, which provide for transparency and the protection of their deposits. However, we have had answers to Oral Questions in both Houses saying that the DCLG has a “watching brief” on this matter. Will he tell me how you move from a watching brief to a review, and which department would do that?
Lord Faulks
My noble friend is right that Sections 152 and, I think, 156 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act have not been brought into force. These deal with service charge information and the right to hold service charges in designated accounts. The Government consider actively whatever form of words is used, regardless of whether it is necessary to intervene by legislation. However, they are concerned with not overburdening either freeholders or leaseholders with unnecessarily elaborate provisions. They are also satisfied that, for the most part, the rights of leaseholders are protected by a number of provisions, some of which were brought in by the 2002 Act, particularly in relation to service charges, enfranchisement and protecting leaseholders from landlords in certain circumstances.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that—despite the attractiveness of the provisions that have been brought into force in the 2002 Act for many joint users of amenity premises, and indeed the popularity of such a system in many other common-law jurisdictions—it seems to have been almost totally ignored, both by practitioners and the general public? Is it possible that the rather ponderous procedures of registration at the Land Registry may be responsible? Have the Government held consultations with the Law Society and other appropriate bodies with a view to simplifying these systems and possibly making them cheaper?
Lord Faulks
I hope I understand the noble Lord to be referring to commonhold as one of the options that was made available by the 2002 Act. It is true that it was thought by all those involved with the legislation that there would be much greater take-up than there has in fact been in commonhold, which is popular in other parts of the world. However, the Government do not feel that it is appropriate to force people to go into commonhold arrangements. We welcome any attempt to bring it to people’s attention as an option. It is interesting that it is not taken up by any of those who write about the subject or by practitioners who should be advising their clients on whether it is appropriate. The Government stand ready to encourage it, in so far as it is appropriate for the Government to intervene in private arrangements.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
The noble Lord the Minister must surely know that there are delays occurring between an application for a hearing relating to a right to manage and the First-tier Tribunal hearing the case. There is then another delay in getting an outcome. However, when I asked a Written Question on that, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, replied that such information on timings was not available. Surely the Government need to know things like that, to know how this Act is working. Will the Minister put the research in hand so that we can have such information?
Lord Faulks
As the noble Baroness will know, the question goes across departments—that for housing and the Ministry of Justice. I do not have the details available but I will certainly ask for inquiries to be made along the lines of the question.
Lord Swinfen (Con)
My Lords, do the Government have any plans to control residential rents?
Lord Faulks
My Lords, the Government have no plans whatever to control rents. It appears that the party opposite is unsure as to whether this is a good idea. In fact, rental increases are below the rate of inflation. Last time, a rent freeze, which is partially proposed by the party opposite, caused the sector to shrink from over half to just 8%. Our intention is to improve the rental housing market, not to destroy it.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I return to commonhold and leasehold and pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for her tenacity in raising this issue on many occasions. Would the Minister be willing to meet some of the Members of your Lordships’ House who recently got together to look at these issues? We discovered that there are quite a number of relatively modest reforms which would make a difference to leaseholders’ lives but which at the moment are not receiving attention. Would he and perhaps some of his officials be willing to meet a group of us to discuss that?
Lord Faulks
I join the noble Lord in paying tribute to my noble friend for her tenacity, and indeed I pay tribute to the noble Lord himself for his consistent interest in this subject. I would be happy to arrange a meeting, probably involving the housing department as well as the Ministry of Justice. I will try to organise that in the nearish future.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford) (Con)
My Lords, I think that we ought to hear from the Liberal Democrats. I always try to be very fair. On the first Question, there were five Labour questions, so I think that we should hear from the Liberal Democrats.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, as a member of the group that has met to consider these issues, I thank the Minister for saying that he will meet us. I will return to commonhold. It is quite incredible that many of us spent hours scrutinising the Bill well over 10 years ago. Since that 2002 Bill, there have been only 15 commonhold new developments and 152 units within blocks. That is not necessarily due to a lack of interest: there are significant obstacles for both old and new properties. Given the time that has been spent on this matter, I really think it is time that we as a Government looked at post-legislative scrutiny much more seriously, particularly in cases such as this.
Lord Faulks
My noble friend knows about post-legislative scrutiny. This Government and, I am sure, the Opposition are anxious to have such scrutiny in appropriate circumstances. The Act will take its place along with other legislation where scrutiny is appropriate.
NHS England: Health and Social Care Act 2012
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to amend the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to permit the Secretary of State to give day-to-day directions to NHS England.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and draw Members’ attention to my interests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have no such plans to amend the Health and Social Care Act 2012. We believe that the power and responsibility for commissioning services should be exercised by the healthcare professionals closest to patients. That is why we legislated through the Act to establish autonomous local clinical commissioning groups supported by NHS England, an independent and accountable national body.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, that is a pity because the 2012 Act must be the most flawed piece of health legislation there has ever been. On the question of autonomy, first, can the noble Earl tell me why CCGs are not allowed to be autonomous and why they are subject to very overbearing, day-to-day control by NHS England? Secondly, because NHS England is discriminating against the funding of mental health services and against the precept of parity of esteem, why are the Government not intervening and telling NHS England to reverse its policy?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I do not accept that CCGs are subject to unreasonable controls from NHS England. It is the task of NHS England to support CCGs and hold them to account, and that is what I believe it is properly doing, not least through the outcomes framework. Ministers are not intervening on the question of mental health funding because funding is just one part of the story when it comes to parity of esteem. We have set NHS England a strategic objective to make measurable progress towards achieving true parity of esteem for mental health. NHS England is responsible for allocating funds to clinical commissioning groups, which are best placed to invest in services that meet the needs of their local communities. However, we will of course hold NHS England to account for that. What we must not do is to single out certain elements of the equation at this stage.
Lord Patel (CB)
Can the Minister say whether the Ministers in the Department of Health are happy that NHS England has recommended a 20% deflater to tariffs for mental health that destroys any possibility of achieving any kind of parity of esteem?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we are not happy with that and, as I have said in the House before, Ministers have made it very clear to NHS England that this decision is both surprising and unwelcome in view of the need to maintain parity of esteem. NHS England, the NHS Trust Development Authority and Monitor are addressing this issue vigorously and we have regular discussions with those bodies to ensure that mental health services do not suffer.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder whether the Secretary of State now regrets supporting those aspects of the Bill—now an Act— that put him at a distance from interfering in the National Health Service and its agencies. Will the Minister nudge his colleague the Secretary of State to show that the level of micromanaging he is indulging in disempowers and disables the very people and organisations that his legislation put in charge?
Earl Howe
My Lords, it is important for me to point out that the Secretary of State is acting entirely and properly within his powers. He is under a legal obligation to keep the performance of NHS England under review. That is in the Act. He would not be doing his job if he was not keeping in touch with NHS colleagues and talking and listening regularly to feedback about how things are going. He is accountable to patients and to Parliament and I do not think the public would expect anything less.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, given that many Ministers have spoken very clearly about the priority for parity of esteem for mental health and the answers that my noble friend the Minister has given to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others, what more can the Government do if NHS England continues to refuse to allocate funding fairly for mental health?
Earl Howe
My Lords, as I have indicated already, we view funding as just one part of the story in achieving parity of esteem. However, we will hold NHS England rigorously to account for this and we have regular meetings to talk about that. We have set NHS England that strategic objective and we have singled out in particular action on crisis intervention, extending access to IAPT therapies and developing options around access and waiting time standards. Therefore there are a number of detailed issues that we expect NHS England to address.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, can I ask the Minister to draw attention to one other area? I was alarmed to read in a recent POSTnote —the very last paragraph of a document that is often very factually based and helpful to the House—that HIV/AIDS is likely to suffer from being commissioned by one group, delivered by another and overseen by yet another. I am quite sure that that is an area where we would want good co-ordination, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that it is properly monitored.
Earl Howe
The noble Baroness is right to draw attention to sexual health services as an area that needs to be joined up. We are very aware of that. The commissioning arrangements are as she has stated but we are as confident as we can be that in most areas of the country the services are joined up, even if commissioned separately. It is an area that we keep under review very closely.
Eurotunnel: Structure and Charges
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they plan to take to conclude the European Commission’s infraction proceedings in respect of Eurotunnel’s structure and charges.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)
My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to mark the recent 20th anniversary of services through the Channel Tunnel. The British and French Governments will move economic regulation of the tunnel from the Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental Commission to the Office of Rail Regulation and its French equivalent, and put in place a charging framework by March 2015. We are working with the French Government and anticipate that those commitments will be resolved by March next year.
Lord Berkeley
I thank the Minister for that Answer. First, I thank so many noble Lords who have campaigned for many years to get the charges for the Channel Tunnel down. It looks as though the figure for freight will come down by between 25% and 40% which is a great achievement. I congratulate the Commission, the two Governments and, of course, Eurotunnel for reaching this agreement. Will the Minister now turn her attention to France, where there is a big problem? We can get through the Channel Tunnel more quickly and cheaply, but reliability and the general obstruction from the French railways are putting a serious stop on further traffic. Will the Minister encourage the Commission to go for the liberalisation package that is currently before Parliament and the Council to try to ensure that France is not the blockage to more traffic that Eurotunnel used to be?
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, the Government are very committed to the single market. We have been strong supporters of the freight corridor strategies that will now extend from the Channel Tunnel through to London, as well as extending the reach across the continent. I take very much to heart the words expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and I will follow up on his proposal.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
I am pleased to hear what the noble Lord opposite said about freight charges. Charges for passengers using the Channel Tunnel are so high that I ask my noble friend to consider whether Eurotunnel is abusing its monopoly position so that the market might be open to more providers and better services.
Baroness Kramer
As my noble friend Lord Bradshaw knows, part of the agreement that predated the infraction, which is the subject of this Question, is that the Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental Commission will be replaced by the Office of Rail Regulation for the UK side of the tunnel and by its equivalent, ARAF on the French side. Their powers will be enhanced and they will put in place a charging strategy. My noble friend will be aware, however, that when the tunnel was built, to achieve that financing, certain concessions and rights were given, which obviously predate the relevant European directives. We recognise that we must honour those contractual commitments, although they have changed somewhat over time, as has the EU. I do not want to give too strong a commitment to my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, but I can say that the issues he raises are being looked at seriously.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister can bask in the congratulations to the Government and all those involved on the progress that has been made recently on the operation of the tunnel. Will she concede that progress has been due partially to the threat from the European Commission to take infraction proceedings against the British and French Governments unless there was improvement? In the areas of improvement that are scheduled, is she able to include the possibility in the near future of train services to Frankfurt operated by Deutsche Bahn?
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I am aware that a number of train companies are now looking at potential services through the Channel Tunnel. We would obviously welcome that as it expands the range of choice for people in the UK who wish to use the train. It would obviously create another avenue for tourism into the UK. As we build HS2, which will extend high-speed lines in the UK, it will enhance the use of high-speed and rail travel to the continent as well. I understand that there are no significant barriers; it is a matter of finding appropriate commercial arrangements, which I would leave to the commercial parties involved.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that some 300,000 French citizens live in this country? Some estimates put it even higher, and the number is growing. Indeed, the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, reckons that he is in charge of the sixth largest French city on the planet. Does my noble friend put the great and growing attractions of this country in French eyes down to cheap fares, or might it have more to do with the cautious but creative economic strategy being pursued so successfully by her right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Baroness Kramer
I can see that this is a wide-ranging question. Perhaps I may just say that, as a Londoner and as a true Brit, I find living in this country to be exceedingly attractive. I am not at all surprised that it is highly attractive to the French, especially those with an entrepreneurial turn of mind.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that the real moral of this story is that strong EU rules are needed to make the single market work in the interests of the customer?
Baroness Kramer
I very much agree that a single market can exist only when there is effective regulation. The UK would have said that the prior arrangements had the necessary stamina, but we are very welcoming of the new shape of economic regulation that will have an impact on the Channel Tunnel as we go forward.
Buckinghamshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill [HL]
The Chairman of Committees
That this House resolves that the promoters of the Buckinghamshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill [HL] which was originally introduced in this House on 22 January 2014 should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 150A (Suspension of bills).
Care Bill [HL]
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:35 - Division on Amendment 45C - Ayes: 169 / Noes: 293 - Amendment 45C disagreed.
18:56 - Division on Amendment 45E - Ayes: 165 / Noes: 259 - Amendment 45E disagreed.
“(14) The regulations may in particular specify that the paragraphs in question do not apply as regards specified needs or matters.”
“(4) Regulations may make provision for excluding costs to a local authority from a personal budget if the costs are incurred in meeting needs for which the authority—
(a) does not make a charge, or
(b) is not permitted to make a charge.”
“(da) cases or circumstances in which an adult who lacks capacity to request the making of direct payments must or may nonetheless be regarded for the purposes of this Part or the regulations as having capacity to do so;”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I would like to place on record my thanks to all noble Lords for the spirit of collaboration and constructive criticism that has characterised our formal and informal discussions leading up to this moment. Your Lordships examined the Bill thoroughly when it started in this House, and made many excellent proposals as to how it could be improved. Many of these were taken up in the other place, and I believe that we now have a better Bill before us. Noble Lords’ suggestions have influenced not only the Government’s amendments but also the surrounding policy and our proposals for forthcoming secondary legislation and guidance.
In moving the Motion on the first amendments made in the other place, I hope noble Lords will think it convenient to consider a number of others, to which no amendments have been proposed. Many are small technical changes to clarify the provisions further and correct previous oversights. Amendments 1, 12 to 31 and 34 to 36 are minor and technical, and do three things. First, they ensure that cross-references to the Children and Families Act 2014 and consequential changes to it are accurately reflected in the Care Bill. Secondly, they include further definitions in the glossary at Clause 79(1) to ensure maximum clarity. Thirdly, they make further changes to fully reflect amendments in this House to remove the requirement for a transition assessment to be requested.
Amendments 2 and 3 relate to the issue of charging by local authorities and simply clarify the scope of the regulation-making powers, as I set out when we considered this on Report. They ensure that regulations can specify where local authorities do have the power to be more generous and contribute to the costs of an adult above the financial limit, as well as where they do not.
Amendment 4 clarifies that the regulation-making power at Clause 25(13) allows the regulations to specify cases where aspects of the care and support plan, including the personal budget, are not required. We have always been clear that there may be cases where aspects of care planning are not appropriate. An example is the inclusion in a personal budget of costs relating to the provision of reablement. This also reflects current practice and we intend to continue this arrangement through regulations.
Amendment 5 allows regulations to specify where certain costs do not have to form part of the personal budget, and thus do not count towards the cap on care costs. Again, it has always been the intention that some care and support provision, such as reablement, should be provided as a universal, free service and therefore should not be incorporated in the personal budget. This regulation-making power is limited to services that the local authority cannot make a charge for, or chooses not to. There is no way that this can apply to general care and support that the local authority can charge for.
Amendments 6 to 8 allow regulations to make provision for cases where a person with a direct payment has a period of fluctuating capacity, so that the local authority could or should, depending on the circumstances, continue with the original direct payment arrangements. This will provide continuity and prevent the direct payment having to be terminated.
Amendments 9 and 10 are technical amendments that address an uncertainty caused by a drafting omission. They make it clear that deferred payments, whether they are deferred charges or a deferred repayment of a loan, can either be paid back in whole or part.
I turn now to Amendment 32, which provides for a broad regulation-making power specific to appeals of decisions made under Part 1 of the Care Bill. This power gives us the flexibility to provide for a range of options depending on further work to ensure that we achieve the outcomes that people have told us are important to them. We will specify the details of the policy in regulations.
Given the changes introduced by the Care Bill, it is vital that individuals have confidence in the care and support system, and that they are able to challenge decisions without having to resort to judicial review. We held a consultation during the second half of last year on how best we could ensure this. Following this consultation, we have recognised the need for change. Amendment 32 will give us the scope to develop with stakeholders detailed proposals for an appeals system, keeping to the spirit of co-production that has characterised our work on other areas of the Bill.
This is an important and complicated issue and we need to make sure that we take time to get the detail right, drawing on experience from other sectors and ensuring that the changes are aligned with the broader changes to NHS and social care redress following the Francis report and the Clwyd review. We are working actively with our various partners and stakeholders to develop our policy on this, and we will consult further as part of wider consultations on regulations and guidance later this year.
As noble Lords may know, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee today reported on the amendments made in the other place to the Care Bill. It made two recommendations in relation to Amendments 32 and 46, which I am pleased to say the Government accept. Accordingly, I have today tabled Amendments 32A to D and Amendments 46A to E to give effect to those recommendations.
Addressing the first recommendation, Amendment 46B ensures that regulations made on the first exercise of the power in Amendment 32 establishing the care and support appeals process would be subject to the affirmative procedure. The remaining amendments respond to the concern of the committee as to the meaning of the reference to “modifying” an enactment. Our amendments spell out that the power is to provide that a provision of an enactment may apply with modifications. Similar amendments are made to similarly worded provisions elsewhere in the Bill to ensure consistency.
The amendments also ensure that where any regulations relating to the appeals process make provision that provides for a provision of an Act of Parliament—that is, primary legislation to apply with modifications—then such regulations must be made using the affirmative procedure. Again, in the interests of consistency, similar amendments provide that certain other regulations under the Bill—which might also provide for the modification of the application of an Act of Parliament —should be made using the affirmative process.
I turn to Amendment 33. Feedback from local authorities is that it would make sense for them to have the flexibility to be able to delegate functions relating to direct payments if they so wish. We agree, and have accordingly tabled an amendment to remove the prohibition around this.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full and thorough explanation of the Government’s changes to the Bill since it left this House. We will deal with each issue as it comes up. I will deal with Amendments 1 to 10, 44 and 46 to 51 on the Better Care Fund, and Amendments 12 to 39 on the care and support appeals process.
In light of today’s revelations about the Government’s problems with the aims and operations of the Better Care Fund, perhaps I might ask a couple more questions that follow on from the earlier exchange with the Minister on this matter. The Government’s technical amendments—Amendments 1 to 10, 44 and 46 to 51 —on the fund and achieving integration of care and support between the NHS and local authorities are straightforward. Of course, whether the fund can ever achieve what it set out to achieve looks like a very different matter.
The Cabinet Office review has found that the £3.8 billion fund lacks financial credibility. The Nuffield Trust says that it is based on “flawed logic”. The King’s Fund says that the aim stressed by the Minister earlier to get spending plans in place for the fund in time for the 2015-16 Budget is “completely unrealistic”. Its chief executive, Chris Ham, points out in today’s Guardian what many of us have been stressing all along, despite supporting the principle of and need for the fund; namely, that hospital budgets can be reduced only if much more care is already being provided in the community by GPs, community nurses and staff who are supporting patients in their homes. He says that just cutting NHS hospital budgets now would place,
“additional stress on an NHS already struggling to balance the books and maintain acceptable standards of patient care”.
Surely that is the point. Taken with the huge underfunding of local authority social care highlighted by the Age UK report Care in Crisis that was referred to earlier, this is the underlying problem that has still to be addressed. The fund does nothing to address the huge social care funding gap that has led to the cuts in social care support that Age UK’s report has highlighted, particularly the ending of help with essential tasks for older people, such as eating, washing and getting dressed. Those are the very services that help them remain independent and living in their own homes with a good quality of life.
The Minister says the fund has not been suspended, but there are clearly problems. Can the Minister give us any further details about the Cabinet Office review findings, and in particular the concern about the lack of detail about how the savings will be achieved? What is the timescale for the further review referred to by several newspapers and the specialist press today? Can the Minister explain how progress is to be made in enabling older people to remain active and independent at home or in the community when there is just not the funding or support available to help them?
Finally, on the technical amendments to the care and support appeals process, we welcome the Government’s announcement accepting the two recommendations from the Delegated Powers Committee and fully support these government amendments.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I have just one issue to raise, on Amendment 32 and the Government’s amendments in light of the Delegated Powers Committee report. I speak on behalf of a number of people who are grateful that the Government have been able to respond very quickly to this. It is much more sensible for this to be an affirmative instrument rather than a negative one.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, in view of the press coverage today, perhaps I could ask the Minister to confirm a point. When the Better Care Fund was announced, the intention was that projects would start in April 2015. Is that still the Government’s intention or has the timescale been put back? What seems to me constructive is the move to have more engagement from the NHS in setting up the projects under the Better Care Fund. One key aspect of the Better Care Fund on which it rests is ensuring that there are enough strong and appropriate providers of community services to ensure that older people get the care in the community that they need.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wall, put a question during our earlier exchanges that went straight to this matter. You cannot simply close spaces in the NHS and expect that somehow people will be provided—magically, at a stroke—with services in the community. I quite see why people have leapt on this as a story, but I struggle to see the substantive issue. I go back to a point that was made earlier: how many times have we stood in your Lordships’ House and talked about integration of health and social care as being a desirable end that will deliver better services? It seems to me that the NHS may be questioning some matters to do with budgets. That is not a case for undermining the Government’s whole policy.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions of noble Lords. I will begin by clarifying that the Better Care Fund has not been suspended or delayed. My noble friend was absolutely right to say how important and long-awaited this initiative is. Successive Governments and leading health professionals have talked about joining up health and social care for a very long time. The Better Care Fund is a major step to making this a reality. It will be in operation from April 2015, which was always the intention. For the press to suggest that the scheme has been suspended is completely wrong.
The Cabinet Office implementation unit conducted a deep-dive review of the Better Care Fund in six local areas following the submission of draft plans. This was a small sample of the 151 plans across England and was based on initial drafts that have since been redrafted. The review found that the Better Care Fund is generating pace around service integration, but there are areas where improvement is needed. These include insufficient engagement with primary care and acute providers in the development of Better Care Fund plans and a lack of practical detail and clarity about how cashable savings will be released.
Since receipt of the Cabinet Office report, officials have worked with NHS England and the Local Government Association to improve the offer of support for local areas to address the issues that have been raised. To give councils the resources to start making progress immediately, the NHS will transfer an additional £200 million to councils in 2014-15 on top of the £900 million already committed. This funding will be used for social care with a health benefit and to prepare for the introduction of the Better Care Fund.
We are only half way through the planning and preparation process for the Better Care Fund and it is very premature to imply or state that the fund is in trouble—far from it. One would expect different areas of the country to progress at different rates; that has always been the case. Many areas of the country have been integrating services very successfully for a number of years, so it should not be surprising to anybody that some areas need to catch up. We are on the case, and so are NHS England and the Local Government Association. I am confident that, as I said earlier, we are broadly on track in this area.
“Human Rights Act 1998: provision of regulated care or support etc to be public function
(1) This section applies where—
(a) in England, a registered care provider provides care and support to an adult or support to a carer, in the course of providing—
(i) personal care in a place where the adult receiving the personal care is living when the personal care is provided, or
(ii) residential accommodation together with nursing or personal care;
(b) in Wales, a person registered under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000 provides care and support to an adult, or support to a carer, in the course of providing—
(i) personal care in a place where the adult receiving the personal care is living when the personal care is provided, or
(ii) residential accommodation together with nursing or personal care;
(c) in Scotland, a person provides advice, guidance or assistance to an adult or support to a carer, in the course of a care service which is registered under section 59 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 and which consists of the provision of—
(i) personal care in a place where the adult receiving the personal care is living when the personal care is provided, or
(ii) residential accommodation together with nursing or personal care;
(d) in Northern Ireland, a person registered under Part 3 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Quality, Improvement and Regulation) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 provides advice, guidance or assistance to an adult or services to a carer, in the course of providing—
(i) personal care in a place where the adult receiving the personal care is living when the personal care is provided, or
(ii) residential accommodation together with nursing or personal care.
In this section “the care or support” means the care and support, support, advice, guidance, assistance or services provided as mentioned above, and “the provider” means the person who provides the care or support.
(2) The provider is to be taken for the purposes of section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (acts of public authorities) to be exercising a function of a public nature in providing the care or support, if the requirements of subsection (3) are met.
(3) The requirements are that—
(a) the care or support is arranged by an authority listed in column 1 of the Table below, or paid for (directly or indirectly, and in whole or in part) by such an authority, and
(b) the authority arranges or pays for the care or support under a provision listed in the corresponding entry in column 2 of the Table.
TABLE
Authority | Provisions imposing duty or conferring power to meet needs |
|---|---|
Local authority in England | Sections 2, 18, 19, 20, 38 and 49 of this Act. |
Local authority in Wales | Part 4 and section 189 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014. |
Section 51 of this Act. | |
Local authority in Scotland | Sections 12, 13A, 13B and 14 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. |
Section 3 of the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013. | |
Health and Social Care trust | Article 15 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. |
Section 52 of this Act. | |
Authority (within the meaning of section 10 of the Carers and Direct Payments Act (Northern Ireland) 2002) | Section 2 of the Carers and Direct Payments Act (Northern Ireland) 2002. |
“local authority in England” means a local authority for the purposes of this Part;
“local authority in Wales” means a local authority for the purposes of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014;
“local authority in Scotland” means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;
“nursing care”, for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, has the same meaning as in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, as amended from time to time;
“personal care”—
(a) for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, has the same meaning as in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, as amended from time to time;
(b) for Scotland, has the same meaning as in Part 5 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, as amended from time.”
“(ba) section (Human Rights Act 1998: provision of regulated care or support etc to be public function) (Human Rights Act 1998: provision of regulated care or support etc to be public function);”
Earl Howe
My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in my name in this group. They respond to the excellent report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and follow discussions that I have had with the noble Lord, Lord Low, and others. I am grateful to the Joint Committee and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Low, who unfortunately is not able to be here today. I extend my thanks to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, my noble friend Lord Lester, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Warner, with whom I have had constructive meetings.
As has been said here and in the other place throughout the passage of the Bill, this Government need to send out a strong message to the sector not to allow abuse, neglect or harm. Our priority must be preventing harm, abuse and neglect happening in the first place.
However, Clause 48 as inserted by this House went too far. It applied the Human Rights Act to all provision of CQC-regulated social care. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights acknowledged, the Human Rights Act is not intended to cover entirely private arrangements. If Clause 48 became law, it would have been the first time that the Act applied directly to purely private arrangements where there is no state involvement. It could have led to other interest groups arguing that they should also be able to challenge private providers on human rights grounds in other spheres.
We still believe that much stronger deterrents are available. Many of the Care Quality Commission’s fundamental standards will include human rights dimensions. These standards will apply to all registered providers of health and social care, and failure to comply with them could be a criminal offence.
However, as I have just said, I am aware of the strength of feeling on this matter and that is why I am today prepared to offer a government amendment which I hope this House can support. The amendment would make it explicit that care providers who are regulated by the Care Quality Commission in England or by equivalent bodies in the rest of the United Kingdom, when providing care and support arranged or funded in whole or in part by local authorities, are exercising a public function for the purposes of the Human Rights Act. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this amendment meets the objectives of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It makes it clear that providers of publicly arranged or funded care and support, both residential and non-residential, provided on behalf of a local authority to an individual, are bound by the Human Rights Act.
The Government were unable to accept the JCHR amendment as it was drafted for technical reasons. The Human Rights Act is an entrenched enactment which the devolved legislatures cannot modify, but its application should be the same across the UK. Government Amendment 11B therefore applies the legislative clarification to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
It is important to bear in mind that the scope of application of the Human Rights Act matters to lots of other people beyond the care sector. The Government believe that it is not appropriate to pick and choose which people or bodies are expressly made subject to the Human Rights Act. That is why I want to make it clear that this amendment would not set a precedent for any future occasions where there are perceived to be gaps in the coverage of the Human Rights Act. I hope that this amendment will be welcomed. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend for having missed the first few sentences of his speech. However, I heard the substantive part of it.
First, may I say on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which met this morning, that the committee is absolutely delighted by how the Government have reacted to the problem that was raised in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and many others, and which led to an amendment that—on reflection—was too strong? The amendment now tabled meets the problem admirably. The problem was created by an unfortunate decision of the Law Lords—by three to two—in the case of YL. As the Minister will know, the previous Government, like the present one, had been looking for an opportunity for that unfortunate judgment to be reconsidered in a suitable test case. However, no such case has arisen. The pity of it is that the whole point of the Human Rights Act was not to have a list of bodies that would be subject to the Act but to have a good, flexible test that would be fact-sensitive and would apply without the need for amendments of this kind. Unfortunately, no such test case has arisen where the matter could be properly decided, and therefore one has in a sense to use Elastoplast—sticking plaster—to deal with particular problems.
We quite understand the Government’s reservations about this being regarded as a precedent. As the Minister knows, ideologically there are some for whom the words Human Rights Act are almost anathema; that is why it required a certain amount of discussion to get to the present situation.
The Joint Committee sought clarification on just one matter. I do not think there is a problem; it is rather a matter of seeking confirmation that the Government intend the amendment to cover social care provided by a regulated provider and paid for by direct payments. It is not absolutely clear from the amendment that that is so. We think that it is so but is that correct? Do the Government intend the amendment to cover social care paid for by direct payments, provided that the care is purchased from a regulated provider? I am speaking extremely slowly, in order that others may be able to answer. No doubt others will want to say something about this amendment as well, but if that point could be confirmed in the Minister’s reply it would be very helpful. Nothing that I have said, however, should mask the delight we feel that this problem has been solved in this manner.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I would like to say a few words about this group of amendments.
First, I thank the Minister for his helpful explanation. I particularly want to say some things on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Low, who very much regrets that he is not able to be here this afternoon. His amendment sought to make it clear that the provision of regulated care was a public function for the purposes of the Human Rights Act, within the umbrella of Section 6(2)(b) of that Act. As noble Lords know, it was not accepted in the other place and we now have a government amendment which deals with that issue in rather different terms. It is a happy state of affairs to have that amendment in place.
The noble Lord, Lord Low, has authorised me to say two things. First, he very much welcomes the amendment and, secondly, he has asked me to express his appreciation for the way the Minister and his colleague in another place—Norman Lamb—have listened to the views in both Houses and have worked very hard to secure an agreement on the current amendment across government. The noble Lord, Lord Low, appreciates all the work necessary to achieve that, and he wishes me to stress his grateful thanks. I associate myself with these remarks.
Perhaps I may say one or two things in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said about the case of YL. That was a decision by the United Kingdom Supreme Court, not by the Law Lords in this House. It was a decision by the justices by majority, and there it is. That decision stands as good authority for the point that it made, which was that while the regulation of privately provided care by a local authority was a public function, the private provision of care itself was not. The interesting point about the case arises at the very end where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, said that if the legislature was unhappy with the decision and thought it appropriate, it would be right to spell out in terms that Section 6(2)(b) of the Act applied to private bodies whose provision of care and accommodation was funded by a local authority. That was what he was thinking at the time. The point he was making was that there would be a mechanism for dealing with particular problems in a particular way. That solution has now been worked out by the Government in the way that we see before us.
I respectfully suggest that by doing this, the Government are not setting a precedent. So far as the judges are concerned, they would not regard it as such at all; the precedent is in the Act itself and is doing precisely what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, had in mind. I do not regard it as any disadvantage to do it in this way; it is very satisfactory that it has been achieved as it has. It is a precisely targeted measure which, as I have been trying to explain, is exactly what the noble and learned Lord had in mind.
I hope that I might be permitted to ask three short questions. I apologise to the Minister for not having given notice of them, due to the short time available since the amendment was circulated. The first relates to the list we see in the table at the end of subsection (3) of the new clause, which seeks to set out the list of the authorities to which the measure applies and a list of the functions intended to be covered by the measure. The question is, simply: can we take it that the intention is that this list should catch all the circumstances where care or support is arranged or paid for by the authorities listed there? We have not been able to check this for ourselves but I assume that that is the intention. It would be helpful if the Minister could simply confirm that that was what was being intended.
The second question relates to situations where a personal contribution, of whatever kind, is made to the cost of the care or support arranged by the authority. The arrangement is the authority’s but the individual makes some contribution of his or her own. Again, it is a short question: can we take it that the requirements to which that subsection refers will be met in that situation, the critical point being that it is the public authority that has made the arrangement? I would have regarded that as the touchstone as to whether or not this provision applies.
The third question is rather related to that, and to the content of the care package that is being provided. There may be cases, for example, where people with learning disabilities or mental health problems may need some assistance to enable them to participate in the activities that are being provided or get access to them. This question is similar to the second one. Can we take it that here, too, although these people are somewhat outside the scope of the other statute, the position nevertheless is that because it is the authority making and regulating the provision, the provision will apply to it?
These points aside, on behalf of the others on these Benches who have participated in these debates, I express my great thanks to the Minister and all those who have been working very hard to achieve the happy result that we have this afternoon.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, if it helps the Minister as he waits for some assistance in his response, I speak as one who has taken part in many of the discussions over the years. The Minister was right to acknowledge the work of a large number of people. One person who should be added to his list is the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, who has worked tirelessly on this matter for some time. It is a measure of how long this debate has been running that when we first began to discuss it in this House, there were no direct payments for social care to anybody. Therefore, the matter did not arise. It is therefore extremely helpful that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has posed the question that it has. When we started, the scope to argue over what was a private arrangement and what was a public function was considerably less than it is now. Now, someone who has been assessed as needing and being entitled to social care may make an arrangement with a family member using a direct payment, but the question of whether it is a public function that is being discharged is still the one that goes to the heart of whether the Human Rights Act applies. It is extremely helpful that the Joint Committee has raised that question. Having got this far to overcome what has long been acknowledged as a tremendously unfair anomaly—whereby one older person in a residential home has rights and the person in the next room does not, simply because of who arranged, rather than funded, their care—let us get it right, at last.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, as I took part in the debate in this House that secured the original amendment to the Bill, I should very much like to associate myself with the remarks of thanks to my noble friend Lord Howe and to Norman Lamb and others in the other place. I think the root of this difficulty was the decision of this House from which Lord Bingham dissented. That was an indication that the decision might require revision in due course.
Lord Rix (CB)
My Lords, on behalf of learning disabled people and other vulnerable people I should like to thank the Government for making this amendment, which certainly ensures that their care will be greatly attended to in the future.
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, briefly, I also support the Government’s amendment on this long-running but vital issue. As the House knows, we strongly supported the need for the amendment. We, too, warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Low, on his dogged determination and efforts to achieve this outcome. We also thank noble Lords from across the House who have helped to bring this about. On these Benches, we recognise that this was very much unfinished business from the Labour Government. We congratulate the Minister on the hard work he has put into finding a way forward and to getting cross-government departmental agreement, which has been important. We recognise that the amendment is a very significant step. I was going to ask for clarification on a couple of issues, but they have been raised in the debate so I shall leave it there.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am naturally very pleased by the welcome that these amendments have received from around the House. I should like to thank those noble Lords who have spoken for their extremely helpful remarks, not least the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and my noble friends Lord Lester and Lady Barker.
My noble friend Lord Lester asked me whether the amendment covers social care provided by regulated providers paid for by direct payments. The answer is yes, it does. The words used are: if the local authority pays “directly or indirectly”. “Indirectly” is to cover direct payments when the local authority provides the money to the individual who then goes to the regulated provider him or herself. I hope that clarifies the point.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, asked me three questions. First, he asked whether the intention is that the list in subsection (3) of the new clause should cover all care paid for by all local authorities around the country. Yes, that is the intention: all relevant regulated care and support across England and the devolved Administrations is included in the list. It is our intention that the effect of this clause should be the same across the UK. We have worked very closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that this is the case as far as possible. There is a potential source of confusion in the wording because in Scottish legislation social care is referred to in different terminology, but the net effect of what we are doing should mean that this applies in an even-handed way across the country.
The noble and learned Lord’s second question was: where a personal contribution is made towards the cost of care, will those situations be covered—that is, a situation where the public authority has arranged the care? Yes, the wording in new subsection (3)(a) in the new clause includes the words,
“paid for (directly or indirectly, and in whole or in part) by such an authority”.
In other words, even if the local authority funds only part of the care, it will be covered.
The noble and learned Lord also asked about the content of the care package and whether the fact that the local authority is providing the care means that those with learning disabilities and mental health issues are covered. All those who are receiving regulated care and support arranged by the local authority will be covered. That includes situations where the local authority itself is providing the care or support. That is the existing situation, the amendment does not change it and these people remain fully covered.
My noble friend Lady Barker asked whether the effect of what we are doing means that the provider is performing a public function. Yes, any provider covered by this amendment would be carrying out a function of a public nature in that instance. I hope that I have covered the questions as fully and clearly as noble Lords would wish, and I beg to move.
“Child’s carer’s assessment | Section 61(2) |
Child’s needs assessment | Section 59(2)” |
“Parent | Section 59(6)” |
“Young carer | Section 64(6) |
Young carer’s assessment | Section 64(2)” |
“(4A) Where a proposal under subsection (4) names an individual and specifies action that the Commission would require the registered person to take in relation to that individual, the Commission must give that individual notice in writing of the proposal.”
(2) In section 28 of that Act (notice of decisions), in subsection (6), for “subsection (7)” substitute “subsections (7) to (9)”.
(3) In that section, after subsection (7) insert—
“(8) But in a case where notice of the proposal has been given to an individual under section 26(4A) subsection (7) does not apply unless, by the time the Commission receives the applicant’s notification, it has received notification from the individual that he or she does not intend to appeal.
(9) And if the Commission receives notification from the individual after it receives the applicant’s notification and before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (6)(a), the decision is to take effect when the Commission receives the individual’s notification.””
“(3A) After subsection (7) of that section insert—
“(8) Where the administrator recommends taking action in relation to another NHS foundation trust or an NHS trust, the references in subsection (5) to a commissioner also include a reference to a person to which the other NHS foundation trust or the NHS trust provides services under this Act that would be affected by the action.”.”
“(3A) In subsection (5)(a) of that section, for “would achieve the objective set out in section 65DA(1)(a)” substitute “—
(i) would achieve the objective set out in section 65DA(1)(a), and
(ii) would do so without harming essential services provided for the purposes of the NHS by any other NHS foundation trust or NHS trust that provides services under this Act to the commissioner,”.”
(3B) After subsection (7) of that section insert—
“(8) Where the administrator recommends taking action in relation to another NHS foundation trust or an NHS trust, the references in subsection (5) to a commissioner also include a reference to a person to which the other NHS foundation trust or the NHS trust provides services under this Act that would be affected by the action.
(9) A service provided by an NHS foundation trust or an NHS trust is an essential service for the purposes of subsection (5) if the person making the statement in question is satisfied that the criterion in section 65DA(3) is met.
(10) Section 65DA(4) applies to the person making the statement when that person is determining whether that criterion is met.”
“(4A) In subsection (4)(a) of that section, for “would achieve the objective set out in section 65DA(1)(a)” substitute “—
(i) would achieve the objective set out in section 65DA(1)(a), and (ii) would do so without harming essential services provided for the purposes of the NHS by any other NHS foundation trust or NHS trust that provides services under this Act to the commissioner,”.”
“(8) A service provided by an NHS foundation trust or an NHS trust is an essential service for the purposes of subsection (4) if the person making the statement in question is satisfied that the criterion in section 65DA(3) is met.
(9) Section 65DA(4) applies to the person making the statement when that person is determining whether that criterion is met.””
““(2) In subsection (4)(a)(ii) of that section, omit “or NHS trust”.
(3) In subsection (7) of that section, omit “or an NHS trust” and “or the NHS trust”.
(4) In subsection (8) of that section, omit “or an NHS trust”.”
Earl Howe
My Lords, I shall also speak to the other amendments in my name in this group. The trust special administrator regime is of course not revolutionary or new, but was set up by the previous Government in 2009 as a way of dealing with exceptional and intractable failure at NHS provider trusts. Your Lordships will also know that, since the addition of provisions for a single failure regime, which we have discussed previously, a foundation trust could be placed into special administration both for quality as well as financial failures, in the same way that an NHS trust could be. We are strengthening the regime through changes made in the Bill but this does not change the fact that it is only to be used in cases of significant failure.
There are various actions that could happen before the regime is even considered. For minor concerns at an NHS trust or foundation trust, the CQC will use its inspection reports and ratings to highlight concerns and to call for improvement. Breaches of fundamental standards could lead to a trust being prosecuted, or a penalty notice in lieu of prosecution. Where there are serious failings, the CQC will issue a new warning notice, requiring the trust to make significant improvement within a specified time. Monitor and the TDA also have a range of intervention powers; for example, Monitor is able to remove, suspend or replace foundation trust governors or directors. Monitor and the TDA can also place trusts into special measures, which includes partnering with a high-performing hospital, regular publication of improvement plans and a full leadership review.
Also, providers and their commissioners are expected to review the way that local clinical services are configured in the best interests of patients and in the context of quality and financial challenges. While a locally led service reconfiguration is not a panacea for all the challenges facing a provider, we would none the less expect options for reconfiguration to have been rigorously assessed. Ultimately, however, if it is impossible for a trust to turn itself around, it will be necessary to place it into the special administration regime, in order to safeguard taxpayer funding and the interests of patients. Trust special administrators would be appointed—and I make this point emphatically—only when all other suitable processes to develop sustainable, good healthcare have been exhausted.
That is the background to these amendments. I turn now to the amendments made in the other place. Amendment 41 would require any trust special administrator to consult formally other trusts, their staff and commissioners, who may be affected by his or her draft recommendations. This would match the extended remit of the administrator under Clause 118 with an express wider consultation requirement, ensuring that the final recommendations are informed by a proper understanding of the issues facing the entire local health system. Amendment 41 would also strengthen public and patient representation in the regime by requiring the administrator to consult local authorities in whose areas affected trusts provide services and local Healthwatch organisations in those areas. Amendment 43 is a minor and technical amendment. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the changes made in the other place further strengthen the regime and will offer the amendments their support.
I turn now to Amendment 41A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and Amendment 43A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I hope that they will forgive me for addressing these amendments before they have been spoken to. The key underlying aim of these amendments is one with which I have complete sympathy, and I am grateful for the opportunity to make that clear in your Lordships’ House. It is absolutely the Government’s intention that essential services at other affected trusts should be respected during the process of trust administration just as much as the essential services at the failing trust. However, both amendments seek to achieve that aim by adding additional statutory objectives for the trust special administrator. I hope it will be helpful if I explain briefly why that is unnecessary and unworkable in practice.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, my amendment is Amendment 41A. As this is a new stage of the Bill, I declare my interests as a consultant and trainer with Cumberlege Connections, president of GS1 and chair of a foundation trust.
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, because we have clearly come quite some way since he introduced at Third Reading in your Lordships’ House the amendment relating to the rules on hospital closures. I hope, however, that he might see his way to moving a little further this afternoon. Closing hospitals is never an easy thing to do and I see a number of former Ministers in your Lordships’ House who bear the scars of hospital closure decisions. In my view, there is no doubt an urgent need to reorder and reconfigure services to allow for the centralisation of many specialist services to improve patient outcomes. Where the clinical evidence is persuasive, I would always support those service changes. We need to be more wary where service changes take place purely on the grounds of financial problems in a particular trust, especially if those changes have a negative impact on well run neighbouring services, where consultation is truncated and if there is an uneven playing field between the different commissioners—which is the subject of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.
This all arose because of the problems in the use of the special administrator mechanism in the case of Lewisham. The South London Healthcare Trust was in huge financial difficulty; a special administrator was appointed and recommended that Lewisham hospital should have its A&E department downgraded and lose some other services as well. This caused outrage locally because Lewisham was not part of the South London Healthcare Trust, but was a well run and popular hospital, pitchforked into helping to solve a problem that was not of its own making. This ended up in the courts, which found against the special administrator and the Secretary of State. The judge concluded that the Lewisham GP commissioners had not given support to the proposal, which consequently constituted an additional reason why the decision of the Secretary of State could not stand.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, always reminds the House that the legislative power that was used in the case of Lewisham was enacted under a previous Government. Indeed it was, but I stress that the original power was designed for something entirely different. It put in place measures to dissolve and rescue a trust through administrative reconfiguration. We never saw it as a vehicle for back-door reconfiguration across the health economy. The concern about Clause 118 is that it could allow hospitals to be downgraded or closed simply because they happen to be near a failing one.
I have listened carefully to what the noble Earl has said about the uses of this power. In both Lewisham and Staffordshire, where the power has been used in relation to the previous legislation that the noble Earl has amended, it has run into considerable trouble. In Staffordshire, where the process has also been used, an announcement was made in the last week or so that it has been put on hold. Essentially, the proposals of the special administrator have been roundly rejected by the local community, which shows the issues and problems when this mechanism is used to reconfigure services rather than simply deal with an immediate financial problem of a trust in great difficulty.
In the debate in the House of Commons, there was obviously much concern about this. The Government agreed that a committee should be established, under the chairmanship of Mr Paul Burstow MP, to produce guidelines on the trust special administration process. My amendment is simply designed to give those guidelines some statutory force. The decision of the Government to agree to this was very important and I am sure that, when the guidelines are produced, they will be sensible and set the context in which this mechanism can be used in the future.
However, my argument to your Lordships this afternoon is that it would give even more assurance if those guidelines had to come before your Lordships’ House and the other place for scrutiny and presumably for a decision to allow them to go through if they were found to be acceptable. I follow the precedent set by the Mental Health Act 1983, which gives Parliament a veto over the code of practice that provides guidance to those who undertake duties under that Act. The noble Earl has clearly moved a great deal on this issue over the past few days but it would be nice if he moved a little further.
As he responded to my amendment and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, perhaps I may save time for the House by asking him a question about the amendment that he has tabled in response to the noble Baroness. In his letter to us of yesterday’s date, he said:
“Our amendment would ensure that agreement is obtained from each commissioner on the basis that the administrator’s recommendations meet the objectives of the trust special administration and that they do so without harming essential NHS services they commission from any other affected trusts”.
He went on to say:
“Essential services at other affected trusts would be defined according to the same legal criterion that applies to commissioners of the trust in administration, thereby ensuring parity between all relevant commissioners”.
The wording that I want to ask the noble Earl about is:
“Our amendment would ensure that agreement is obtained from each commissioner”.
Does that mean that any one commissioner therefore has a veto over an eventual decision? That is how I read his letter. If so, does he agree that if that were used in the case of Lewisham, because the Lewisham CCG objected to the proposals, the proposals would not have gone ahead? If he does agree with my interpretation of his letter, how does he square that with what Dr Dan Poulter said in the Commons on 11 March, reported at col. 267? He said that while all local commissioners have an equal say, NHS England will arbitrate in the event of a disagreement. If, in the end, NHS England will arbitrate, that does not fill me with great confidence. NHS England will simply agree in the main with the original recommendations, because I am afraid that that is the track record of NHS England. In order to get absolute clarity here, I wonder whether the noble Earl could clear up any confusion around that.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendments 43A and 43B. I start by thanking the Minister and the Secretary of State for the amount of time they have afforded to me in discussing the concerns that lie behind my amendments. It is indeed correct that I was concerned that one clinical commissioning group commissioning from a failing trust could have a disproportionate say over the future. The government amendment, as tabled, addresses those concerns and I am most grateful to the Government for it. It establishes parity of commissioners by ensuring that there is no harm to essential services. I am also relieved that the Government are stating that the same legal criterion will be applied. Therefore, standard-setting across the services will establish that parity.
One of my concerns relates to the guidance. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the committee of which Paul Burstow is the proposed chair will continue to exist. I think that there has been a lack of confidence among the public as a result of the publicity surrounding what happened at Lewisham. It will be very important that the guidance is seen to be drawn up and reported on separately. I must admit that I am uncertain about the mechanism for that. However, I certainly would be concerned if the detail of how the process is laid out is not openly and independently reviewed. The current guidance has to be rewritten anyway and that process could restore public confidence.
Lord Turnbull (CB)
My Lords, I welcome Amendment 40A and I am grateful to the Minister for listening to representations and responding to them. I always thought it was wrong that a special administrator investigating trust A could try to find a solution by plundering the resources of trust B, which was not in trouble, without giving it or its commissioning group the opportunity to make full representations. I also thought it was wrong that the Secretary of State could slip through what was in effect a restructuring of services in an area under the cloak of sorting out the problems in a particular trust.
However, there is a caveat and an unresolved issue that was hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The provision to put the troubled trust and its neighbours on an equal footing in terms of making representations should not be interpreted as giving other trusts a veto on all restructuring proposals. The present set-up of the NHS already provides more than enough pockets of resistance to change that may be necessary to achieve greater efficiency and higher clinical standards.
Such proposals for reconfiguration should be looked at on their own merits, regardless of whether the hospital concerned is a foundation hospital or has been developed using PFI. There should be no presumption that an error by one trust in the amount of debt it takes on should be visited on those who are unlucky enough to be adjacent to it. There could then be a stalemate at the conclusion of this process whereby the commissioners of the adjacent trust do not agree to surrender resources and services. The question then is how these issues are to be resolved, not simply in the context of the failing trust but in the context of the local health geography.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for tabling an amendment to this Motion. I was present at the meeting yesterday, along with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, when we had a fruitful discussion on these issues. When I was the Member of Parliament for Orpington these matters were the bane of my life. The South London Hospitals Trust was a huge problem, as many noble Lords will be aware, with debts of around £150 million at one stage. Although at another period of my life I was a Minister for Health, I was specifically excluded from dealing with the problems of London hospitals because I was a London MP. It is ironic to get to a position of power where you might actually be able to do something for your constituency but then to be disempowered from dealing with it at all. None the less, that is the proper way to proceed.
It is worth bearing in mind that we have now got to a sensible position whereby there is parity in consultation, understanding and agreement between a commissioning group affected by the hospital trust’s special administrator and one which may be outside the trust and, therefore, nominally unaffected by it. Parity of esteem is the effect of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I am grateful to the Minister for responding so positively on these matters: we have now reached a very sensible position. However, we should not believe that that is enough. It is a necessary condition for resolving some of these problems but it is not sufficient. Ironically, in the case of Lewisham and the South London Hospitals Trust, there was a very good consultation, called A Picture of Health, which lasted for two years and encompassed all the hospital trusts in south-east London. It was very extensive—and expensive, if I may say so—but it came to the wrong conclusion. The conclusion was that Lewisham should continue as a hospital trust on its own and that the other three principal hospitals—Queen Elizabeth, Woolwich, Princess Royal University Hospital, Bromley and St Mary’s, Sidcup—should all be put into one huge trust. That never worked and that particular trust has had to have special measures to deal with its financial problems.
That excellent consultation ultimately reached the wrong conclusions. Ironically, the rather more short-circuited consultations conducted by the special administrator led to rather better conclusions. We now have a solution on the Bromley side of things, as it is now a part of King’s College Hospital NHS Trust. It has effectively been taken over by it, which is a very sensible arrangement. St Mary’s, Sidcup is now doing other things—quite rightly because it is an old hospital and did not really have the facilities to run an accident and emergency department in the way that a modern hospital needs to do. Woolwich has been put in with Lewisham. We therefore have the makings of a better solution despite inadequate consultation. It shows that we do not merely need good consultation with everyone understanding what is happening; we need somebody to reach the right conclusions at the end of the day. I am referring here to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull. He is absolutely right that there needs to be a way that the public interest—as well as the understandable more local interests—can be reflected, otherwise we will never make real progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made the important point that there are really big problems. We all have scars resulting from the closure of hospitals that sometimes have to be closed. He will be aware of the report last year by the NHS Confederation, the royal colleges and the organisation representing the patients’ voice, which said that up to 20 general district hospitals in this country need to be closed if we are to have a sustainable hospital service and a sustainable NHS. If we do not close those hospitals over a period, after consultation and so on, we will be taking money away from other parts of the NHS, such as mental health and GP services, which are badly needed. We cannot afford to keep hospitals going when they are in need of change.
The way in which change needs to happen is becoming apparent—there is a general consensus. First, there should be more specialist hospitals. I note that the King’s Fund says that A&E departments, maternity care, neonatal services, heart services and stroke care are all areas where specialist hospitals can give better care than general district hospitals do at the moment. That is already happening in London, certainly in the case of stroke care. The number of hospitals has been reduced and stroke care has immeasurably improved, I think to the tune of 50% over the previous two or three years. Equally, of course, the other aspect of this improvement is bringing care back to the community and taking it away from hospitals. People do not want to go to hospital; they think they will get an infection or a disease, apart from anything else. People die as a consequence of being in hospital. We therefore need to bring care back to the community. However, all of that takes time.
I therefore agree with the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, that we cannot allow ourselves to get into a situation where everybody defends every brick of every local hospital. We all know what happens. As soon as there is a threat to a local hospital the local MPs and the local newspapers get on their high horse, the campaigners come out and there are parades down the street, and no one can move an inch. I hope that noble Lords can see this legislation in the round. It provides for the proper, equal consultation of all interested parties, but we should not put road blocks in the way of necessary change in the NHS. If we do, we will have done the NHS a very bad service.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I add the thanks of the Liberal Democrats to those that have already been offered for the help from the Minister and his officials since this matter was last discussed in your Lordships’ House. There have been a number of meetings and an enormous amount of correspondence during that time. A key part of that has been the definition of “consultation”, and how to ensure that services in another trust area rather than only an adjacent area are considered. I am particularly grateful because the amendment tabled by my honourable friend Paul Burstow in the House of Commons is broadly the same as today’s government amendment. I thank him too for his tireless work in expanding this. I very much appreciate the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his amendment, which try to strengthen that.
However, I am not convinced that there is a need for further strengthening. The committee is there, and I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that, following the request made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. The committee is there to help set things up and ensure that the progress made as the special administrators start their work takes place in an appropriate fashion, and that every aspect of the consultation—which clearly has worried your Lordships—is addressed.
I want particularly to come back to the point about not considering only adjacent services. Much of the discussion this afternoon has been very focused on London, for fairly obvious reasons. However, there are issues around reconfigurations in rural areas, which do not mimic the pattern of a large number of hospitals in a fairly narrow space. Services may be much more scattered. That is why the word “adjacent”, to which others have referred, is not particularly appropriate. Quite often people will find themselves going not only to one area but beyond that area for a very particular service. It is important that the amendment laid down by the Government today makes it absolutely clear about the extension of consultation with those affected trusts.
Baroness Murphy
My Lords, the disease with the greatest economic impact on the NHS is the disease of inertia. As the Secretary of State, Jeremy Hunt, pointed out in the other place during the debates on this issue, we are now four years on from the very public exposure of the problems of Mid Staffs and we have not yet made a decision. The trust administration procedures are indeed invoked only as a very last resort, but they are a very necessary one. I am very worried because, although the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, thinks that this government amendment does not go far enough, I am afraid that I think that the government amendment as it is goes quite a long way. I was much happier with it before we all started meddling with it.
The real issue is that we must start to make decisions, and we are not making decisions. We are allowing services to carry on producing bad care. We are allowing them to get into debt, which means transferring money from good services. It is almost never possible to reconfigure a bad service out of one hospital, or indeed to shut one hospital or service, without a substantial reconfiguration of services in another hospital. Unfortunately, it will always impose on the wishes of commissioning groups in another adjacent location or a little further down the line in a rural area.
I will, with reluctance, accept the Government’s amendments, although they add a little more consultation to the process. Please, however, let us go no further than that, and please let us not support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which in my view would take us even further away from where we want to be.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I support the view that we ought not to have too many impediments to effective action. When this matter was first raised in this House, when the Bill was being considered, the amendment dealing with a special administrator came in very late and there was a certain degree of feeling that it should have been dismissed. But I am glad to say that the House decided to continue with it, and of course the matter has been carefully and fully considered in the other place.
The procedure for special administration may be needed quite urgently in some places in the not-too-distant future. I hope not, but there is a risk of that. Therefore, it is extremely important that we have an acceptable, effective service and provision in position to deal with the special administrator and his powers as soon as possible. I thank my noble friend and his colleagues for advancing to this extent.
Earl Howe
My Lords, this has been an extremely helpful debate. I first pick up a point emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy. Trust special administration is indeed a last resort, which was why I took care to spell out the other steps that we might expect to have taken place before administration is even considered. But the previous Government realised, rightly, that we have to have a mechanism in statute designed to deal with long-standing and apparently intractable situations in provider trusts—and not just to have a mechanism of that sort, but one that provides a reasonably swift resolution to the problem of significant failure.
The previous Government provided for a defined statutory timetable for the TSA process and they were absolutely right to do that. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, generously acknowledged, her own amendment, had it been accepted, would allow other affected commissioners to consult the public further about the administrator’s final recommendations. Consultation would be through the usual NHS process, taking about 12 weeks. It would fall completely outside the timetable of the trust special administrator and the net effect of such a change would be to reverse the effect of Clause 118. The administration regime would not be creating a complete and timely solution to the problem. It would render the strict legal timetable for the regime ineffective and delay what would be an uncertain resolution very significantly. I hope that noble Lords will not wish to follow that part of the noble Baroness’s amendment. I was glad to hear her say that she would not be moving it.
The noble Baroness asked me whether the committee to be chaired by Paul Burstow on the guidance will continue. Yes, it will. The Government’s commitment in relation to a committee chaired by my honourable friend to review the guidance still stands. The guidance is still important for setting out in detail how the statute should operate. The Government believe that there is significant value in advice from the committee about the guidance. She was right to say that that process should give the public and patients confidence that this is not a set of guidelines dreamt up by Ministers and civil servants on their own.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, suggests that the guidance should be laid before Parliament. I need hardly say that that idea falls considerably outside what is usual practice. It is not usual practice to lay statutory guidance before Parliament in the way that the amendment envisages. However, in recognition of the keen interest of parliamentarians in both Houses, we invited my honourable friend Mr Burstow MP to chair a committee of MPs and Peers to consider the guidance. I hope that that mechanism will be sufficient for the kind of buy-in from patients and the public that I have referred to, and will command confidence.
The noble Lords, Lord Turnbull and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, referred to the situation where commissioners or providers declined to accept the administrator’s recommendation. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, asked whether a clinical commissioning group has a veto. Each commissioner of services provided by the trust under administration and affected trusts has to give agreement for the draft and final TSA reports to go forward, but NHS England has a role—which is already in statute—in deciding whether to agree the TSA reports if not all the CCGs agree. I believe that that is right. We cannot expect or oblige every CCG to agree to the TSA proposals in every single case. There has to be a way of resolving any lack of unanimity and this is the mechanism that we believe is right.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will clarify that. If we take the case of south-east London referred to earlier, the trust special administrator would have produced its report, which the Lewisham CCG would not have agreed to, and so the TSA would not have had an agreed report. I suppose the risk is that NHS England or its regional office or a combination of local area teams would none the less have said that they would process the report, even without that agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Horam, said, the eventual outcome was actually much better than the original recommendation by the trust special administrator.
Earl Howe
My Lords, that last statement is a matter of opinion. We will have to see how the situation pans out. I do not want to make any judgments here and now, but I think there is a difference of view about that.
However, if one or more commissioners does not support the administrator’s recommendations, under existing legislation NHS England can still agree them, if, in its view, the recommendations achieve the objective of the trust special administration. Under our amendments, NHS England has that same role, but its decision would also be in respect of whether the recommendations harm essential NHS services at other affected trusts, and would look at both the definition of essential service and the existence of any harm. NHS England can therefore take into account the views of the commissioner which did not provide support on the basis that it felt the recommendations damaged the essential services that it commissions, and it would then decide whether the argument is convincing.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, took that situation to the extreme and asked what happens if complete stalemate ensues between CCGs. In what we believe would be the unlikely event that a CCG made a decision which amounted to a failure to discharge its duties to act consistently with wider NHS imperatives, there are powers of direction by NHS England to ensure that those duties are discharged properly—but I emphasise that that would be a drastic and unexpected situation.
This regime is about ensuring that the TSA works closely with and consults formally all affected commissioners and providers so that they can input into, agree, plan for and adapt to any recommended pattern of services. CCGs must act consistently with the duty of the Secretary of State and NHS England to promote a comprehensive health service. Given that duty, we would expect CCGs to work closely and constructively with a TSA to avoid what one might call parochial decision-making and to take into account broader considerations for the delivery of publicly funded services in the interests of patients and the taxpayer.
In the end, the NHS must do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. On occasion and in exceptional circumstances, where a TSA is appointed, commissioners and providers may need to see local service change as a means of improving NHS services in the local health economy. I hope that those remarks are helpful by way of explanation and background to these amendments.
“(5A) In section 65H of that Act (consultation requirements), in subsection (4)—
(a) after “trust special administrator must” insert “—
(a) ”, and
(b) at the end insert “, and
(b) in the case of each affected trust, hold at least one meeting to seek responses from staff of the trust and from such persons as the trust special administrator may recognise as representing staff of the trust.”
(5B) In subsection (7) of that section, after paragraph (b) (but before paragraph (ba) inserted by section 84(10)(a)) insert—
“(bza) any affected trust;
(bzb) any person to which an affected trust provides goods or services under this Act that would be affected by the action recommended in the draft report;
(bzc) any local authority in whose area the trust provides goods or services under this Act;
(bzd) any local authority in whose area an affected trust provides goods or services under this Act;
(bze) any Local Healthwatch organisation for the area of a local authority mentioned in paragraph (bzc) or (bzd);”.
(5C) In subsection (8) of that section, omit paragraph (e).
(5D) In subsection (9) of that section—
(a) after “trust special administrator must” insert “—
(a) ”,
(b) after “subsection (7)(b),” (but before the insertion made by section 84(10)(b)) insert “(bzb),”, and
(c) at the end insert—
“(b) hold at least one meeting to seek responses from representatives of each of the trusts from which the administrator must request a written response under subsection (7)(bza), and
(c) hold at least one meeting to seek responses from representatives of each of the local authorities and Local Healthwatch organisations from which the administrator must request a written response under subsection (7)(bzc), (bzd) and (bze).”
(5E) After subsection (11) of that section, insert—
“(11A) In this section, “affected trust” means—
(a) where the trust in question is an NHS trust, another NHS trust, or an NHS foundation trust, which provides goods or services under this Act that would be affected by the action recommended in the draft report;
(b) where the trust in question is an NHS foundation trust, another NHS foundation trust, or an NHS trust, which provides services under this Act that would be affected by the action recommended in the draft report.
(11B) In this section, a reference to a local authority includes a reference to the council of a district only where the district is comprised in an area for which there is no county council.”
(5F) In subsection (12)(a) of that section, after “subsection (7)(b)”, insert “, (bzb), (bzc) and (bzd).”
“(ba) in that paragraph, after sub-paragraph (7) insert—
“(8) Omit subsection (8).”.”
“(b) in paragraph 15(4), in the new subsection (2A) to be inserted into section 65F of the National Health Service Act 2006, in paragraph (a), for “would achieve the objective set out in section 65DA(1)(a)” substitute “—
(i) would achieve the objective set out in section 65DA(1)(a), and
(ii) would do so without harming essential services provided for the purposes of the NHS by any other NHS foundation trust that provides services under this Act to the commissioner,”,
(ba) in paragraph 15(4), after the new subsection (2C) to be inserted into that section, insert—
“(2D) Where the administrator recommends taking action in relation to another NHS foundation trust, the references in subsection (2A) to a commissioner also include a reference to a person to which the other NHS foundation trust provides services under this Act that would be affected by the action.
(2E) A service provided by an NHS foundation trust is an essential service for the purposes of subsection (2A) if the person making the statement in question is satisfied that the criterion in section 65DA(3) is met.
(2F) Section 65DA(4) applies to the person making the statement when that person is determining whether that criterion is met.”,
(bb) in paragraph 15, after sub-paragraph (7) insert—
“(8) Omit subsections (8) to (10).”.”
“(ca) in paragraph 17, in sub-paragraph (2)(a), for “paragraph (b)” substitute “paragraphs (b), (bzb), (bzc) and (bzd)”, (cb) in that paragraph, after sub-paragraph (4) insert—
“(4A) In subsection (11A)—
(a) omit paragraph (a), and
(b) in paragraph (b), omit “where the trust in question is an NHS foundation trust,” and “, or an NHS trust,”.”.”
“Integration of care and support with health services etc: integration fund
(1) At the end of section 223B of the National Health Service Act 2006 (funding of the National Health Service Commissioning Board) insert—
“(6) Where the mandate specifies objectives relating to service integration, the requirements that may be specified under section 13A(2)(b) include such requirements relating to the use by the Board of an amount of the sums paid to it under this section as the Secretary of State considers it necessary or expedient to impose.
(7) The amount referred to in subsection (6)—
(a) is to be determined in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and
(b) must be specified in the mandate.
(8) The reference in subsection (6) to service integration is a reference to the integration of the provision of health services with the provision of health-related services or social care services, as referred to in sections 13N and 14Z1.”
(2) After section 223G of that Act (meeting expenditure of clinical commissioning groups out of public funds) insert—
“223GA Expenditure on integration
(1) Where the mandate includes a requirement in reliance on section 223B(6) (requirements relating to use by the Board of an amount paid to the Board where mandate specifies service integration objectives), the Board may direct a clinical commissioning group that an amount (a “designated amount”) of the sums paid to the group under section 223G is to be used for purposes relating to service integration.
(2) The designated amount is to be determined—
(a) where the mandate includes a requirement (in reliance on section 223B(6)) that designated amounts are to be determined by the Board in a manner specified in the mandate, in that manner;
(b) in any other case, in such manner as the Board considers appropriate.
(3) The conditions under section 223G(7) subject to which the payment of a designated amount is made must include a condition that the group transfers the amount into one or more funds (“pooled funds”) established under arrangements under section 75(2)(a) (“pooling arrangements”).
(4) The conditions may also include—
(a) conditions relating to the preparation and agreement by the group and each local authority and other clinical commissioning group that is party to the pooling arrangements of a plan for how to use the designated amount (a “spending plan”);
(b) conditions relating to the approval of a spending plan by the Board;
(c) conditions relating to the inclusion of performance objectives in a spending plan;
(d) conditions relating to the meeting of any performance objectives included in a spending plan or specified by the Board.
(5) Where a condition subject to which the payment of a designated amount is made is not met, the Board may—
(a) withhold the payment (in so far as it has not been made);
(b) recover the payment (in so far as it has been made);
(c) direct the clinical commissioning group as to the use of the designated amount for purposes relating to service integration or for making payments under section 256.
(6) Where the Board withholds or recovers a payment under subsection (5)(a) or (b)—
(a) it may use the amount for purposes consistent with such objectives and requirements relating to service integration as are specified in the mandate, and
(b) in so far as the exercise of the power under paragraph (a) involves making a payment to a different clinical commissioning group or some other person, the making of the payment is subject to such conditions as the Board may determine.
(7) The requirements that may be specified in the mandate in reliance on section 223B(6) include requirements to consult the Secretary of State or other specified persons before exercising a power under subsection (5) or (6).
(8) The power under subsection (5)(b) to recover a payment may be exercised in a financial year after the one in respect of which the payment was made.
(9) The payments that may be made out of a pooled fund into which a designated amount is transferred include payments to a local authority which is not party to the pooling arrangements in question in connection with the exercise of its functions under Part 1 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (disabilities facilities grants).
(10) In exercising a power under this section, the Board must have regard to the extent to which there is a need for the provision of each of the following—
(a) health services (see subsection (12)),
(b) health-related services (within the meaning given in section 14Z1), and
(c) social care services (within the meaning given in that section).
(11) A reference in this section to service integration is a reference to the integration of the provision of health services with the provision of health-related services or social care services, as referred to in sections 13N and 14Z1.
(12) “Health services” means services provided as part of the health service in England.”.”
“The Health and Social Care Information Centre: restrictions on dissemination of information
(1) Chapter 2 of Part 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (the Health and Social Care Information Centre) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 253(1) (general duties), after paragraph (c) (but before the “and” after it) insert—
“(ca) the need to respect and promote the privacy of recipients of health services and of adult social care in England,”.
(3) In section 261 (other dissemination of information), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) But the Information Centre may do so only if it considers that disseminating the information would be for the purposes of—
(a) the provision of health care or adult social care, or
(b) the promotion of health.”
(4) After section 262 insert—
“262A Publication and other dissemination: supplementary
In exercising any function under this Act of publishing or otherwise disseminating information, the Information Centre must have regard to any advice given to it by the committee appointed by the Health Research Authority under paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 7 to the Care Act 2014 (committee to advise in connection with information dissemination etc).””
Earl Howe
My Lords, this group covers issues relating to health and care data. I will speak to Amendments 45, 49 and 50. The Government are fully committed to the principles of the care.data programme and to the core principles that underpin its use, namely: to promote transparency in the quality of health and care services while at the same time protecting privacy and confidentiality; to promote health and care research; and to better integrate health and care services.
The data collected across health and care in England are the envy of the world. The care.data programme offers the ability to link existing data securely and safely in order to produce information that can save lives, quickly find new treatments and cures, and support research to benefit all of us.
I say at the outset that, in my view, the care.data programme is very good news and offers a great deal to help improve our country’s health and care system. However, in order to realise its huge potential, patients and professionals must have absolute trust in the way that data will be protected and used together with an understanding of why collecting data on such a big scale is important.
Lord Turnberg
“(b) biomedical and health research.”
Lord Turnberg
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that full and helpful description of the background to this whole area of the use of confidential information. There is little doubt that public confidence in the uses to which their confidential information may be put has been badly shaken. For example, a number of recent revelations that access has been gained by one means or another by commercial organisations, insurance companies and so on has made the public—and many general practitioners—very wary and anxious.
That is why I want to put my own amendment, Amendment 45C, into the context of Amendment 45F, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, which emphasises a much stronger oversight by a statutory body: similar to, but stronger than, the Confidentiality Advisory Group chaired by Dame Fiona Caldicott, who commands such public respect and confidence. That is why I intend to support it if he moves it.
It is only against that background—of strong oversight and carefully controlled and limited access to such sensitive data—that we can even consider the very specific circumstances in which we can allow their use: not only legitimate use, but those uses which are vital for the benefit of the public and their health.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 45D, although I may speak to the other two amendments, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Owen and Lord Turnberg, as well, because they are relevant to the whole debate.
There is no question that the NHS has a rich reservoir of patient information. If we can exploit it to the full, its use could enhance care, aid early diagnosis and be a rich source of data for the development of new medicines and treatments. There is no argument at all here between the Opposition and the Government on this. The noble Earl reminded me that I took through legislation in 2002 that set the foundations for what we are now debating. He will recall that I was then arguing for us to use the potential of NHS information to the full. The noble Earl then, supported memorably by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, was a mite worried, I recall, about patient confidentiality. I think, however, that we reached a broad consensus that this is information to be brought together and used, but alongside safeguards that have public confidence. This is simply the issue that is before us at the moment.
Under the extension of the scheme, the Health and Social Care Information Centre can require GPs to upload patient data in an identifiable form from every GP practice in England. This will be linked to the Hospital Episode Statistics and other data sets. The information centre is a body corporate that can require a health and social care body to provide information—including confidential information. That is all well and good. The problem is that the centre and NHS England have botched its implementation, so much so that the scheme had to be withdrawn, originally for six months until the autumn, but my understanding is that the chief executive of the NHS, in evidence to the Health Select Committee, said that that date no longer applied. Perhaps the noble Earl could, when he winds up, comment on that.
My own view is that this is a dead duck. The Government will not be in a position to enable the scheme to go ahead any time before the election because so much public confidence has been lost. This is not surprising. Clearly, the information centre and NHS England took an inadequate approach in their public communications effort and there was a lack of effectiveness and accountability. It is clear that there are concerns about whether such information can be kept confidential in practice, and there is a worry that pseudonymised data could, in certain circumstances, be manipulated to identify a particular patient. There have also been concerns, referred to by my noble friend, about inappropriate use for commercial reasons, such as by insurance companies. I make a big distinction here: I would want the pharmaceutical industry to be able to use that information in research and development. That is absolutely legitimate.
There is also concern about general practitioners and their approach. Before the decision was made to suspend the scheme, there were worrying signs that a number of GP practices would not co-operate or would advise their patients to opt out of the system. It is important to recognise that we will automatically be part of the system as patients unless we opt out. Again, I agree with that principle. It is the only way to operate it. However, I am not convinced about having to go to my GP, if I can get an appointment, which is quite arguable at the moment, and having to talk to my GP—or, even worse, the receptionist—to say that I want to opt out of the scheme. There are real concerns about this system. Unless the GP body as a whole is confident that it is going to run with this, it will be destroyed because so many people will be encouraged to opt out that it will not achieve what it is meant to achieve.
I agree with the Royal Statistical Society which argues that we need a robust response to restore public confidence. Of course, I welcome the changes that the Government have made as a result of debates in the other place and in your Lordships’ House. The question, however, is: do they go far enough to restore public confidence? In my view, they do not. The Government have to make the bold statement that the system cannot be allowed to run under the people who are running it at the moment. They have lost people’s confidence. I cannot put this across strongly enough to the Minister: if you talk to organisations that know about the subject, you find that they are clear that they now do not have confidence in the people who are running the system.
That is why the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, is so important. He is basically saying that we need an external body that is independent and can give total oversight to the scheme. I support my noble friend’s amendment as well. I agree that it would be better in primary legislation than secondary, but there is no harm in having some secondary legislation to back up what we may agree in your Lordships’ House today.
In the Commons, the Government introduced amendments regarding the use of the term “promotion of health” for the purposes of the dissemination of information. Of course, “the promotion of health” could be a very open-ended definition. There was some fear in the other place that commercial companies—say, food and drink companies—could argue that they needed information for a public health campaign. My Amendment 45D seeks to provide reassurance by asking for regulations to be laid that are explicit about the circumstances in which information concerning the promotion of health can be used.
In supporting my own amendment, I say again to the Minister that there is no disagreement whatever about the importance of care.data, about the need for it to be successful or about the huge benefit to our country if it becomes successful. Success, though, is not guaranteed, and at the moment I believe it is unlikely unless the Government make changes. I hope that the House and the Minister will be sympathetic to these amendments.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I will not repeat everything that has been said but I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, particularly about the use of data for biomedical and other medical research. I have been involved on several occasions with perinatal epidemiological research, and such data are vital for that. There is no doubt that we need to be certain that core data will be available for research purposes.
I had not thought that “the promotion of health” might be construed as applying to the food industry; I had interpreted the phrase to mean epidemiological and public health research. However, if the interpretation includes the promotion of health by the food industry, then of course I support it absolutely.
I would be content to have this in secondary legislation at this stage, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned. However, there is no doubt that the way in which the issue has been handled by Public Health England has lost confidence. It could have been handled better, and I hope that Public Health England has learnt lessons from it.
Lord Patel
NHS England, not Public Health England. My apologies; sometimes I do not focus well, for reasons that are not obvious to your Lordships. I have some problems that occur. I mean NHS England. I wondered why the Minister was looking at me so curiously. I was about to check whether I was dressed correctly.
I understand that NHS England got this information to the public by doing a mail shot to every household. Some people received it but most people I have asked, among friends and family, do not seem to have done so. On top of that, the mail shot was not clear about what it was asking patients and the public to do. It was actually asking them to decide whether or not they wanted to opt out of their information being collected. That is the kind of process that has brought about a lack of confidence in how this has been progressed.
Lord Owen (Ind SD)
My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 45E. A recent comment article in the Lancet starts off with the words:
“Trust in the protection of confidential patient data in England seems to be at an all-time low given recent breaches in releases of patient data and the finding that hospital data have been sold to companies with insufficient oversight”.
There is no question or doubt that the research base in this country—particularly the base in pharmaceuticals and medical bioscience—is now at a very high level. Of course, it is because of this that there is a very strong debate over whether AstraZeneca should be taken over by the very large American pharmaceutical company Pfizer.
However, we also have to recognise in this debate that without confidence and the free exchange of information in this world of science data, research will be very badly damaged. Already we know that very serious members of the medical profession want to institute not the present opt-out system but an opt-in system. Most of us know that that will make great inroads into the effectiveness of our data. There are also some GPs who, because of their concerns, now actively encourage patients to use their right to opt out. This is therefore very urgent, and I welcome that the Government, in recognition of the crisis of confidence, have instituted a six-month pause. I understand that the pause has now been extended and that there is no artificial deadline.
In that context, there is another root cause for concern. We have been making data available to the pharmaceutical industry and other areas of commercial science for some time. Perhaps I should declare an interest. For 16 years—I am now off the board—I was on the board of Abbott Laboratories in Chicago, one of the very big American healthcare companies. However, well before that I was a neuroscientist at St Thomas’s Hospital and worked in the early 1960s with ICI, using its remarkable pharmaceutical research product, beta-blocker drugs—one of the great discoveries which led to James Black winning a Nobel Prize. I therefore have no need to assure noble Lords of my belief that a thriving commercial sector in pharmaceutical and other research is an important addition to the research that goes on in universities and hospitals up and down the country.
However, it is a fact that when you embark on a new extension of data being available to commercial operations outside the public sector, people demand and expect much higher safeguards. Before moving my own amendment and shoring it up, I looked very carefully at whether it was possible to get agreement on a mechanism to keep data in the public sector unless commercial organisations have expressed consent. That was seen by many people as blocking commercial activity, and it was not possible to reach agreement on it. That makes it even more important that we should have a statutory form of oversight.
The amendment I placed on the Order Paper proposes a new clause that would place on a statutory footing the current non-statutory Independent Information Governance Oversight Panel, which was set up by the Secretary of State. The present chairman, Fiona Caldicott, has the support of many people in this area, both in this House and outside. However, its present non-statutory terms of reference need to be given the authority of a statutory imposition. The new clause would also require persons and bodies across the health and social care system to have regard to its advice. It defines the relevant information; I strongly agree with the two previous amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Turnberg and Lord Hunt. It is absolutely necessary to make it crystal clear what “promotion” means. It has different meanings in many different contexts—some perfectly acceptable and some borderline objectionable. There are other detailed aspects of the amendment, but it is pretty clear in its intent.
The medical profession is not the only body that ought to be considered in this. The Royal Statistical Society has made it clear that oversight and public trust in enforcement could improve the situation. It says that a new statutory body is likely to be needed to fulfil this role. Statisticians are as worried about the loss of confidence that is developing over medical data as anyone in the medical profession—they are the actual people who handle this.
I am pleased, indeed proud, that the amendment is supported by the Wellcome Trust. There is no better trust in the world than the Wellcome Trust. It is also supported by the charities that are associated with medical research, which also know the importance of the Wellcome Trust’s money and expertise. I have talked to the Minister about this and I will leave my comments for when I formally press the amendment, as I do not want to traduce what he is going to say to the House. He explained his position with his usual courtesy, but I remain of the view that, if we are to hold, restore and, in the future, enlarge public confidence—because I believe a greater exchange of information has huge potential—we have to listen to these concerns.
Whether we like it or not, people expect answerability, not just from NHS England, which is a quango, but also from the Secretary of State. Parliament has a role in this, and the issue is every bit as sensitive as some of the others that we brought under statutory oversight, such as embryology, the whole question of DNA and research into all these areas. We thought that they were so sensitive that Parliament should have a say, at least, and should know whether Ministers are taking actions that have qualifications, or even objections, from a statutory body so that we can make a determination. It is in that spirit that I will later seek to press the amendment.
Lord Ribeiro (Con)
My Lords, when many members of the public, and patients in particular, feel that their data may be mis-sold to insurance companies or other bodies that may use them either to increase premiums or for their own personal benefit, then we have a problem. Earlier this afternoon we had assurances from the Minister that that would not be the case. This must be information that is used for non-commercial purposes, which has been made very clear. It is important, too, to remember that patients can opt out. I have heard these expressions about the difficulties that they may have with GPs who might prevent their doing so, but they have a choice. They may well opt out. I believe that if we go ahead with care.data and provide the information as needed, many patients, in time, will see the benefits of this and will choose to opt back in.
We have also talked about the need, again, to have anonymised data and to prevent it going anywhere other than the non-commercial areas. Patients also have a right to decide what to do with their data; it is enshrined in the NHS constitution that they have rights on the disclosure of their personal data. I personally feel that all patients should have their own information—they should have their own notes. They should have a memory stick with their records and have ownership of their records. They can then determine, in the circumstances, where that information goes.
Many people are horrified by the idea of patients having their own records. I had experience of this in 1973, when I was a surgeon working in Ghana. Patients would come with their own notes, moth-eaten and dog-eared. The reason was very simple: if their notes were in the hospital, a certain bribe had to be paid before those notes could be released. Patients have always been suspicious about what happens to their notes. Give them to them—that is what I would say.
The proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Owen, for yet another layer of scrutiny above what is being proposed, is something that we should consider very carefully. He referred to the fact that it would be for the Secretary of State and NHS England to make those decisions. However, noble Lords will recall that when we debated this matter not that long ago, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and others put forward a proposal for the Health Research Authority. If this Bill goes through, the Health Research Authority will have the authority to decide how information is disclosed. Therefore, I speak very strongly in support of the care.data programme. It is important for patients to be reassured and that point has been well made from all sides of the House. They clearly have to have that reassurance. However, I see no need for an extra layer or an oversight panel. That would provide just one more barrier for researchers to climb.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, the question that we are debating at the moment as we approach the enactment of the Bill is whether any extra words in any of these amendments are needed to provide more safeguards and greater public trust and confidence. The bit of law which is paramount but which has not been mentioned so far is the Human Rights Act. This Act, in Section 3, requires that all legislation, including this Bill, must be read and given effect to, if it is possible to do so, compatibly with the convention rights. One convention right, in Article 8, is the right to personal privacy. The Human Rights Act also provides that if any public authority, which includes the Secretary of State and any body performing functions of a public nature, were to breach the right to privacy, it would be liable to obligations, damages and other remedies under the Act. We do not have a written constitution which guarantees privacy; instead, we have the data protection legislation, which is broad-ranging, and the Human Rights Act.
The right to privacy requires three things. One is reasonable legal certainty where there is to be any invasion of privacy—one must know what it is for. The second is a legitimate aim—it must be done for a proper purpose. The third thing is that any invasion must satisfy the principle of proportionality—it must not be excessive. There is a lot of case law on this. Indeed, I was involved in one of the cases years ago in the Court of Appeal—called, I think, Source Informatics —which dealt with the lawfulness of supplying anonymised patient data.
I do not think it is sensible to add further language or further mechanisms over and above those that the Minister has described this afternoon. The more specific we become and the more we go on adding, the more ambiguities we create over what the additional words mean and how they might be interpreted. My view is that it is much better to use the Human Rights Act, the data protection legislation and the specific safeguards that the Minister has adumbrated very clearly today. In my view, they completely satisfy the right to patients’ personal privacy and I cannot think that adding these other words will add to public confidence. It seems to me that public confidence depends more on leadership and public information based upon the framework that we have.
Therefore, I hope that we do not divide the House on this. I hope that we are all able to agree that confidentiality and privacy are vital, as is public confidence, but that we should not overlegislate and overprescribe. In particular, we should not do so when we are considering Commons amendments at the 11th and a half hour before midnight, and we may later come to regret anything that we now add which creates further problems and further ambiguities.
Baroness Brinton
I agree with the last comments of the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Ribeiro. One of the problems that your Lordships’ House has faced with this is the issue of data used for research versus data used for commercial purposes. That becomes a very grey area when some commercial firms are doing pure research. It may be worth your Lordships’ House remembering that even commercial research, whether it is carried out by research departments or within universities and other research bodies, is bound by the strongest ethical codes in which we should all have trust and assurance because they are respected around the world. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm again—I know he has already done so—that commercial data will not be released so that, for example, an insurance company could raise premiums for a particular group of patients. That is the fear that the public have, rather than the issue of using research data, for which we already have many structures and for which the Health Research Authority is properly the correct authority to make sure that the codes are followed absolutely. There is a difficulty in that pseudonymised and anonymised data can sometimes be undone, but that issue already exists in other research areas and there are plenty of mechanisms to hold researchers to account should they use any of that information themselves. I support the point of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that we should be content with the Government and that if we start to overprescribe, we will end up unravelling some of the complex but effective arrangements that already exist in the research world.
Secondly and very briefly, I have previously raised with the Minister one very specific point on this issue, and I have asked him this question in writing in advance. Has there been any progress on the timetable for inclusion of primary care musculoskeletal data into the care.data programme? I understand that it was an unintentional omission earlier in the process but, given the number of people in this country suffering from musculoskeletal problems, it would be quite extraordinary if they were not included at an early stage.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I would just like to say a few words about this because I am very involved in the whole world of IT, personal data and identification and the issues around examining the data. One of the things that has become apparent to me is that if care.data is to be effective, public trust must be maintained in it—that is the core problem. It needs to be there so that we can do epidemiological studies, and to do those some information will have to be in the database—such as postcodes, so that you can look for clusters and so on—which will potentially allow people to be identified. Once you compare it and link it across to other databases, if you are looking for someone who is of a certain age, a certain health profile and in a certain area down to 100 yards, it is fairly easy to start working out who they are by cross-linking. However, it may be important to take that risk from time to time, as long as it is done properly. What we do not want if this is to work is for people to feel a need to opt out. You cannot do epidemiological studies if half the population decide they are going to opt out. It is essential that the public trust the database, trust that they will be protected as far as possible and trust that the information will not be misused against them. That is the core to getting this whole thing to work, and if you fail on that you have had it.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, made a very good point about the human rights stuff being in there and that we have the Data Protection Act and all these things. The Minister also mentioned the Data Protection Act. However, there are some challenges with this. One of them is how you bring a case under the Human Rights Act when a department or the health service is acting incorrectly. It is quite tricky; it does not happen overnight and you would be lucky to stop it. There are wonderful protections in the Data Protection Act but there is a certain amount of vagueness about exactly where the limits are and, worse still, it will all be changed this autumn or winter when the new European Parliament assembles. The proposals nearly got through before the coming elections. Under the digital single market agenda, a new Data Protection Act regulation will almost certainly come out of Europe somewhere towards the end of the year. That will have direct action in this country. We have no control over it as it is a European law that is directly effective in this country, and the Information Commissioner over here will be the person who will enforce it. We will have no say in whether it relaxes things too far or becomes too prescriptive in what it does. We cannot rely on it for certainty in the future
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
The noble Earl may not be aware that nothing that comes from Brussels will be able to offend the European Convention on Human Rights or the charter of rights with regard to EU action.
The Earl of Erroll
I fully agree with the noble Lord. My challenge with it is how easy it will be to raise a human rights case if we find that the regulation does not comply with something on which we have legislated here and there is a conflict. I accept that it is theoretically possible. I would argue that maybe the way proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, is another way of trying to make sure that we do not have to go to that step.
Briefly, there are some commercial issues with this. One of the changes is that the National Health Service may end up giving away data that are all good for research purposes but which would be very useful for pharmaceutical development and stuff like that. Companies will make a lot of money from information that they get from the data, but I would like to see the NHS benefit. I do not have a problem with it selling the correct data if it is properly controlled for the right research purposes. There will also be some businesses and companies that will make a business out of analysing such data and selling the analysis back to the NHS. It would be useful because the NHS does not have the time or the skill to do that work, but the NHS should benefit from the work and effectively charge for the data that it sells.
There are two reasons why I like the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Owen. On the Minister’s interpretation of statistics, if we take the more general wording, “the promotion of health”, and it is possible for the food industry to use it to bolster some of their stuff, we have to look at some of the underlying assumptions of the statistics, which can be dangerous things. We need to see how that is done. Even if we go for the newer wording in Amendment 40C, there could be problems in this area. I do not think that anybody is capable of regulating themselves. We always have our own internal biases towards our own objectives and can be regulated only by someone who is looking at it from another point of view, from outside.
We have had the Caldicott guardians for a while. The system works as they are looking after the public interest. They give the public confidence that things are not being misused in their names. Therefore, why are we throwing away a few years of experience of something that works? It is not tampering with the wording of the Bill or playing around with a mish-mash of words; it is merely re-establishing something that already exists. It is a sensible balance. If you cannot check yourself, checks outside the organisation have to exist. Therefore, I suggest that we support the amendment.
Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, I hope that the Minister will comment on a fact mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll: namely, that on its imminent coming into force the European data protection regulation will indeed supersede our Data Protection Act, which implements the current European directive. I am sure that the debate in Brussels has been conducted with the highest aims for the protection of privacy but I also believe that it is based on considerable illusions. It aims to introduce reliance on specific and explicit consent for each and every reuse of lawfully held data. This is an illusory standard. In the commercial world it works as we can tick and click as giving consent to terms and conditions, but it does not provide an adequate model for the world of medical research. I fear that when this draft regulation comes through, which it is very likely to do, we will not have secured better standards for the protection of patient privacy in research, and nor will we have secured the future of medical research.
This seems to me to be a very poor moment at which to have to make decisions on protecting the privacy of patient data, because the ground rules are about to change. They will of course be compatible with an interpretation of the European Convention, but they will change a great deal. I declare an interest as chair of the ethics, regulation and public involvement committee of the Medical Research Council, and as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Earl Howe
My Lords, this has been a very fruitful and excellent debate. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. Before I address the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Turnberg and Lord Owen, I hope it will be thought to be in order for me to cover some of the questions that have been raised by noble Lords.
I start with the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who asked me a series of questions. First, he asked about the “one strike and you’re out” intention to which I referred. We believe that this will be a criterion that the Confidentiality Advisory Group, the CAG, will take into account in its advice to the HSCIC on the dissemination of data that might be used to identify an individual, so there is already scope for flexibility and common sense within this provision. We anticipate that the transparency of the information centre’s decisions to release data, which is provided for in the 2012 Act, would provide further safeguards and reassurances that a “one strike and you’re out” rule was being used appropriately—so there is flexibility. This is one matter on which NHS England in particular will want assurance as the engagement exercise proceeds, as will Ministers.
The noble Lord asked about accredited safe havens. I can commit that the Government will consult on proposals to introduce regulations before bringing forward any new regulations that would enable greater access to data for commissioning purposes, for example through accredited safe havens. As affirmative regulations, any such changes would be subject to debate in both Houses. Will personal identifiers be excluded from the collection? The information centre will of course need identifiers in order to be able to link health and care data from different settings. That is vital if it is to become the source of linked data that all sides seem to desire. Of course, this would be with the protections set out in the 2012 Act, to ensure that the information centre could release information that could be used to identify individual patients and service users only where there is a legal basis for it to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, also asked about effective links to the patient records standards board, to define the content of patient records. Following the department’s recent review of informatics governance arrangements, it has proposed a committee that will focus specifically on information standards: the so-called SCCI. That committee has oversight of the operational framework and supporting infrastructure to enable the appraisal and approval of information standards and collection across health and care systems in England. The committee will be the mechanism by which the patient records standards board will be able to engage with the delivery community and the wider system, in order to define and gain approval for the content of patient records.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, suggested that there should be straightforward mechanisms for the personal opt-out. NHS England’s extension period and engagement processes do allow space and time for fuller listening, engagement and debate on that vital programme. As part of the process, I understand that a wide range of stakeholders—including the BMA, medConfidential, Macmillan and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg—are invited to regular advisory group meetings with the NHS England team. Those processes will be key to helping work through how best to provide reassurance and trust in the care.data programme, not least on how best to ensure that the opt-out process will work in practice and can be clearly communicated and understood by both GPs and patients.
The noble Lord asked whether I would assure the House that no changes to the law would be made to provide for access by commissioners to this kind of data without consultation. I can give that assurance. I can commit that we will consult on proposals to introduce regulations, as I have already mentioned.
The noble Lord asked whether I could say anything about secure data labs or fume boxes for handling data. Yes, I can say a little. I understand that the information centre is working to see how best it can implement this kind of technology. It is tremendously encouraging and could offer real potential benefit from the wealth of information held by the information centre without putting people’s confidentiality at risk. That is the potential benefit.
My noble friend Lady Brinton asked about the extraction of musculoskeletal data from GP records. I understand that NHS England and the information centre are working to ensure that musculoskeletal data will be included in the GP extraction.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested that patients should not have to go to their GP to opt out—a point that he has made to me on more than one occasion in the past. This is mostly a matter for NHS England, but GPs, as data controllers, have legal responsibilities under the Data Protection Act for ensuring that all patients are aware of how their information is being used and shared. That does not relate just to care.data but to any use of data for wider purposes. They also have professional and moral objectives to ensure that their patients are informed about the use of their data.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I do not want to delay the House and I am grateful to the noble Earl, but he will know that there is a widespread concern about the quality of GP practices in some parts of the country. The first report of the chief inspector of primary care within CQC contained some hair-raising concerns. The idea that one of those GPs will be responsible for protecting data in those circumstances fills me with gloom and despair. Clearly, something will go wrong. If this ever gets off the ground, which I doubt in current circumstances, something will go wrong and the whole thing will collapse again.
Earl Howe
At the same time, if anyone is going to come up with a better solution, now is the time. I have not heard one. In all seriousness, however, all GPs are well aware of the duty of patient confidentiality. I have never met a GP who has not been aware of that and conscientious about it.
The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, took us to the subject of the proposed European general data protection regulation, which is of considerable concern to the Government. We believe that clinical research is already highly regulated in the UK, so that the interests of privacy are effectively balanced against the value to the public that the research will deliver. The data protection proposals will, as I am sure he is aware, be subject to the co-decision of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the 28 member states. Officials from the Department of Health are working closely with the Ministry of Justice, which leads on the negotiations with the EU on the UK's behalf, ensuring that stakeholders are engaged on key issues such as consent, the use of pseudonymised data, and when the legitimate interests of data controllers can be applied in order to process personal data.
We have also flagged up our concerns with MEPs on specific issues, including the narrowing of the exemption from consent generally and in relation to a rigid reliance on consent or pseudonymous data in order to process data. We strongly agree that we need to take a very firm position on research within the Council and are resisting all changes that would make the use of health data for research more problematic.
I turn now to the amendments themselves. In doing so, I not only thank the noble Lords who spoke to them, but particularly thank my noble friends Lord Lester, Lord Ribeiro and Lady Brinton for their supportive comments about the Government’s amendments and the Government’s position generally.
Amendments 45E and 45F would place Dame Fiona Caldicott’s independent advisory panel on information governance on a statutory footing to provide advice on information governance across the health and care system. It would require the Secretary of State and NHS England to have regard to its advice when making directions to the Health and Social Care Information Centre under Section 254(1) of the 2012 Act. The Secretary of State would also be required to have regard to its advice when making regulations to establish an accreditation scheme for private sector information providers. The amendment would also revoke directions made to the information centre by NHS England in 2013 to implement the care.data programme and to establish data services for commissioners.
Let me say immediately that we are sympathetic to the desire to see the oversight panel placed on a statutory footing. In an area as complex and important as information governance, it is essential that we have a source of clear, authoritative advice, available to all parts of the health and care system, which creates the right conditions for informed judgments to be made on the use of information, and on decisions to share or not to share. When the Secretary of State asked Dame Fiona Caldicott to chair the Independent Information Governance Oversight Panel, it was in recognition of her extensive knowledge and experience in this area. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, that Dame Fiona is uniquely well placed to lead the panel in providing strong, visible leadership to the health and care sector. It is our clear intention that the panel be best supported to do this. My department continues to work closely with Dame Fiona to ensure that the panel is equipped to deliver the role it has been charged with performing.
There may well be merit in establishing the panel in law and giving legal force to its advice on data sharing. I strongly feel, however, that on this important matter, so crucial to people’s privacy and confidentiality, to the safe and efficient operation of the health and care system, and to the research agenda, it is vital that we ensure the system of oversight, scrutiny and advice is robust and coherent. I undertake that we will explore with Dame Fiona Caldicott and all interested parties how best to achieve this, which may include using existing legal powers to establish an independent committee able to advise on data-sharing matters. Dame Fiona Caldicott has confirmed that she would explore options on existing legal powers to establish an independent committee and has noted the importance of considering further and clarifying the functions of the panel before doing so. I hope that those statements, as far as they go—and they are intended to be helpful—will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and other noble Lords.
I turn now to the directions made to the HSCIC by NHS England in 2013, covering the establishment of data services for commissioners and the implementation of the care.data programme, which would be revoked by this amendment. These directions, inter alia, describe the intended operation of the patient opt-out processes in the event that a patient objects to his or her information being shared. A key focus of NHS England’s engagement activity is to ensure that the opt-out process is implemented in a way that reflects the outcome of the listening exercise, and this will need to be reflected in the new directions to the HSCIC. As there will be new directions, it is not necessary and would be inappropriate to use primary legislation to revoke the current directions.
With those assurances and with a commitment to ensure that the oversight panel is supported to deliver its objectives—including a commitment to explore using existing legal powers to establish an independent committee to advise on data sharing—I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
It may be helpful to address Amendments 45C and 45D together as they cover very similar ground and, I believe, have similar intent. Amendment 45C would narrow the purposes for which the information centre may disseminate anonymised and certain other information under its general dissemination power. Government Amendment 45 provides that the information centre may disseminate information under its general dissemination power only for the purposes of the provision of health care or adult social care, or for the promotion of health. This amendment would replace the latter of these purposes with “biomedical and health research”, with the effect of curtailing dissemination for any other health promotion purpose. Amendment 45D seeks to define the health promotion purposes for which the HSCIC may share anonymised and certain other information under its general dissemination power in regulations.
I understand the concerns raised by some noble Lords that government Amendment 45 would allow commercial companies—including fast food and tobacco companies, for example—to access information under this provision for commercial gain. I hope I can offer reassurance that the scope of this provision will enable us to tap the potential of the wealth of data available for research, while explicitly preventing the use of such data for purposes that will not promote health.
Lord Turnberg
My Lords, I was rather encouraged by the noble Earl’s initial remarks about strengthening Dame Fiona Caldicott’s committee and making clearer what role it might be able to play.
The problem I wanted to address in Amendment 45C is the uncertainty in the ways in which the words “promotion of health” may be interpreted. I know that the noble Earl has said that they cover research, for example. What about research that does not immediately seem to promote health? It is this rather vague term that I wanted to clarify. It is not about trying to unravel the legislation, as someone has suggested. It is about making it absolutely clear. I am afraid I was not very convinced by the noble Earl, and I beg leave to ask for the opinion of the House.
“The Oversight Panel
(1) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the Independent Information Governance Oversight Panel for Health and Social Care (referred to in this section as “the Oversight Panel”).
(2) The main duty of the Oversight Panel shall be to provide independent advice on all matters relating to the processing of relevant information in relation to health and adult social care.
(3) In exercising its main duty, the Oversight Panel shall—
(a) provide advice and make recommendations and proposals on such processing to the Secretary of State, and report annually; and
(b) provide advice on such processing to any other person in relation to health and adult social care.
(4) Any person or body who is advised by the Oversight Panel pursuant to this section shall have regard to that advice.
(5) The Secretary of State and the Board (“NHS England”) when making directions under section 254(1), and regulations under section 267, must seek and have regard to the advice of the Oversight Panel.
(6) The Secretary of State or, as the case may be, NHS England must lay before Parliament a response to the advice given by the Oversight Panel under subsection (5).
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the Oversight Panel relating, in particular, to appointment of the chair and other members, terms of appointment, establishment and membership of committees or sub-committees, its proceedings and payment of remuneration, allowances and expenses.
(8) The Health and Social Care Information Centre (Establishment of Information Systems for NHS Services: Collection and Analysis of Primary Care Data) Directions 2013 and The Health and Social Care Information Centre (Establishment of Information Systems for NHS Services: Data Services for Commissioners) Directions 2013 are revoked.”
Lord Owen
My Lords, for those who have not been in the debate I will try to deal with the specific responses from the different speakers. First, perhaps I may deal with the response from the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I agree very much with what he said. I believe that the European Court of Human Rights and the human rights legislation, coupled with the privacy Act, do enough to safeguard confidentiality and privacy. With respect, however, that is not what this amendment is essentially about. This amendment is essentially about how you release those documents, what the procedures and mechanisms are, and what the criteria are for release. That is what is so very sensitive at the moment. That is why we need the reassurance of outside scrutiny not only over NHS England, which is effectively a quango, but also over a matter as sensitive as the regulations that might come from the Secretary of State.
In his speech, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, reminded us of the complexity of this issue. In fact, the issue is geared into a lot of the technology and science of how one collects this information. As for the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, she warned us seriously about what is likely to come out of Europe, which could have profound aspects. I believe that legislation is coming. However, the key issue is what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said in his speech. With his characteristic courtesy, he had already given me an indication of how he was likely to reply. Those who were present earlier will remember that I did not try to summarise his views; I thought it was more important that the House should listen to them. I listened as carefully as I could, and I do not want to be churlish about this—what he said was important and will give some comfort to people outside. He said that he was sympathetic to the desire to put an oversight panel on a statutory basis and I very much welcome that. He also referred to how Dame Fiona Caldicott was uniquely well placed to be the chairman of this body and, by implication, a new statutory body. I think that all the contributions from both sides have agreed on that issue.
The noble Earl said that there may well be merit in establishing the existing panel and went on to say that in his conversations with Dame Fiona, she said that she would look first at the question of statutory underpinning and then at it in terms of the relationship. The problem, as I explained to the noble Earl this morning, is that I should like to have a letter from the Secretary of State committing himself to that. Those of us who have been in government know that the time of the legislative committee is very much fought over: everybody wants to legislate but time is short. An unequivocal commitment to legislate would be necessary for me to withdraw this amendment, but, with respect, we did not get one. We got a lot of sympathy, and I hope and believe that legislation will come. I even hoped that the noble Earl would say, “The Government will be neutral. We are not taking a position. Let it go to the Commons and let’s see what the Commons view is”. I think that that would be helpful and would give him more time to build a consensus around the pattern and form of legislation.
If the House does not mind, I would like to ask for its agreement to this amendment—in the spirit that I believe that it would do a lot to ease the current suspicion and distrust over the whole issue of medical data, patient data and hospital data. I say to those who did not hear the speeches that no one in this entire debate has questioned the absolute importance of these data: they could be crucial for this country’s future in the biological sciences and in pharmaceutical research. If the issue is handled properly and with confidence, I believe that we can ensure that the number of those opting out—which is a natural right—will be very small. As long as the number of those opting out remains small then the data will be statistically significant and extremely important. The danger is that the number of those opting out could become quite substantial. I hope and pray that that does not happen. In our vote tonight, we will at least be showing those who are concerned that we believe that there should be a statutory underpinning. I beg to move.
“(ia) regulations under section (Part 1 appeals) which include provision that amends or repeals a provision of an Act of Parliament.”
“(ia) the first regulations under section (Part 1 appeals) (Part 1 appeals);
(ib) subsequent regulations under that section which include provision that amends or repeals a provision of an Act of Parliament, or provides for a provision of an Act of Parliament to apply with modifications;”
Subsection (4) does not apply to a statutory instrument which contains regulations or an order within paragraph (e), (ib) or (l) of that subsection, if the regulations or order are within the paragraph in question only because they include provision that applies an Act of Parliament with modifications for the purpose of making saving, transitional or transitory provision.”
to the Health and Social Care Information Centre in connection with—
(i) the exercise by the Centre of functions conferred in regulations under section 251 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (processing of patient information for medical purposes);
(ii) any publication or other dissemination by the Centre of information which is in a form which identifies an individual to whom the information relates or enables the identity of such an individual to be ascertained.”
“8A Regulations may provide for the committee appointed under paragraph 8(1) to be required, in giving advice, to have regard to specified factors or matters.”
Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2014
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pannick
That this House regrets that the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2014 make the duty of the Lord Chancellor to provide legal aid in judicial review cases dependent on the court granting permission to proceed (SI 2014/ 607).
Relevant document: 37th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, over the past 40 years politicians of all Governments have complained when they lost judicial reviews. However, when they calmed down they recognised that the principles created by the courts in this area of the law are,
“fundamental features of a constitutional democracy”.
I quote from De Smith’s Judicial Review, edited by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, Professor Jowell, and others. Lord Chancellors of the stature of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Irvine of Lairg, saw it as part of their responsibility to remind their ministerial colleagues of the importance and the political neutrality of judicial review. They understood that Ministers may be irritated by these cases while in government, but they welcome such controls when they lose power and move into opposition. The Lord Chancellor in this Administration, Chris Grayling, is by contrast a politician with a short-term mission. He wrote in the Telegraph last month that he is determined to prevent,
“judicial reviews, instigated by pressure groups, designed to force the Government to change its mind over properly taken decisions by democratically elected politicians”.
The legal aid regulations we are debating tonight are one example of many where the changes which this Lord Chancellor is imposing are far more damaging than any disease which they purport to treat. Legal aid is paid to a claimant’s lawyers only if the claimant satisfies a means test and shows that the claim has legal merit. Judicial review, unlike almost all other forms of legal proceedings, can be commenced only with the permission of a judge. These new regulations, which came into force on 22 April, make the following change. The Lord Chancellor must not pay legal aid fees unless the court gives permission to bring judicial review proceedings or, if the court neither refuses nor grants permission, the Lord Chancellor thinks it reasonable to pay legal aid remuneration.
The problem is that often the court does not grant permission to bring a judicial review for reasons other than the weakness of the claim. The filing of a judicial review claim concentrates the mind of the public authority, which often responds to the bringing of the claim by reviewing the impugned decision and by giving the litigant what he or she seeks: namely, recognition that an error was made or fresh consideration of the matter. Therefore, by the time the judge looks at the application, it is unnecessary, and may be inappropriate, for the case to continue.
These regulations wrongly assume that cases in which permission to bring judicial review is not granted are unmeritorious. Often the opposite is true. It is precisely because a claim has substantial merit that the public authority speedily addresses the grievance. The problem is that, if lawyers know that they have no right to be paid in such cases, even at the low—scandalously low—rates currently thought acceptable by the Lord Chancellor, the inevitable result will be that clients with a strong claim will find it much more difficult to find competent representation. Nor is it any solace that the Lord Chancellor has discretion to make a payment; that applies only if the judicial review application is not dismissed and some of these applications will be dismissed because the case is now moot. In any event, nobody can proceed on the basis of a hope that the Lord Chancellor, in his discretion, may choose to make a payment. We have all seen recently that the discretionary “exceptional circumstances” category of funding for legal aid applies in theory but rarely, if ever, in practice.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
My Lords, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for initiating this debate. Our report, to which he has referred, and his speech say everything that I think could be said to explain the firm hostility to these proposals not only across the legal profession but across the committees of both Houses and the wider public. This will not inhibit people from saying the same thing again but I do not intend to be one of those; instead, I want to say something slightly different.
One thing that the Joint Committee on Human Rights referred to as a result of what is happening is the,
“conflict inherent in the combined roles of the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice”.
We expressed the view that,
“the time is approaching for there to be a thoroughgoing review of the effect of combining in one person the roles of Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice”,
and so on.
During the passage of the Constitutional Reform Bill in 2005, I was one of those who supported the abolition of the old Lord Chancellor system and the creation of a new one in which a politician who was not a lawyer could become Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. In my reforming enthusiasm, it seemed that that was a sensible thing to do. I deplored the conservatism of those who thought that this was ridiculous and that there was no reason why a non-lawyer—a lay person—could not be the Secretary of State for Justice.
I thought about my old boss Roy Jenkins, who was not a lawyer, and it seemed to me that he would have made an admirable Lord Chancellor because, although he was not a lawyer, he understood the rule of law. It was in his DNA—in his bloodstream. I could not imagine Lord Jenkins of Hillhead at any stage in his career becoming a populist Secretary of State for Justice who would forget about the importance of the independence of the judiciary, its role and the role of the independent legal profession, and the importance of judicial review. That was why, at that time, I supported the changes.
I am sorry to say that the previous Lord Chancellor, the right honourable Jack Straw, and the present Lord Chancellor have made me reconsider whether my enthusiasm was sensible. The previous Lord Chancellor, although a barrister, had managed in his period of office to behave in a way that I thought no Lord Chancellor would in flouting the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights and in going to Strasbourg to remonstrate with the president of that court about overreach and intrusion into the sovereignty of Parliament and so on. I do not believe that Lord Havers, Lord Hailsham, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Irvine of Lairg, or any of the traditional Lord Chancellors would have behaved in that way. That shows that you can be a lawyer and still not understand the rule of law. I know that what I have just said may be controversial on the Labour Benches but that is my view, having served him as an unpaid adviser for some 18 fruitless months.
However, the present Lord Chancellor is in a class of his own, because he is entirely miscast as Lord Chancellor. He would be perfectly cast in “House of Cards”. He would be an ideal person in that sort of role because he is a very intelligent, extremely charming, very effective politician. However, I am sorry to say that having seen him give evidence to the Joint Committee and generally, and seeing what he says in newspapers, I do not think he understands the rule of law. I do not think that you have to be a lawyer to do that but it might help if you have been part of that tradition. His legacy, I am sorry to say, is going to be bleak. People will look back on this period and the coalition Government and they will say with all the high statements made by both parties to the coalition about the rule of law—and for that matter the Opposition as well—extreme damage has been done to it.
The best judges of judicial review and costs are the judges. The judges invented judicial review. It was the judges who from 1976 developed the rules about judicial review. No Government would have done that. The judges did it because they realised that they should no longer be more executive than the Executive and that they needed to call Ministers and public bodies to account. It is one of the great glories of my life’s experience to have seen the flowering of judicial review. The present Minister of Justice thinks that judicial review is being abused by a lot of left-wing mischievous troublemakers who are running free and should somehow be curtailed. There is no basis for that allegation in my experience. If there were, you could be jolly sure that the judges themselves would criticise applicants who abused the process in that way. The Minister then goes on to suggest that this kind of change in legal aid will diminish mischievous and vexatious applications for judicial review.
All I can say about that is the best safeguards of the process are the judges and in this country, unlike some places, you have to get permission from the court before you can apply for judicial review. That is not an easy step. It often takes a great deal of skill to draft an application for judicial review. Lawyers have to be persuaded to do so, especially if they are not going to be reasonably paid for their services. Again and again judges will criticise applicants, as they will respondents, if they feel that they are misusing the process. I do not think that it is the business of a Minister to interfere with the discretion of judges in controlling the judicial review that they have developed.
I do not know any case, and certainly the present Lord Chancellor has not pointed to a single case, in which judges have failed to do their job properly by curbing the misuse of judicial review. I do not know a single example. He cannot give any; the Joint Committee on Human Rights asked him about it, and he was not able to provide any. Therefore it is an assault on the rule of law in a fundamental sense. It is not only about access to justice or equality of arms—that is to say, ensuring that the citizen and the state are on equal terms when it comes to judicial review. It is also about a complete lack of confidence in the ability of the judiciary to do its job properly. As a loyal supporter of the coalition, I feel very depressed at having to say what I have just said, but I am afraid that I have to say it, and I hope that whoever wins the next election chooses a Lord Chancellor and Minister of Justice who understands, as our Attorney-General now understands, what the rule of law implies. For all of those reasons I thoroughly support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said.
Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)
I support the Motion. I am deeply impressed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the whole House will be indebted to him and the noble Lord, Lord Lester. Together they have adduced a withering criticism of the notions, buttressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. The Government are entirely mistaken in what they intend to do. They are determined to whittle away the availability of legal aid. What they intend in this regard provides another example of what they have in mind. It may not be as significant as other measures but none the less it is important in its own right. The intention is condemned, as has been said, by the Bar Council, the Law Society and by lawyers who practise in the field, without exception. Even the noble Lord who will reply to the debate must be concerned about what the Government intend.
Lawyers do not earn in this field—they earn insignificant sums. They do it because the law intends that they should, and they abide by that intention. Moreover, legal aid may be denied after the lawyer has taken on the case. In other words, the court can decide after the event. I wonder whether that is fair. Is it just? Should it be done? Judicial review, as has been said, is an important remedy. It enables the court to determine whether the Executive have exceeded their powers in law. That should not be disregarded. Of course, this measure should not be viewed in isolation. The Government have already vent their opposition to judicial review as we know it, having decided that time limits that were previously prescribed should be curtailed, thereby enabling the Executive to restrict access to the courts. Is that right? Should it be tolerated for one moment?
In none of the recent situations have the Government given consideration to the impact of the changes that they seek to implement. Indeed, one would have thought that, having proper regard to the significance of access to justice, they would at least pause before embarking on further destructive changes. According to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, to which reference has already been made, the Government’s intent is to procure savings that they estimate as some £1.3 million from the legal aid budget. The committee believes that, in fact, these costs will simply transfer costs to another area. Indeed, that is already happening. Clearly, what should be considered is the entirety of the Government’s expenditure. There should be a proper, measurable analysis of either the savings to be incurred or the benefits intended as far as the public is concerned. Neither has happened, and the lacuna is absolutely woeful.
The Government argue that their changes will result in 69% of legal aid being removed. Is that not extremely worrying? Are the Government not concerned about this? Is the Minister, who is himself a lawyer, also unconcerned? Why should the availability of legal aid be decided on a discretion which is exercised after the event? If in fact only a few cases each year—the estimate is some 751 cases—would result in legal aid being removed, why bother? Why should lawyers representing extremely vulnerable people be victimised? Why should they have to wait, as the Government propose, until later? Where else in law is anything like this proposed? In my view this represents a backward step, and the Government should be thoroughly ashamed of introducing it.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I very much support the excellent speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I hasten to say that I do not have any expertise in judicial review or in the work of the administrative court, save that I sat on the Court of Appeal, but the legal aid amendments raise constitutional issues of some importance.
I wish to say something about the position of the Lord Chancellor, following on from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. The Lord Chancellor is head of the Ministry of Justice and, more importantly, has for centuries been the conscience of the monarch and continues to be so. I wonder whether this Lord Chancellor has ever heard of that. Successive Lord Chancellors have had to juggle two positions, as a member of the Cabinet of the Prime Minister of the day and as head of the administration of justice. These two positions inevitably create a conflict of interest, which successive Lord Chancellors have generally managed well.
We now have for the first time a Lord Chancellor who is not a lawyer, who appears not to understand the importance of the judicial and legal systems, and who is either unaware or chooses to be unaware that the administration of justice is one of the pillars of the constitution. He appears not to recognise his special responsibility as Lord Chancellor. He has not listened to the judiciary, particularly the senior judiciary, or to the legal profession, and he has not given sufficient consideration to the implications of these regulations. I have had a great admiration for successive Lord Chancellors—and I suppose I must declare an interest as the sister of Lord Havers—and it saddens me to have to say this. Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I now regret the clause in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 that permitted a non-lawyer to become Lord Chancellor.
The administrative court has an increasingly important role in society. It is a crucial part of the checks and balances between the Government of the day and members of the public who have not had a fair deal from a government department or local government. The court holds the Government or local government to account for misuse of powers, and ensures access to justice, accountability and good administration. The effect of these regulations is to reduce dramatically the opportunity of a member of the public to challenge a decision of government, even when that decision is patently unfair. I am talking not about pressure groups, but about individuals. If no legal aid is paid until permission is given then most of the work will have already been done, and in many cases the problem will have been sorted by the lawyers acting for the applicant.
In some of the lobbying information that I have received I was told of two cases where a lawyer sorted it long before it had to go to the judge, by giving the particular government department relevant information that the government officials had failed to look at or had not received from people who are unable properly to put their own cases forward. The absence of legal aid until the moment of the grant of permission will exclude all the cases settled and the management of many problems before the case comes to the judge. It will be a lottery, where many lawyers will not accept to do the work with the hope but not the expectation of payment, especially when the outcome may not require taking the case to the permission stage. The making of the application may itself be sufficient. This is manifestly unfair to the ordinary member of the public. In the year before we celebrate Magna Carta, we might just remember Clause 40:
“To none will we sell, to none will we deny, to none will we delay right or justice”.
That is a hollow phrase today, as many will be denied the right to have an injustice corrected by the courts.
It is very convenient for the Government to reduce the opportunity to challenge decisions made by their departments, which in itself will create a greater and greater inequality for members of the public. It makes many government decisions immune to scrutiny. That cannot be right. I recognise, of course, the efforts of this Government to cut expenditure and I applaud them for the many ways in which they have done so. But this attack on access to the administrative court is a step far too far. There must be some other way to deal with inappropriate applications. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that it should be left to the judiciary seems to be a sensible compromise. I hope that the Government will think again.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)
I support the Motion of Regret brought by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. In my view, the Government have brought a large blunt instrument down on a subtle and fragile part of legal tissue.
I received a briefing this afternoon from a government source in this part of the coalition who told me that it was estimated there would be a saving of between £1 million and £3 million through the provisions that we are debating. That is just about the least robust financial assessment we have ever heard in this House. If the Opposition had put it forward, I can imagine the Government’s excoriation of it.
In saying what I say, I hope that I will be forgiven for not dwelling on the interesting subject of the epidemiology of the role of Lord Chancellor. I intend to concentrate on more practical things concerning legal aid. I do so from the position of someone who still sits for a few days a year as a part-time judge in the Administrative Court dealing with exactly these cases. I thought it might inform the debate if I told your Lordships something about that role.
On a typical non-court sitting day—that is, a sitting day but in chambers—the Administrative Court judge receives a trolley containing about 12 judicial review cases. Some but by no means all—now, at least—are asylum and immigration cases. Others are on a much broader range of issues across the field of judicial review of administrative action by central and local government, the Parole Board and other public bodies. If we take those dozen cases, some—on a bad day, a majority—are wholly without merit. That phrase was adverted to by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I agree with the Government that legal aid should not be available or recoverable for cases that are wholly without merit. The Bar Council has taken that realistic view, too.
Some claims are most certainly brought with very little thought, no understanding of the law and just as a delaying tactic. However, some of those dozen cases, on every single sitting day, have merit. The trick for the judge is spotting them. The question here is whether the filter should be the Government, either by statutory interdiction or via the Legal Aid Agency, or the judge. I support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that the “wholly without merit” test, applied by the judge, is by far the fairest way of dealing with these cases. It is also transparently fair. It is fair in the minds of the public. It is free of the accusation that government or politicians have taken hold of judicial review for illegitimate, political purposes.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)
My Lords, I support the Motion of Regret tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I congratulate him on securing this debate on a subject of such fundamental importance. I will leave the legal arguments to the noble Lords who understand them. I want to focus on the impact of these regulations on the more vulnerable in our society.
The Lord Chancellor acknowledges that judicial review is an important tool, yet he has railed against its use by campaigners, declaring, in an article in the Daily Mail last September:
“While charities inundate Westminster with campaign material, they also target the legal system as a way of trying to get their policies accepted. One essential part of the campaigner’s armoury is the judicial review, through which it is possible for them to challenge decisions of government and public bodies in the courts”.
Only three months ago the slight was repeated in the Government’s response to their proposals for further reform of judicial review, which said that,
“too often cases are pursued as a campaigning tool”.
Let me declare an interest: I have been a campaigner all my life and I am fiercely proud of it. I believe that my efforts have enabled disabled people to gain their rights to dignity and equality, which for so long had been denied them. I think all of your Lordships would celebrate this. Where would we be without campaigns to right injustices? To take only one example, where would we be without the crusading spirit of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence?
What lies behind many of the highest-profile campaigns? It is injustice. No matter how many times the Lord Chancellor repeats himself, judicial review is not about campaigning; it is about people standing up to public bodies when they get it just plain wrong. That is exactly why we need judicial review and why legal aid is so vital to its effectiveness. It is about every citizen’s right, not just those with deep pockets, to challenge the state if it behaves unlawfully.
Those who may be most affected—the disadvantaged in our society—cannot do that alone. They rely on lawyers to represent them. These regulations will make it all but impossible for lawyers to take on their cases. That is a denial of justice. It undermines the rule of law. These regulations have been severely criticised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, not only for what the regulations do but for the way they have been introduced. To deny Parliament the opportunity for full debate on an issue of such importance is surely an abuse of our democratic principles.
If there is evidence of judicial review abuses—which the JCHR did not accept—the Government should address those specifically. It is simply wrong to punish all those who use it legitimately in an attempt to prevent the few who might not. As noble Lords will know, my lifelong passion has been championing the cause of independent living. In just the past few months, we have had two landmark judgments. Both came about through judicial review.
In December 2013, the Court of Appeal decided that the Minister for Disabled People had not properly considered the impact that closure of the Independent Living Fund would have on severely disabled people. In March, the Supreme Court ruled that three vulnerable individuals had been unlawfully deprived of their liberty under the Mental Capacity Act.
We cannot be confident that such cases will continue to come before the courts if these regulations are in place. For this reason alone, I wholeheartedly support the Motion.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. She is an outstanding example to us all and it is a very humbling experience to follow her.
I speak, as she did, as a non-lawyer. I think it is good that non-lawyers should take part in a debate such as this. I was very glad that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referred to Magna Carta. I spent much of this afternoon discussing with people involved in it the preparation for our celebration of Magna Carta next year. I hope that next year we will underline in every home and every school in the land the fundamental importance of the rule of law. I would like to give every secondary school pupil in this country a copy of Lord Bingham’s splendid book on the rule of law.
It is all very well to say these things and to pay lip service to them. What we have to do is to pay more than lip service because what is being proposed by the Government is inimical to the rule of law as I understand it. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I was not happy about the change in the role of the Lord Chancellor, and I said so at the time. I feel mildly vindicated. I do not, in any sense, want to indulge in any sort of personal attack on any individual, but rather to talk briefly about the principle of the thing. I understand how government Ministers and those who run public bodies and local authorities can get very exasperated and impatient because of inconvenient challenges to their decisions. We are all human, and we all feel exasperated on occasion. But exasperation is not a reason for doing something that is not necessarily contrary to the rule of law but makes it more difficult for people to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, even more than usual, thanks are owed to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for tabling this regret Motion, because these regulations are laid, as we have heard, under Section 2 of LASPO, which requires only a negative statutory instrument. This allows for the implementation of the regulation before Parliament has any opportunity to debate it. Indeed, Parliament would have had no such opportunity if not for the noble Lord himself. All those with an interest in the rule of law and access to justice—and that should be all of us—once again owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord.
Other experts argue with some force that the appropriate way for Her Majesty’s Government legitimately to bring forward such a major reform—with the likely consequence that in practice many poor citizens will not be able to exercise every citizen’s right to question executive power—is by primary legislation. If this, however, is asking too much, these experts argue that the regulations should have been laid under Section 9 of LASPO, which obliges the Government to get parliamentary approval before the regulation comes into place. Thankfully we are having a debate, and I make a few points in support of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
I perhaps ought to declare an interest. I am probably the only speaker to take part in this debate who has been on the wrong side of a judicial review. The court found against the decision I had taken. However, that encourages me even more to make the points I intend to make.
In his initial attack on judicial review, the Lord Chancellor implied in rather a general, throwaway manner that judicial review was somehow becoming the tool of left-wing pressure groups egged on by left-wing lawyers. This sort of talk may of course satisfy the Daily Telegraph on a bad day, or the Daily Mail on any day, but it does not accord with reality. Judicial review is supposed to be open to all citizens who want to challenge the decisions of the executive: it should be for all of us. Examples of citizens, rich and poor alike, taking this course are legion. For me, a current example is close to home, and I mention it briefly. The self-described descendants of King Richard III, who obtained a judicial review of the Lord Chancellor’s decision, cannot, I suggest, be described as left-wing activists whose purpose is to destroy civilisation as we know it.
Criticism can and must be made of the Lord Chancellor himself. He often gives the impression, I am afraid, that he does not always appreciate important principles that lie at the heart of our legal system, or that he does not have much understanding of how it works in practice. Both are important: the principles, and how they work in practice. It is unfair—on balance—to say that it is because he is not a lawyer. There are many non-lawyers who have a deep understanding of how precious and important our legal system is. However, I make the point that all four of the Lord Chancellor’s current crop of junior Ministers are distinguished lawyers. One in particular is distinguished—I will not embarrass him by naming him tonight but I think he knows who he is. I ask this question of that Minister: is it not time that he and his lawyer colleagues, who, just as much as the Lord Chancellor, must have the interests of justice as their prime obligation, girded up their loins, if I may use that expression, and together pointed out to their boss that many of the changes being made in his name seem to have scant concern for the concept of the rule of law, or access to justice, or how these important principles are put into practice in a system that I hope is still—but only just—the envy of the world?
The regulations we are debating are, I argue, a good example. Everyone who has looked at the regulations comes to the irresistible conclusion that for the LAA not to be allowed to pay any legal aid in a case where permission is refused and for the Lord Chancellor to have an unclear and uncertain discretion if a case never reaches the permission stage will have a chilling effect. It will mean that lawyers will not be able to take judicial review cases where the claimant cannot afford to pay. The result is that a system of law which is open to all will inevitably have become closed to many, and in particular to those who most need the protection of judicial review against the power of the Executive.
As the Bar Council put it in paragraph 9 of its very well argued briefing note:
“A fundamental concern is that a particular group only (namely, legally aided claimants) would be subject to these provisions. Public authorities would face no particular adverse consequences when they resisted applications for permission for no good reason. The position of privately funded claimants would remain unchanged. Treating legally aided claimants differently would be unfair. It does not happen in relation to other areas of law. It would create an unprecedented imbalance between the parties to litigation and will lead to inequality of arms”.
That is a powerful statement. When the Minister comes to reply, will he say whether he agrees with it?
Of course, the point has been made that there are already filters in place: a merits test before legal aid can be granted and, in every case, there is a permission stage. As the same note from the Bar Council says in paragraph 11,
“the existence of the filter amply serves its intended purpose. It is wrong in principle to impose additional, specific disincentives to accessing the permission stage itself. That does not ‘rebalance’ judicial review; rather, it risks fatally undermining it”.
If one looks back to the passage of the LASPO Act through Parliament, the Government promised two safeguards. One was that exceptional cases would be a safety net for the area of social welfare law that was being taken out of scope. In its first year of operation, the exceptional cases point has turned out to be a miserable failure. The second safeguard—the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, spoke of this—was of course to be the continuation of legal aid for judicial review. As the Government argued in their own original Proposals for the Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales in November 2010, judicial review represents,
“a crucial way of ensuring that state power is exercised responsibly”.
Throughout the lengthy debates in this House and in the other place, Ministers would use the existence of legal aid judicial review as a reason why it was safe to remove legal aid from social welfare law. Yet barely one year after Part 1 of that Act has come into force, the Government are introducing a regulation that is bound to have the effect of making it very unlikely that a poor or disabled person, or a citizen who needs legal aid, will be able to get justice by way of judicial review. The risk of not getting permission, and thus not getting any costs, is so great that providers simply cannot or will not be able to do it.
To my mind, this represents a particularly low point for the Government. They have got controversial legislation through Parliament on a false basis and further demeaned our legal system. Where will it end?
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I cannot compete with the expertise of other speakers before me, but I declare a couple of interests. First, I am a regulator of the profession—but not its representative. Secondly, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, I have been involved in several judicial reviews and have won three and lost one, albeit ably represented by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on the other side. I am in the middle of yet another. Bitter experience though it was, this does not deter me from supporting the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in asking the Government to think again.
Why do we spend so much time in this House attempting to perfect the laws that come to us from the other place and our own? The ultimate way of enforcing them and making sure that they are good law is by judicial review—or at least the threat of judicial review. Many public bodies which make important decisions do so acting in the shadow of judicial review, expecting it to come. Knowing this makes them take much more care over how they apply our law. This House and the other House will be the losers if judicial review is restricted.
I tweeted this morning that we spent £9 billion on the Iraq war, spent £11 billion on the Olympics and may well spend £50 billion or more on HS2. Our legal system stands at risk for the sake of £200 million, which, in the global way of looking at things, is very little. I know that the Law Society and the Bar Council have put forward to the Ministry other ways of saving that money.
How will this particular reign of the current Lord Chancellor be remembered in the history books? It will be remembered as one of impending chaos. We now have a situation where, because of the attempts to save money, important fraud cases collapse because no barrister will work for the sum offered and the family courts are clogged up with emotional litigants in person thereby causing judges to have to run cases in a way that they really should not have to. Speaking as a regulator, I can say that altruistic young people, very often from black and ethnic minority backgrounds, are being deterred from taking up law as a profession because criminal law and family law will no longer offer them even the most modest of incomes with which to start out, bearing in mind that they have debts from university. I could not in all honesty encourage them to take up the profession right now. That means that 10 or 20 years down the line, there will be yet more complaints about the lack of social mobility and diversity in the profession. There will continue to be calls for more ethnic minority and female judges, and they will have been cut off right now because of these attempts—well meaning, I suppose—to save £200 million.
Why is this coming about? If one goes back a bit, the blame has to lie with the former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who made a constitutional change for which we are now paying. When I was a law student, I learned that the British constitution was never roughly pushed around; it simply inched along, changing a bit here and there, in response to circumstances. The position, however, of the Lord Chancellor was rather brutally changed a few years ago. True, the old-style Lord Chancellor offended against the separation of powers. He was a Speaker, he was a member of the Cabinet and he was a judge. But look where we are now. Our system of justice lacks a champion. The rule of law needs someone to look after it who is not looking for political preferment, looking to the next job or looking to save money and thereby garner acclaim. The system of justice needs an old-style champion complete with curly wig, stockings and all the rest of it, because that symbolised someone who was above it all, who had reached the top of the tree and whose only concern was access to justice and the smooth running of the system.
I am afraid that the current Ministry of Justice, so-called, might one day be called by the history books the “Ministry of Injustice”. What is going on is not right and I think that everyone in this Chamber, no matter what side they are sitting on, knows that very well. I support the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and I congratulate him. I call upon the Ministry to think again.
Baroness Stern (CB)
My Lords, we in this House owe a great deal to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his untiring attempts to preserve access to justice for vulnerable and powerless people—the legally aided claimants. I rise in support. I wanted to ensure that we had on record the concerns of some of the excellent people who work hard to get access to justice for powerless people, and I felt very privileged to hear the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, who is one of the stars in that firmament. Liberty does a great deal of this sort of work—I declare an interest as a trustee of the Civil Liberties Trust—but Liberty says that from its experience,
“the prospect of irrecoverable costs will place an unsustainable burden on claimant lawyers, making it simply too risky to pursue legal aid claims”.
I also want to mention young legal aid lawyers. Personally, and I am sure that other noble Lords will agree with me, I think we should be grateful that there is an organisation called Young Legal Aid Lawyers, and one wonders what they live on. The organisation has written to me about its work on legal aid immigration cases and the fear that the firms that these lawyers work for, in spite of their commitment to social justice, just cannot afford the risk of taking on some of these cases, even when they feel deeply that an injustice has taken place.
The Howard League for Penal Reform is extremely concerned about the effect of this measure on vulnerable people, including serving prisoners and those leaving prison. The Howard League referred me to the 2009 case of G, regarding a young person in trouble who was sleeping rough in a car. Through the Howard League he got a solicitor who brought judicial review proceedings about the responsibility to house him. Eventually the case reached the House of Lords where the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, came out with a judgment that has resulted in a profound change in the way in which homeless young people are dealt with by local authorities. That one case has had a substantial effect on the lives of many children and saved a great deal of money.
Other judicial review cases have profoundly affected and improved the treatment of vulnerable prisoners—for example, a successful judicial review challenge with regard to the failure to transfer a prisoner with mental health problems from prison to a secure hospital for treatment; a successful judicial review challenge on behalf of a severely disabled prisoner in relation to the prison authorities’ failure to provide him with a motorised wheelchair and allocate him to an adapted disabled cell; a successful judicial review claim on behalf of a female prisoner with regard to the lack of disabled facilities in women’s open prisons; a successful judicial review on behalf of a prisoner with learning disabilities relating to the prison authorities’ failure to adapt offending behaviour programmes; and a successful judicial review challenge on behalf of a prisoner to stop prison authorities from reading his legal mail.
Those are all important matters that relate to the just treatment of vulnerable individuals and those who face discrimination. They are decisions that change the way in which things are done so that prisoners with learning disabilities can do offending behaviour programmes and maybe get parole, prisoners with serious mental health problems go to hospital and get treated and disabled prisoners are treated with respect for their human dignity. Does the Minister not regret just slightly that these sorts of developments will become more rare? Will he explain what he actually has against people such as those who have been described during this debate getting the wrongs that are done to them righted?
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, we should be grateful to the members of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights for their two excellent reports; and, of course, to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for securing this debate. Parliament ought to be vigilant for the liberties of the people. The committees and the noble Lord have indeed been so.
There are constitutional principles at stake in these regulations of bedrock importance: the principle that effective remedy should be available against arbitrary government and the principle that there should be equality under the law. Indeed, it is the rule of law itself which is in question. The law should be for the convenience of the people and not their governors. It is essential, therefore, that remedy should be available that is practical for an aggrieved citizen to seek, and that is available regardless of his personal means, against a public body that conducts itself in a manner that is unlawful, procedurally incorrect, incompetent, oppressive or unreasonable. If judicial review is not available to enable a challenge to wrongful decisions by the state or its agencies, we move away from a liberal constitution and towards executive absolutism.
Noble and learned Lords have explained in exactly what detailed respects these regulations are so offensive and how they would do their damage in practice. I pay tribute to them as I do to the range of admirable organisations and individuals who have made representations to us. It is extraordinary that we should be asked to rely on the funding of remedy against bad government at the discretion of the same Government who are themselves being impugned.
If it is unsure that legal aid will be available for the preparation of meritorious cases, then the freedom to seek judicial review is no more than the proverbial freedom of the poor man to dine at the Ritz. If a significant number of applications will not, under these regulations, be able to proceed, we lose important opportunities for the clarification of the law and for the improvement of public administration that the pressure of judicial review brings about.
Are these regulations really designed to save money? The Explanatory Memorandum asks us to accept that they are, and says that the primary objective of the Government in bringing in these regulations is to bear down on the overall cost of legal aid. I do not believe it. The Ministry of Justice’s estimate of how much might be saved is in the range, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, mentioned, of between £1 million and £3 million. That is an extraordinarily vague assessment. We are also told by the department that somewhere between 20% and 69% of applications, if one goes by recent experience, would no longer receive legal aid. Again, the vagueness of that range—between 20% and 69% of cases—is horrifying. It would seem that the department has not done its homework and, certainly, that it has no clue as to how much it might be going to save. That is before we consider what would happen to net costs. There can be little doubt that the costs of the changes brought in by these regulations would be shunted elsewhere and would certainly not, in the end, be avoided.
Nor has the department been able to make clear how the payments system will work. Reasonably enough, if solicitors and advocates cannot foresee with any confidence that they will be paid, they will not be willing to take on cases. This is a shoddy and improper way in which to legislate. I also believe that the generality of citizens of this country, if apprised of the significance of the issues at stake, will be more than happy to pay whatever taxes it takes to pay for a proper system of judicial review.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, once again we are debating matters concerning legal aid and, once again, almost universally around your Lordships’ House, there is criticism of the Government—tellingly, from experienced, distinguished lawyers and, perhaps even more tellingly, from non-lawyers. Those of us who have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, with her particularly powerful and moving speech, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who has consistently addressed the sort of concerns that he voiced tonight, will understand the depth of feeling that the Government’s proposals have aroused. It is striking also that, once again, not a single voice has been heard in support of the Government. The noble Lord the Minister has been given his brief and he will undoubtedly, in his usual charming and skilful way, discharge it capably, but he will do entirely without legal or political aid. That is some commentary on how these matters are viewed.
This set of regulations is but one of a series intended to restrict access to judicial review, especially for those with limited financial resources. The ostensible justification, as we have heard, is to save public money. However, as we have also heard, the actual savings are likely to be minimal—£1 million to £3 million—just as they were from the changes to prison law and in respect of compensation for miscarriages of justice. Last week it emerged that unpaid fines have reached £250 million—more than enough to fund legal aid in these contentious areas and others for several years. It is not being cynical to suggest that we are seeing the gradual demolition of judicial review on the instalment plan. In the next Session we will have the dubious pleasure of debating yet another of the Lord Chancellor’s lethal legal cocktails: the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which, among other things, seeks radically to transform the approach to judicial review in the highly controversial area of planning. A Government who purport to want to reduce the role of the state seem uncommonly keen to make it more difficult to challenge the state’s decisions, or those of other public agencies.
The late and much lamented Lord Bingham summarised the role of the judiciary and of judicial review in chapter 6 of his seminal work The Rule of Law, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, referred. In it, he said:
“But in properly exercising judicial power to hold ministers, officials and public bodies to account, the judges usurp no authority. They exercise a constitutional power which the rule of law requires that they should exercise”.
He added tellingly:
“This does not of course endear them to those whose decisions are successfully challenged. Least of all does it endear them when the decision is a high-profile decision of … the government of the day”.
It is in that context that it falls to us to consider these regulations. They have, as we have heard, attracted severe criticism from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its 37th report published on 27 March. I note in parenthesis that the regulations were laid on 14 March and came into effect on 22 April, so that Parliament had virtually no time to consider them or the committee’s report before they became law. This is a matter which the Government and the House should perhaps look into, and the committee itself drew attention to that point in paragraph 15 of its report.
However, the position in relation to the Joint Committee on Human Rights is, if anything, even worse. Its report was published only a week ago and is equally critical in terms of both substance and process, going so far as to recommend that the regulations be withdrawn and be made the subject of primary legislation by tabling amendments to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, as advocated tonight by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Cormack. Will the Government accept this proposal, and if not, why not? There is no shortage of available parliamentary time, as our extended recesses demonstrate.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report raises a series of concerns, many of them identified as long ago as September 2013 in a special edition of the journal Judicial Review, of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who is not in his place tonight, is a consulting editor, drawing on responses to the Government’s consultation on—in a wonderfully Orwellian phrase—“Transforming Legal Aid”.
What answers do the Government have to the questions posed by the committee on the impact of the changes on the payment system, the number of cases which would engender discretionary payments, and the issue of cost-shifting from the legal aid budget to other areas? Has the Ministry of Justice met the demand of the committee to clarify,
“exactly what work will, and will not, be paid for and how the Legal Aid Agency will exercise its discretion over payment”?
Your Lordships will bear in mind the vestigial number of cases in which the Legal Aid Agency’s discretion has been exercised in favour of claimants under the exceptional funding process. In that context, the committee referred to the circularity of the process by which the agency would review a decision on receiving payment, with the consequential result, in this Grayling in Wonderland world, of its own decision being subject potentially to judicial review.
The Government’s intention not to exclude legal aid for the preparatory work for an application may be welcome but, as the committee points out, that intention appears to conflict with the Civil Procedure Rules, which make payment for such work discretionary. How does the Minister respond to that point raised by the committee?
This is, of course, one aspect of the so-called “chilling effect”, to which many consultees and Members of your Lordships House tonight have referred; that is, the reluctance of practitioners to undertake work within the tightly limited timescale of only three months—soon to be further reduced, by the way, for planning matters—to lodge an application for which they may not be paid. Again, the committee draws attention to this issue at paragraph 20. What assurances, and examples, can the Minister give about this key issue, and will he confirm, in the words of paragraph 21 of the report, that “unambiguous guidance” on how the Legal Aid Agency intends to exercise its discretion will be published after consultation, or, better yet, will he set out a clear definition in these or further regulations?
This, after all, is the nub of the issue. As the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law pointed out, it is privately funded cases that are more readily pursued and less likely to succeed, with permission granted to 48% of legally aided applicants against 9% of others. Nor is there anything to suggest that legally aided judicial review cases,
“are pursued in a reckless way that results in a relatively high number of ‘weak’ cases”.
That statement comes from the Bingham centre. More legally aided cases do not proceed to the stage of seeking permission, such that it is clear that legal aid lawyers are acting responsibly.
The centre points out that no reference is made to the behaviour of defendants in relation to applications for permission. Will the Minister undertake to review this aspect, which might encourage a more reasonable response and/or generate some benefits in terms of cost? Similarly, will the Minister consider the suggestion of Michael Fordham QC, supported tonight by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Carlile, to revisit the ministry’s own proposal for a mechanism under which the judge initially considering an application for permission could issue a “totally without merit” certificate?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to accept the invitation to gird my loins and to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others—lawyers and non-lawyers alike—who have spoken in this debate this evening. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, many of us are veterans of the LASPO Bill, and I count myself as one. I declare an interest as until recently I was a barrister who practised in, among other areas, the field of judicial review, acting for both applicants and respondents, so I have some experience of this procedure. I should explain to the House the Government’s position on the regulations concerning the remuneration for legally aided judicial review permission applications that were laid before the House on 14 March and came into force on 22 April.
The debate has ranged far and wide this evening. We have had references to the separation of powers, a reminder of Montesquieu, a magisterial analysis of the developing role of the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor and a call to the reversion of the status quo ante, whereby the Lord Chancellor had a rather different and separate role. We have had a critique by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, of the whipping system and of the machinery of government as a whole; an implied undertaking to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act; a criticism of reforms of the national health system; and an attack on the Government as a whole. We have also had criticisms of the exceptional funding arrangements in the LASPO Bill and of the social welfare law provisions. To respond to all these issues would take several hours. I hope that noble Lords will understand if I do not do so but concentrate on the rather prosaic matter of these particular regulations.
During the course of the speeches of great quality which we have had this evening, a dispassionate observer would have thought that the Government were abolishing judicial review. Such a course would of course be of fundamental importance and would indeed fall foul of the many criticisms that have been ranged against it this evening. I entirely accept that judicial review is a critical check on unlawful action by public bodies and that it is wholly right that individuals should be able to access this mechanism. The many cases cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, are examples of successful judicial reviews. The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, quite rightly drew attention to the many actions that have been assisted by judicial review to right wrongs. Nothing about these modest regulations will do anything to erode that.
Civil legal aid for most judicial review cases will remain within the scope of the legal aid system. These regulations relate solely to the remuneration of legal aid providers and will ensure that limited legal aid funds are not used to remunerate weaker cases. The detail—prosaic though it is—does matter. It is a long-standing feature of our legal aid system that there should be limits on access to funding based on the strength of the case. To qualify for civil legal aid, cases must satisfy a merits—or prospects of success—test. Broadly speaking, a judicial review case must have a 50% or greater prospect of success at the final substantive hearing. However—there has not been a great deal of reference to this in the debate—noble Lords will be well aware that before any substantive judicial review hearing, the court must first give permission to proceed. Permission will be given if the court considers that a case is arguable and therefore merits full investigation. The permission stage therefore acts to filter out weaker cases at an early stage in the process.
Providers are well placed to assess whether or not the court is likely to grant permission before they issue an application. They will not be required to make a random guess before taking the risk to issue proceedings. That is because their assessment is undertaken following the pre-action stage of the process during which time providers gather the relevant information about the strength of the case. Noble Lords may be familiar with the protocol that applies in these cases. It is that information that enables them to make an assessment as to whether to issue proceedings. Under the policy, work to investigate the strength of the case and engage in pre-action correspondence would not be at risk. A case that has received legal aid and so has been assessed as having a 50% or greater prospect of success at the final hearing should be more than capable of satisfying the lower arguability threshold.
However, Legal Aid Agency data indicate that a significant number of legally aided cases—751 in 2012-13—apply for permission and fail, with potentially substantial sums of public money being expended. The commentary on civil procedure contained in the White Book, with which all lawyers will be wholly familiar, states as follows in rule 54.4.2, which deals with the permission application:
“The purpose of the requirement for permission is to eliminate, at an early stage, claims which are hopeless, frivolous or vexatious and to ensure that a claim only proceeds to a substantive hearing if the Court is satisfied that there is a case fit for further consideration”.
That is a synthesis of the case law. It was quoted in the consultation, to which there has been some reference. The Government do not consider it fair or justified that limited taxpayers’ money should be used to fund such cases. The legal aid merits criteria provide an important control, but it is clear that they are insufficient by themselves to address the specific issue that we have identified in judicial review cases. These regulations will therefore introduce a further control by placing remuneration for the work on a judicial review at risk from the point at which proceedings are issued—that is, when an application for permission for judicial review is made to the courts. Providers will be paid for this work if the court gives permission.
Permission may be applied for but a case may of course also conclude prior to the court’s decision, a point made by a number of speakers. In those circumstances providers should seek to recover costs, either through agreement with the other party or by a costs order made by the court which orders the public body to pay the legal costs. Where this cannot be achieved, the regulations enable the provider to apply to the Legal Aid Agency for a discretionary payment. These regulations do not—as I think the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, seems to suggest—make legal aid in judicial review cases solely dependent on the court granting permission to proceed.
This policy was the subject of extensive public consultation. The Government have listened carefully, and gone to lengths to modify the proposal to ensure that payment will continue to be made in meritorious cases. In response to concerns raised in the first consultation that strong cases will often conclude pre-permission, without costs being recoverable—a perfectly fair point made by a number of noble Lords—we moved to introduce a discretionary payment mechanism. In response to concerns that this discretion would be too inflexible—for example, that it could penalise providers who acted reasonably throughout but where new information subsequently came to light which altered the strength of the case—we modified the factors that the LAA would have regard to, and ensured that these would be non-exhaustive.
Remuneration will continue to be paid for the earlier stages of a case, where investigations are carried out into the prospects and strengths of a claim and pre-action correspondence is exchanged with the defendant. The regulations would not affect subsequent work in respect of the substantive hearing, once permission has been given. Nor would they place at risk any reasonable disbursements which arise in preparing the permission application, such as expert’s fees and court fees. Work relating to applications for interim relief will also not be at risk. Of course, providers can always discontinue the process, either following the pre-action stage where providers can decide not to issue proceedings on the basis of their assessment of the evidence, or after proceedings have been issued, where providers may seek to discontinue the case if they consider that the prospects of success have been materially altered.
The regulations only and specifically put at risk work on the permission application, in accordance with Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 or Part 4 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, where an application has been issued. By way of example, this would include work on drafting the grounds of claim, and preparing the claim form or application for permission and the bundle of documents. I have been somewhat surprised by arguments that providers would be unclear what work would and would not be at risk. These are matters with which any legal aid provider who carries out litigation will be very familiar, for example for the purpose of preparing a statement of costs.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am sorry to interrupt, given the lateness of the hour, but what my noble friend is saying perplexes me. Would he please look at Regulation 5A(b)? This deals with the situation where neither a refusal nor a granting of permission takes place, and the Lord Chancellor is then given discretion where he considers it is reasonable in the circumstances to pay remuneration, taking into account (i), (ii) and (iii). I will not embarrass the Minister by reading those out, because everyone would laugh if I did. But looking at (i), (ii) and (iii), and putting himself back in the days when he was a barrister appearing for applicants, how on earth could he reasonably predict the outcome, so far as costs are concerned, with those criteria?
Lord Faulks
I will endeavour to answer my noble friend’s question when I come to deal with the discretion.
We do not expect that these regulations will result in providers leaving the market—one point that was made—or that there will be an insufficient number of providers remaining. We do of course expect some providers to take on fewer judicial review cases. Indeed, it is the purpose of the policy to provide a disincentive to providers taking on unmeritorious cases and thus to ensure that limited public funding is targeted at the cases that justify it. While I wholly agree with my noble friend Lord Cormack about the importance of the rule of law and the appropriate endorsement of Lord Bingham’s book, he seemed anxious to encourage any sort of case on the basis that some case might emerge from the morass of unmeritorious cases. We are keen to reduce the size of the trolley of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, so that those who are contemplating bringing judicial review proceedings think long and hard before going on to make these applications.
The Government firmly reject the accusation that these regulations will undermine access to justice. There is nothing novel about the principle of expecting providers to work at risk and receive remuneration only where it is established that their case is meritorious. A similar system has existed for some time in immigration and asylum Upper Tribunal appeals, where remuneration for a permission application is not paid where the application for permission is refused. There has been little about interim relief, but I have made it clear to the House that these will not be caught by the restriction on legal aid that these regulations involve.
I now respond to the argument that further guidance should be issued on the Legal Aid Agency’s discretion. During the consultation process, the proposal was criticised for prescribing too rigid a list of criteria that the agency would consider. The Government responded by modifying the criteria and making it clear that these would be non-exhaustive factors that the Legal Aid Agency would take into account, in particular when considering all the circumstances of the case.
That is important, as it will enable the agency to take into account the full range of circumstances in which a judicial review case may conclude prior to a permission decision. No two cases will be identical and the agency will necessarily need to look at the facts of each individual case in addition to the factors set out in the regulation. This provides the agency with greater flexibility to ensure that work on meritorious cases continues to be paid, which I hope all noble Lords will support. However, the corollary of this approach is that it would simply be impractical for guidance to be issued that attempts to cover all possible circumstances. The consultation response sets out in further detail how the LAA will apply the factors that we have set out and we do not consider that additional guidance could add anything further to this.
As noble Lords will be aware, the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee issued a report criticising the regulations, which has been much referenced. We have responded to the report and a copy of the letter has been placed in the House Library. I hope that noble Lords have had an opportunity to see it. The Government will also respond to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in due course. Many of the questions posed in that report were repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. We will respond in detail to that report and most of the questions that he posed will be answered. We will, of course, keep the operation of these regulations under review as part of the planned post-implementation review of the totality of changes brought in by the LASPO Act, due to take place in the next two to four years.
I acknowledge that the Government have made a number of significant changes to the civil legal aid system since we came to power. The underlying rationale for all these, including the regulations that we are debating tonight, has been to bear down on the cost of legal aid. That is necessary in the current financial climate, which was acknowledged, despite severe misgivings about these regulations, by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. We need to ensure public confidence in the legal system by targeting limited legal aid resources at the people and cases where funding is most needed. These are the aims that I believe the public firmly support.
There has been a great deal of criticism of my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor and his role. I do not think it is appropriate for me to go into the detail of the attacks that have been made on him. I am sure that noble Lords are sufficiently generously spirited to perhaps construe his referring to left-wing causes as a bit of hyperbole on his part. It matters not, of course, whether the applicant is left wing, right wing or has no political view at all. The question is whether the case is meritorious and whether it should be supported by what are sparse legal aid funds. It is important that the limited availability of legal aid should be targeted appropriately. What this regulation does is not to abolish judicial review, but to limit—in very specific circumstances—the recoverability of legal aid, once the information is available, and subject to the discretion which I have attempted to describe. We may have further arguments, I suspect, when the Bill referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill—comes before your Lordships’ House. That Bill has various other provisions which do, to some extent, restrict the scope of judicial review, but certainly do not abolish it.
I will, of course, take back the comments made by noble Lords from all round the House to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor, and will convey the anxiety expressed about this erosion, as it characterised, of a constitutional principle. I ask noble Lords to look at the reality of what these regulations propose and not to be too exercised by what has been, I think, somewhat exaggerated in terms of their effect in restricting judicial review. I respect the rule of law, as I hope noble Lords will accept. I accept the value of judicial review and I would not wish to be part of any Government who abolished judicial review. It remains an important constitutional provision begun, as my noble friend Lord Lester described, in the 1970s and developed since, but it is not an illegitimate aim to look at where resources can be properly targeted and to make appropriate adjustments to make sure that only cases which are really worth the public’s expenditure are reaching the court.
My noble friend has expressed his regrets, with his characteristic economy of words. I hope his regrets have been somewhat mollified by this response.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart (LD)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, would he give some consideration to the unanimity of the view which has been expressed in this House—which I have audited—that this measure is a constitutional monstrosity? Would he consider, and represent to his departmental colleagues, the possibility that Parliament may come to grips with these issues and take the decision? This is one which, because of its constitutional extent, should be decided not by a Minister but by a Minister in Parliament.
Lord Faulks
I hope I have made it clear that I would take back the observations that were made during the course of the debate. I will, of course, add to that the comments made by my noble friend just now.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, the poor quality of these regulations has provoked a debate of the highest quality. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in identifying defects in these regulations. I also thank very sincerely the Minister, who has put the Government’s case without any support whatever from the Benches behind him. It is no reflection on the noble Lord’s very considerable powers of advocacy to say that the arguments he has advanced tonight in support of the Government’s position are, to use a phrase commended during the debate, wholly without merit.
The Minister emphasised that the Government are not abolishing judicial review. We must be thankful for small mercies. It is no defence to a charge of criminal damage for the defendant to say, “I have not committed a murder”. The Minister says—and who could disagree?—that hopeless cases should not be funded by judicial review. Of course they should not, but the Minister will appreciate that the thrust of this debate is that the test imposed by these regulations does not distinguish between hopeless and other cases, as would be the case if the judge were to have a power to determine for the purposes of legal aid whether the case is hopeless. I am pleased that the noble Lord has given a commitment to ask the Lord Chancellor to reflect on what has been said tonight. I hope that the Minister will be able privately to add his concerns to those expressed in the House.
I have one other point: your Lordships will have a proper opportunity in the next Session for detailed scrutiny of the Lord Chancellor’s attempts to neuter judicial review in the most regrettable proposals in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. I am confident that, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said of these regulations in his powerful speech tonight, there will be in the next Session a coalition of Peers from all sides of the House who will express their concern about the Lord Chancellor’s proposals and, I hope and expect, in relation to that Bill will demonstrate their commitment to the rule of law in the Division Lobbies. Like so many of your Lordships and so many outside this House, I regret these regulations. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.